Lords Sitting of 4 May 1967

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

NUCLEAR POWER DEVELOPMENT AND COST
3.5 p.m.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a statement concerning the allegations of Mr. Duncan Burn in his book, The Political Economy of Nuclear Energy, that Britain no longer leads the world in the development of civil nuclear power.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS (LORD BESWICK): My Lords, in comparing the costs of different reactor systems it is essential to establish exact comparability, in relation both to the financial and operating conditions and to the physical environment of the station. Mr. Burn's comparisons of unit generating costs are vitiated by the failure to ensure strict comparability.
Although by 1970 the U.S.A. will become the largest producer of nuclear power, if their present plans are operated according to timetable, the fact is that at the moment Britain has generated three times as much nuclear power as the United States and considerably more than the whole of the rest of the world put together. The background of reliability in operation of our reactors underlying this experience, taken with our development of the advanced gas-cooled reactor, the steam generating heavy water reactor, and the fast reactor, and our participation with our Continental friends in the Dragon high temperature gas-cooled reactor, casts some doubt on Mr. Burn's allegation that the British reactor programme is unduly restricted. It is generally accepted that Britain has
1072
an appreciable lead over any other country, except possibly the Soviet Union, in fast reactor development.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that Answer, which is most reassuring. It is exactly what I wanted to hear from him. There are one or two additional questions. I wonder whether the noble Lord would amplify the point about the difference in the computation of costs. It is extremely important. Could he also give the Government's view on Mr. Burn's suggestions regarding the avoidance of monopoly, the undesirability of creating a single design organisation and that companies should become responsible for the development of different reactors—in short, that the A.E.A. should be more like the A.E.C.? Could the noble Lord comment on these suggestions?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, as I am sure the noble Earl knows, the assumptions on which the costing of output is based in this country are a life of the generating station of 20 years and a load factor of 75 per cent., whereas in the United States they assume a life of 30 years and a load factor of 85 per cent. If we accepted their assumptions for the purpose of costing we should find that even the last four of the stations built under the Magnox programme would be producing cheaper electricity than their coal-fired contemporaries.
As for the second part of the noble Earl's question about the structure of the industry in this country, I think I can say that both my right honourable friends the Minister of Technology and the Minister of Power are very concerned to get the most efficient possible structure. That does not mean to say that we accept that for the circumstances in this country the set-up in the United States would be appropriate. Nevertheless, my two right honourable friends are discussing this whole question with the A.E.A., the Central Electricity Generating Board and the three consortia, to see what changes, if any, may be effected.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, would not the Minister agree that his answer shows how advisable it would be to adopt the

1073
assumptions which I have always advocated—namely, 85 per cent. availability and a 30-year life for atomic-power generation, which is the same as that adopted in the United States? Is he further aware that the scientific correspondent of the Financial Times has already replied to this allegation very effectively, and that our commercial competitors abroad always take advantage of this national habit of denigration, to our detriment?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, in reply to the first part of the noble Lord's question, I think he would probably agree that so far as our national resources are concerned it makes very little difference whether we accept a 20-year or 30-year assumption. I agree that from the point of view of publicity, however, it might have been more effective had we been a little less cautious and conservative than we have been. I absolutely agree with the noble Lord on his second point. There are too many people very ready to allow their prejudices to overcome their assessment of technical facts in order to run down their own country.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, is the noble Lord not able to say that the fast breeder reactor, the prototype of which is being erected at Dounreay, is in advance of any other system?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I think that if the noble Lord looks at the last part of my first Answer he will see that I said precisely that.

YEMENI TERRITORIAL WATERS CLAIM
3.11 p.m.
LORD COLYTON: 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, although they do not recognise the republican Government of the Yemen, they will make it clear that they will not under any circumstances recognise the purported extension of the off-shore territorial limits of the Yemen to twelve miles, and that they will take all necessary action to avoid any interference by the republican Yemeni authorities with the British territories of Kamaran and Perim.]
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, since Her Majesty's Government are not in relations with the Yemeni republican authorities the question of recognising any extension of Yemeni territorial waters does not arise. I can assure the noble Lord that Her Majesty's Government will take any action necessary to prevent interference by the Yemeni authorities with the islands of Kamaran and Perim.
LORD COLYTON: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for his reply, may I ask whether he is aware that the remark made, evidently in an unguarded moment, in New York recently by Mr. Makkawi, the FLOSY leader, to the effect that it is their intention, once the British leave, to set up a Socialist Republic in South Arabia, and use their strategic position to interfere with so-called imperialist Anglo-American shipping and also with Israeli shipping? May I ask him whether there is any indication that the proposed extension of Yemeni territorial waters to 12 miles forms part of these designs against Israel?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, first of all, what Mr. Makkawi may have said about what he intends to do would, I should have thought, be going beyond the Question on the Order Paper. It is more a matter of wishful thinking on Mr. Makkawi's part. However, I will not comment further on that. As to the second part of the noble Lord's question, the fact is that the extension of any territorial waters, or the declared extension of any territorial waters, cannot affect the status of islands which belong to or are dependencies of another country and which are within the additional area of sea now claimed. So far as access to the Red Sea is concerned, this is guaranteed by international convention, and we should seek to ensure that that convention is observed.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, would my noble friend rule out the advisability of a naval patrol of the Straits of Perim, similar to that of the Straits of Mozambique, in order to protect the integrity of these offshore islands?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I rather imagine that my noble friend is exaggerating the potentiality of the Yemeni authorities.

GREEK GOVERNMENT AND CIVIL LIBERTIES
3.14 p.m.
LORD MILFORD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they have taken to express their strong disapproval of the nature and actions of the present Government in Greece.]
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the situation in Greece is still developing and it might be harmful at this stage to pass judgment, but I am confident that the Greek Government and people are in no doubt about the strong feelings which are held in this country, and in many other countries, on civil liberties and democratic rights.
LORD MILFORD: My Lords, while I thank the noble Lord for that Answer, I find it very unsatisfactory. Will the Government declare their intention not to recognise the self-appointed Government of Greece, against the will of the Greek people, and urge on their Minister in Athens to impress the authorities that the General Election projected for May 28 should proceed, with all parties participating?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am bound to say that I deeply appreciate the noble Lord's interest in democratic rights. So far as the question of recognition is concerned, this was dealt with by a Question earlier this week. I should have thought that all of us in this country would hope that Greece will return to constitutional government as early as possible. But I do not think it would necessarily bring that about if we appeared to be preaching to them now.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, would the noble Lord bear in mind when considering any future action in regard to this deplorable business, which we hope will soon be resolved, that there is in Greece a widespread and understandable fear of Communist excesses, of which they had all too great experience during the later war years and the years immediately after the war?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I really have nothing to add to what I have already said.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he does not think that in foreign affairs it is often a good thing to "mind your own business"?
LORD MILFORD: My Lords, is the Minister aware that we who were in Greece at the time of these calamitous events were besieged by our many friends in various walks of life—artists, architects, writers, university professors and so on—of all political Parties, to do what we could in Britain to urge our Government and the British people to help them to get rid of this ignominious military dictatorship, and help to restore the Constitution and hold a General Election?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am aware of the noble Lord's interest. I am aware, too, of the fact that one of the more notable Members of your Lordships' House died in Greece fighting for the independence of that country, I think 143 years ago this month. I should hope that it would still be possible for Greece to come through these struggles to a Parliamentary and constitutional form of government.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, is it not a curious thing that people who are most anxious to reduce our position as a world Power should also be most anxious to dictate to foreign Governments how they should behave?
LORD GIFFORD: My Lords, while I appreciate that Her Majesty's Government have not had time to evaluate what is happening in Greece, may I ask my noble friend whether he can assure the House that, if and in so far as the actions of the Greek Government violate the principles of the NATO Charter, Her Majesty's Government will make protests through the appropriate organ of NATO?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, at the moment, our principal concern is to protect the rights of the British people there. I will again say that it is one thing to hold views about the virtues or otherwise of a foreign Government, but that we do not necessarily further our views simply by publicly preaching to that Government.
LORD MILFORD: My Lords, in view of the fact that the Greek monarchy exists to-day largely due to British policy after the Second World War, and in view of the reports in the Press to the effect that King Constantine was reluctant to endorse the actions of Fascist officers, and did so only under coercion, would the Government consider making a statement to indicate that the democratic people of this country would be with him if he restored the Constitution and held the elections that he promised?
LORD BESWICK: No, my Lords. I think it is agreed that the King of Greece behaved with very commendable and considerable courage and that his influence has been used in order to moderate any extremist action. I think, in the light of the courage and wisdom shown, there is all the more reason why we should not attempt to tell him what to do.

POLICE (SCOTLAND) (NO. 2) BILL [H.L.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR SCOTLAND (LORD HUGHES): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to consolidate certain enactments relating to police forces in Scotland and to the execution of warrants in the border counties of England and Scotland. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Longford, I beg to move the Motion that stands in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That leave be given to the Lord Balfour of Inchrye to advance his Motion on civil aircraft from Wednesday next to Tuesday next.—(Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

MERCHANT SHIPPING BILL
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
LORD POPPLEWELL: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time. In doing so, I should like to thank your Lordships for the strong support and kind encouragement you have already given me with this Bill. It has the full support of both sides of the shipping industry, and the Board of Trade, and has had a quite smooth and unimpeded passage. The purpose of the Bill, as your Lordships know, is to extend the requirement to carry officers holding British certificates to all British foreign-going ships registered in the United Kingdom wherever and whenever they put to sea. It will help considerably to maintain the very high standard of ships flying the British Flag. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Popplewell.)
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed.

MERCHANT SHIPPING (LOAD LINES) BILL
Read 3a, (according to Order), and passed.

COMMONWEALTH SETTLEMENT BILL
House in Committee (according to Order).
House resumed; Bill reported without amendment; Report received.

CIVIC AMENITIES BILL
3.24 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, the purpose of this Bill, as stated in its Title, is exactly stated, as is everything else in it. It is designed as a vehicle for the improvement of the physical environment of these Islands. As its sponsor, Mr. Duncan Sandys, has said, its aim is to preserve beauty, to create beauty, and to remove ugliness. I have said that the father of the Bill was Mr. Sandys. I should like to suggest that he has

1079
probably done as much as any other English politician of his day, with the possible exception of Lord Silkin, to improve the visual quality of our country. This Bill is undoubtedly the offspring of his rugged loins, and I am delighted to acknowledge its paternity.
But this Private Member's Bill has been lucky in possessing benevolent and generous godparents: the co-sponsors, from all Parties, in another place, and the Government, who have given it their blessing. May I say, incidentally, how glad I am that the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, has the Bill, as it were, in his Portfolio and will be replying to this Second Reading debate. We all know his positive and informed interest in matters of preservation. Also, I cannot let this moment pass without acknowledging the part which the Civic Trust—Mr. Sandys's own creation—and Members of another place have played in bringing the Bill to its present advanced and balanced state of health. We sometimes pat ourselves on the back in this House about our interest in amenity matters. Having noted the concentrated attention which Members of another place gave this Bill, I think perhaps we should be looking to our laurels.
Living as we do in these tight little Islands, we may at times feel that our choices are sometimes circumscribed in this era of super-powers and great impersonal forces. But one of the many things we can decide, and do, by ourselves is to preserve and enhance the beauty of our physical surroundings. We have inherited perhaps the loveliest manmade landscape in the world. Our cities and our towns, and perhaps above all our villages, have great quality and great variety. But this heritage is desperately fragile and vulnerable. It needs support and it needs reinforcement. I recognise, of course, that there is a limit to the reinforcement which a Private Member's Bill can bring. A great responsibility rests on Government and local authorities; and we await with interest the "eggs"—the Countryside Bill, for example—which the noble Lord and his other broody colleagues are, I understand, hatching. Meanwhile, I would modestly claim that this modest measure brings, in the three fields to which it is specifically addressed, substantial reinforcement to all those who are keen to do what they
1080
can to make our country a nicer place to look at and live in.
Apart from this, I would suggest that this Bill has three special merits. First, it is almost intelligible to even the most unintelligent of your Lordships. For my part, there is only one word in the whole Bill which I do not understand, that is, "excambion", which is the first word in line 12, page 5. Second—and this is perhaps the explanation—the Bill applies to Scotland, a very notable feat in itself. Third, it comes to your Lordships, I think I can claim, with the very wide agreement of the interests most affected by it.
Part I of the Bill deals with areas and buildings of historic or architectural interest—a matter of very great concern to my noble friend Lord Hailes, the Chairman of the Historic Buildings Council, who I am delighted to see will be speaking in this debate. I think he would agree that there are two big holes in our present system of preservation. The present arrangements are basically negative and defensive. The authorities are usually alerted only when someone is keen to pull down or "muck up" an historic building; and sometimes they are alerted too late. Moreover, the present system is designed only to protect individual buildings of historic or architectural merit. The composite value of groups of buildings, of areas, is neither safeguarded nor recognised.
We are, I think, behind some of our neighbours across the Channel in this respect. The Portuguese have done a great deal in this area. The Dutch brought in a Bill dealing with it in 1962 or 1963. In France, under the so-called Malraux Law of 1962, there are now special provisions for the preservation of particularly valuable areas—the so-called secteurs sativegardés of certain towns, areas which may indeed comprise the whole of an old town. I think I am right in saying that a thousand such areas may possibly be designated in France in due course. Some 50 already have been designated and there are about 15 pilot projects in hand in places like the Marais quarter of old Paris.
Meanwhile we have witnessed a steady erosion of some of our finest groups of buildings. Many of the London Squares went some time ago and have, of course, gone for good. More recently we have

1081
seen the cathedral setting of Worcester ravaged. We have seen, in a humbler setting, the destruction of almost all the charm of old Gosport—I mention these only as examples—and we have seen the destruction of the splendid warehouses along the river front at Boston. Much of this has been a failure, in part through lack of legislative backing, to recognise not only the value of individual buildings, but also the value of their general setting.
Clause 1 of the Bill is a start—rather more than a start, I would suggest—in this this direction. Under it local authorities will be required to designate conservation areas for those localities which are of special architecural or historic interest. Where such an area is designated it is a requirement not only for them to have regard to the preservation, but also to the enhancing of such an area; and this duty is laid fairly and squarely on the shoulders of the local authority. There is no vast and complicated panoply of procedures. The ministerial power of direction in subsection (2) of this clause is only designated, as I understand it, for cases in which local authorities conspicuously fail to act, or if they act without knowledge or sensitivity.
These areas could be big or they could be small; they could be part of a particular street, a terrace, or a series of squares. They could be a major area like Whitehall, or indeed a whole town. They could be a tiny cluster of country cottages; they could be a particularly lovely village green or its surrounds; they could be the area round a village church or, perhaps, an historic site like the Bloody Meadow, the site of the Battle of Tewkesbury. The important thing is to remember that it is the group value of the area that counts, and the point is that these special areas should receive very special treatment. The design of the new in such areas might well require especially tactful architectural treatment to lie down with the old. Particularly careful attention might be needed for such things as traffic signs, street lighting, bus stops and the like, and again such areas might well require special traffic arrangements.
So much for Clause Clauses 2 to 11 are important, but perhaps less so. Some increase the defensive protection for listed buildings. Thus under Clause
1082
2 the period of advance notice of an intention to demolish or alter a building on the statutory list is increased from the present inadequate period of two months to a period of six months, and the penalties for transgressing a building preservation order are drastically increased. A further defence is that under Clause 10 a local authority can bring a building preservation order into immediate effect without prior and time-consuming reference to Whitehall. Thus "crash" action can be taken when required to preserve an old and historic building.
Finally, under Clause 9 the residences of clergyman are brought within the purlieu of the planning Acts—and here I should like to reassure your Lordships. The Bill and its sponsors are not "gunning for" the Established Church: the Bill bites on all ecclesiastical residences of any denomination. It merely restores the position to what it was thought to be before 1964, when Church, in the person of the Rector of Bloomsbury, and Judiciary, in the person of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, put the cat amidst these ecclesiastical pigeons. This particular clause, I may say, has the agreement of the Church's Main Committee.
So much for the negative defences. The positive side of preservation is buttressed by Clauses 4 to 8. Under Clause 4 the noble Lord, Lord Hanes, will be able to turn his money over and to make loans as well as grants. Clause 5 relates to Scotland and is, at least for me, a little shrouded in Scots mist and excambion. I confess that. Clause 6 makes it possible for a local authority to step in and give essential first aid to an historic building in distress, and under Clause 7 the power of a local authority compulsorily to acquire historic buildings which are not being properly maintained by their owners is extended from the 1,000 or so buildings subject to building preservation orders, to the 102,000 that are on the statutory list. One final word on Part I. I am quite certain that if we in this country are going to make a real success of this sort of preservation we need, one way or another, to obtain a far higher degree of public involvement and far closer links between public and local authorities, and indeed White

1083
hall. This approach is, I think, reflected in Part I of the Bill.
Few living things—save, perhaps, some members of the other and fairer sex—can do more to enhance our physical surroundings than beautiful trees. Our ancestors, who knew quite a thing about trees—and also about girls—knew this very well. We need to guard that heritage of lovely woodland which they have handed down to us. We need, therefore, in the coming decades to plant many millions of new trees. That being so, I hope that the House will welcome Part II of this Bill.
Under Clause 12 a positive duty—I underline the word "duty"—will be laid on local planning authorities to see that, whenever this is desirable, adequate provision for the preservation of old trees and the planting of new trees is written into the planning permissions which they grant. Of course they must discharge this duty and exercise their discretion sensibly. Fine trees can humanise what might otherwise be a rather arid new estate. But in well-wooded areas more trees might well be an embarras de richesses. This is the positive heart of Part II of the Bill. If local authorities discharge their duty under it, as I am sure they will, Clause 12 may well make a major contribution in the future of our whole island scene. But Part II also strengthens the negative defences, in this case for trees, as Part I does for buildings. I do not propose to take your Lordships hand in hand through its various clauses. I should merely like to single out three of the more important trees in this particular wood.
Clause 13(1) is important. It means that, with certain exceptions, trees protected by a tree preservation order must be replaced if they are lost. Clause 16 provides for the same sort of "snap" protection for trees by the local authority as we are now hoping to provide for historic buildings. And Clause 15, with its significant increase in the level of fines, means that in future no-one should be able to defy a tree preservation order and reap a profit from his defiance.
Finally, my Lords, Part III—the provisions for the disposal of the waste products of our modern, mechanised society. The Litter Act 1958 dealt with the smaller
1084
droppings of that society: the tins and the toffee papers. Part III of this Bill goes after the bigger game: the mattresses, the prams, the bikes, the cookers, the fridges, the T.V. sets. Above all it goes for the bulkiest and most intractable droppings of all—the motor cars which are strewn around these islands having run their course.
There is a real and an urgent national problem here. In 1960 the estimated mortality among our car population was perhaps something over half a million. Automobile demography seems to be a rather inexact science at present. By 1970 the mortality rate may be as much as one and a half million a year. Unless we now take drastic corrective measures an awful lot of these one and a half million cars a year will not be properly dismantled and disposed of. They will just lie around our streets and highways and countryside as eyesores, as obstructions and, not least, as tempting and dangerous provocations to the curiosity of our youth. Clearly it is time we did something about this; and something pretty drastic.
Some local authorities have already taken useful initiatives—for example, Coventry and Portsmouth. The Greater London Council, I understand, are now hatching a big scheme. Whether it is the scrap metal market, the economies of scale, and indeed modern technology, all seem to point in one direction, and that is that the most sensible way for us to dispose of most of our dead cars in the future is not to abandon them in someone else's back garden, or to "flog" them to the gypsies, or to let someone break them up in his backyard on a small scale, but rather to organise the proper siting, and with it the screening, of collection points which would serve a number of strategically placed big disposal plants.
There are all sorts of such plants these days. There are crushers and pounders, shearers and smelters and pulverisers. One of the latest is a Japanese plant called "the barbecue fractional smelter." Another, a pulveriser, has such an omnivorous appetite for dead cars that it will eat 100,000 or so a year and serve them up for Lord Melchett and his steel-makers as fist-sized lumps of high quality steel. But to get all this going properly, to do away with the derelict cars which

1085
increasingly disfigure our island scene to-day, demands close and sensible cooperation between local authorities and between local authorities and industry. It also needs a proper framework of legislation.
This Part III of the Bill is designed to provide. The present permissive powers, mainly under the various Public Health Acts, are quite insufficient. The Bill offers a three-pronged solution. The first prong, Clause 18, imposes a duty on local authorities to provide public refuse dumps. The second prong, Clause 19, outlaws promiscuous dumping of motor cars—or anything else, for that matter. It also provides for heavy penalties. The third prong, Clauses 20, 21 and 22, requires local authorities to remove abandoned cars and to make arrangements for their disposal. Taken together, I believe these clauses should do the legislative trick, but doubtless your Lordships will wish to look closely at them. But to get this working, a strong lead from central Government and energetic and co-operative action on the part of local authorities is very necessary indeed.
As this Bill was leaving another place, one of its many well-wishers expressed the hope that your "civilised Lordships"—that was the phrase he used—would look on it with nothing but favour. In asking your Lordships to give this Bill, which is, I believe, a good Bill, a Second Reading, I should like to express the same hope. My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Earl Jellicoe.)
3.44 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I should like, first of all, to express my appreciation, and I am sure the appreciation of everyone else, to the initiator of this Bill in another place, Mr. Duncan Sandys and his Civic Trust. As the noble Earl has said, he has for many years past been immensely interested in this question of amenity and has done as much as anybody in this country to achieve it. I would also express my congratulations to the noble Earl on having the privilege of introducing this Bill in this House, and on the way in which he has done it. He said that the Bill was a simple Bill. Well, I think it is on the whole—not quite so simple as he made out; nevertheless
1086
it is a simple Bill. But his explanations have certainly made it much easier to understand than would otherwise be the case. I welcome the Bill immensely. It is a big step forward. The conception of the conservation area is a new one. It is an extension of an existing conception, and it is all to the good. There is little that one would need to say about the Bill. Most of the matters which one would like to comment on are really Committee points, and I hope it will get a very thorough Committee stage.
I should like to say one or two things about the Bill which strike me straight away. The first is that this is one more type of area of this country which we are proposing to designate. We are doing a great deal already in the way of designation of areas: we have designated areas as National Parks—a very substantial part of this country is already designated as National Parks. Very large areas are designated as green belt. We have areas of outstanding natural beauty. We have new areas of great scenic beauty. We have areas that are free from advertisement. And this is a new type of designation. While I have no criticism of this new conception, I think we ought to be clear as to where we are going; otherwise we may find the whole country designated in one way or another.
The noble Earl stressed the fact that this was a simple Bill, and I fully agree with him; but there is one provision, and it is a rather key provision, which I find far from clear. That is in Clause 1, which deals with the point of designating areas as conservation areas, and it says that the Minister may give such directions as he thinks necessary with respect to the exercise of the functions of local authorities under this provision. What kind of directions is certainly not clear, and what local authorities will be required to do about them is not mentioned at all in the Bill. Is the Minister to have complete discretion as to the kind of directions he is to give? I know the noble Earl set out a number of matters which local authorities would wish to have in mind in treating such conservation areas. They are not in the Bill, and one would like to be quite sure that local authorities would not be going outside their powers in dealing with a conservation area as they would like. It would be helpful if we could have a

1087
Schedule, or something of that kind, setting out the kind of matters on which the Minister could give directions and which local authorities would be required to have in mind. That is all I want to say on Part I, because, as I have said, it will be examined in Committee, and there are small points which I need not trouble the House about at this stage.
I should like to refer to the planting of trees. In another place there was some conception that we ought to be very rigid about the type of trees that should be permitted. I see that local authorities are to have regard to a number of factors, not necessarily the expense. After all, they are putting the owners to expense in requiring the planting of new trees. I think that expense ought to be a factor. Apart from that, the great beauty of this country is the immense variety of trees. I do not think there should be any pressure upon persons planting trees as to exactly the kind of trees which should be planted. There is an idea that they have to harmonise with existing trees. I do not take that view. I think that every tree is beautiful, and that every beautiful thing harmonises with every other beautiful thing, and there is no need for them to be of the same shape, size or colour, or anything else. Indeed, the beauty of our countryside lies in its variety. At the present time, you have only to look out to see the different shades of green and the different types of trees. I therefore hope that there will be great elasticity, and that local authorities will not be hidebound in telling owners as to what kinds of trees they are to plant.
There is one thing I want to say about Part III of the Bill. I fully agree that we must do something about abandoned cars. I have seen the dangers of leaving abandoned cars in the streets. In a thoroughfare in Battersea I noticed that for some days children were playing around with an abandoned car. Incidentally, I doubt whether at the end of the day there will be much of value left of the car. They were stripping it piece by piece, and eventually they set fire to the whole thing. Had it been possible to take earlier action, that would have been avoided. Fortunately, the fire was noticed in good time and nobody was injured, but it might have had disastrous consequences.
1088
I should like this Part of the Bill to be strengthened so that a local authority could act immediately they find that a car is abandoned, or when they have reason to think it is abandoned. I think the noble Earl was a little optimistic about the financial side of the matter. It will be an expense to local authorities. Do not let us run away with the idea that our mutual noble friend Lord Melchett is going to help them cut in this business. It is not going to be profitable to try to sell whatever is left of a car as scrap metal, and local authorities will be required to provide facilities for storing. That is going to be costly, especially in the cities where storage space is expensive. If we are to implement this provision seriously, local authorities must be under no delusion that they will get away with this cheaply. It will be an expense, but I think it will be worth it, and will add much to the amenity and beauty of the countryside.
I should like to discuss this point again in Committee, but I feel that perhaps an opportunity has been lost of carrying it much further. If one is considering what is really damaging the countryside over large areas it is the pit heaps and slag heaps, and all the rubbish that has been left for generations to lie by the roadside with nobody having any responsibility for dealing with it. I wish it were possible to deal with this problem at this stage and under this Bill. That would have a far greater effect even than dealing with abandoned motor cars, important as that may be. Whether it will be possible to deal with slag heaps and pit heaps in this Bill, I do not know. I wish it were. But, as I say. I hope that we shall consider it.
That is all I feel it necessary to say at this stage, except once more to say how delighted I am that this Bill has been introduced. I am sure that it will receive the unanimous support of this House, and I hope that, if possible, it will even be improved as we proceed.
3.55 p.m.
LORD HOLFORD: My Lords, I wish to support as warmly as possible this useful and timely Bill, and to add my congratulations to those of the noble Lord to Mr. Duncan Sandys, who produced it. I wish to do this quite briefly and, like the third man in the batting list, my

1089
innings is not going to be a long one. It deals mainly with Part I, with one comment on Part II. I do so not just as a Member of your Lordships' House but as one who has been consulted by successive Ministers under Section 32 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1962. That section requires the Minister, before he approves or amends the list of buildings of historic and architectural interest, to
"consult with such persons or bodies of persons as appear to him appropriate as having special knowledge of, or interest in."
buildings of this kind. I am one of those who have appeared to the Minister to be "appropriate", and I have been called into consultation over the past 22 years. I feel sure that my epitaph will be "Here lies an ad hoc body." I say this only to make it clear that my support of the Bill is grounded on a little experience as well as on conviction, and that the next step forward in this matter of linking preservation with new growth is, in my view, not only due, but overdue.
The link dates from the time when the idea of listing historic buildings was introduced, I believe I am right in saying, in a war-time Act in 1944, when the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, was Parliamentary Secretary to the new Ministry of Town and Country Planning. It was further developed in the Town and Country Planning Act 1947, when the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, who has just spoken, was Minister of Town and Country Planning. It was he, I think, who appointed the first Advisory Committee on the listing of buildings, under the chairmanship of the late Sir Eric Maclagan. In my view, Part I of the Bill is the next step in the process which was started then. It is a process of identification, of protection, and now of creative action to preserve the character of towns. It moves from the individual building, the monument, the garden ornament, to an area of a town, a group of buildings, a place that has identity and feeling and character. I do not really think that that is a large step forward. I hope that Mr. Sandys would accept that. But I think it is a significant step forward.
Part I of the Bill requires the local planning authorities to identify the areas for conservation in their towns and villages. This is a process which might be described as compulsory recognition.
1090
Many local authorities are well ahead in this matter—they are almost as far ahead as public opinion. But many local authorities are not. They either are not aware of it, or have taken the view that it is no part of their responsibility to look after their past and future environments as being parts of the very same process of historical development. So it seems to me—and I speak now as somebody looking at the process over a long period of time—that identification is necessary and that Clause I does this.
Although the Bill recognises that this is fundamentally a local authority responsibility, it makes just sufficent provision for encouragement and advice from the centre to launch it, as in fact it should be launched, as a national responsibility, as something which we owe to those who come after us—in fact, in specific terms, to the 70 million or so people who will be inhabiting these small Islands by the end of the century. The point which was made by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, is valid in this respect, and I hope it will be taken in Committee: that is to say, the point as to what kind of directions should come from the Minister. I have no doubt at all that in the initial stages some instructions must be given from the centre, particularly to those authorities which are not aware of the richness of the heritage which has come down to them.
To put it in brief terms, the pictures and the furniture in a house are the owner's affair; but the picture of the house in its setting, particularly when it has subsisted for a very long time, is now the country's affair. Therefore, it is essential that there should be some kind of national standard of preservation if this country is to remain in the forefront of civilised action in this matter. It is also necessary that we should not just have a kaleidoscope of interesting, individual buildings dotted about. In the work upon which we have been advising in relation to the listing and preservation of buildings since 1945, it has become more and more apparent that buildings depend to an enormous extent on their setting. It is not only the setting of a country house; it is the setting of the ' extremely interesting building which is in a terrace of houses in a town, in a street, or in a public place. It is not only the forecourt, the trees and the approach to

1091
the building which are of primary importance; it is also what other new buildings are built right next to it.
The Bill goes on to require local authorities to have regard to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character and appearance of these areas, and draws their attention to the powers contained in the Local Authorities (Historic Buildings) Act and in the Planning Acts. Mild and permissive though these duties are, as at present drafted, they bring preservation clearly into the mainstream of town planning and development. In other words, it is taking it from the sphere of an academic or antiquarian exercise into perspective with what is there now and with what is going to be built there, planned there and planted there for the future.
When one brings preservation into the planning field, one surrounds it with a great number of difficulties, and the greatest of these is economic. It is always more expensive per square foot to restore old buildings than to build new ones. That is to say, the actual craftsmanship, the work to be done, the survey of the buildings themselves, and all the operations connected with the preservation of buildings is not a cheap matter; it cannot be mass-produced. It should deal with every case on its merits and is therefore costly and will become more costly as building becomes industrialised. Therefore it seems to me that in relation to buildings as well as to trees and to other things—even to the disposal of old cars to which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has referred—it is not going to be a cheap affair.
It is very important that local authorities should take their responsibilities under the 1962 Act very seriously and should be encouraged by the Minister to identify, and then to preserve, the character of these special areas. This is a big problem. One hopes that any instructions from the Minister will be mingled with a certain amount of more direct encouragement, either by way of grant or by increasing the grant which is operated by the Minister of Public Building and Works on the advice of the Historic Buildings Council, or even by way of certain relaxations in the requirements for new buildings in the area of old ones which, if one sticks to the letter of the
1092
law, will sometimes be out of scale and not in harmony with the old buildings with which they form part of the setting.
I will not talk about the penalties in the Bill, except to make one observation which was drawn to my attention before I came to the House to-day. The penalty on summary conviction in regard to historic buildings is £100, but in the case of a tree it is £250. I realise that only God can make a tree, but there seems to be some disparity in these figures. I think that probably the answer is that there is no limit—and this is a very interesting provision in the Bill—to the fine that can be imposed in a court upon the man who makes £50,000 out of a development deal and who cheerfully pays at the moment a fine of £100, which is simply written off as being part of the cost of redevelopment. Therefore, to make the punishment fit the crime in this case seems to me to be an extremely ingenious and worthwhile provision.
The last point I wish to make is perhaps an architectural one. It is that in our new environment of modern buildings the importance of trees is even greater than it was. We are often accused of putting up faceless slabs, but when one comes to examine the function of a modern building, whether it be a block of flats, an office building, or the headquarters of a local authority, a public building, one finds that between 60 and 70 per cent. of the value and interest of that building is internal. All sorts of comforts and conveniences and other things are included of which builders of our historic monuments knew nothing. Where those builders were able to provide flying buttresses, indentations and external sculpture, and many other features which produce the light, shade and composition of buildings such as abbeys, the modern architect contains his within a package. That package has to be as clean, as sheer and as smooth as he can possibly make it.
While a number of modern buildings, particularly the very high ones, provide the space in which trees can he planted, they also provide, by reason of the good deal of glass which is normally associated with them, the reflective background which doubles the value of a tree planted reasonably close to it. Taking any layout in a city, if it does not ensure that every

1093
habitable room has a view of a tree or of some piece of green—which is an essential quality for those who do not possess it—and if it does not allow any views of Nature of any description, the layout should be so amended as to provide it. Therefore, I should like as an architect to say how very much I welcome the importance which is laid in Part II of the Bill on the planting of trees, and on the substitution of new trees for old when they reach the end of their useful life.
To sum up my feeling on this Bill, it is that up till now the balance has been a little too much in favour of demolition and a cleared area. It is always nice (as an architect I know this) to have a cleared area on which you can start from scratch and do more or less what you want. But most schemes which are prepared on a tabula rasa are less interesting than those which take into account, in composing the new layout or design, the sense of the place, the existence of historic buildings near it, and even the physical remains of some of them. I am reinforced in this view by the fact that most modern architects who have progressive ideas about buildings are the very people most sympathetic to the preservation of the really interesting examples of old buildings.
Therefore it is time—and this Bill helps to do this—to redress the balance a little in favour of retaining what is interesting among the old. I am not one of those who are interested only in preservation and fear that we can never replace an old building with anything equally interesting. If I were, I would stop being an architect to-morrow. Nevertheless, I feel that there is often a lesson to be learned, there is often a sense of scale, and there is often an opportunity, in retaining the historic buildings in the centre of an old town, to make anything which we add of our own century doubly valuable. I hope that your Lordships will give this Bill a Second Reading.
4.13 p.m.
LORD HENLEY: My Lords, I so agree with the noble Lord, Lord Holford, about having a pleasant view of green out of your window. I feel it so strongly that I feel that I should like to move an Amendment on Committee stage to the effect that whereas there is a £100 fine
1094
for knocking down a building, and a £200 fine for cutting down a tree, there should be a £500 fine for pollarding trees in front of windows, which makes them look peculiarly revolting.
We on these Benches heartily welcome this Bill. I think that very nearly everything which can he said about it has already been said. We have had three very interesting speeches this afternoon, and the Bill had a great going-over in another place, so I do not think I have much more to say. I welcome it particularly as a portent of the sort of things which are to come. It is a portent of the fact that we are moving into the field of Government action those activities which in the past have always been undertaken by private societies or individuals. We are now coming round more and more towards the view that the Government must take action along this line, and in this repect it is interesting that this Bill is a Private Member's Bill.
I think it is a very good Bill so far as it goes. This is not a complaint, because it goes just about as far as a Bill of this sort ought to go. This is not a suggestion that the Bill is going too far, because it is of just the degree at which Bills of this sort should aim, and I hope very much that the Government will bring in more Bills of this character. We are waiting for a Countryside Bill, which will no doubt be a very comprehensive measure, embracing all sorts of different aspects—the sort of things about which we are talking to-day. But so far as matters of this sort are concerned, what have come to be called "quality of life issues"—I rather dislike that expression, but it describes what I mean—we do not necessarily have to wait for a comprehensive Bill. There is no reason why certain specific issues should not be dealt with from time to time as they arise—piecemeal, if you like—by the Government's introducing small Bills of the same nature as this Bill. I do not mean that the issues are small; I mean only that they are perhaps narrow. This is what the Government should aim at in introducing legislation to cover matters of this sort. Later on one can bring together all the various small Bills and put them into consolidating legislation.
This Bill deals with three issues—buildings, trees and the abandoning of it is right that there should be in the last

1095
these matters are now touched by the law at some point or other, but either the law is ineffective, possibly because of the complexity of the subject, or there is so much breaking of it that it is too expensive and too difficult to cope with the problem. There are whole areas of our lives which are also touched by the law, and whole areas of quality of life issues, but to some extent ineffectively, where we must do something more, and I welcome this Bill as a beginning in this direction.
The Bill does not touch, nor is it meant to touch, problems like pollution, noise or the proliferation of advertisements. All of these are aspects of the quality of life which, as I say, are touched by the law but which somehow or other we have not got round to dealing with effectively. In the past it was always felt that the law could not touch a great many of these things effectively, and that therefore they were best left outside legislation. I do not accept this view. The more I look at life—and in a way this is coming away from the old Liberal doctrines—the more it seems that we live in an age, not when we have too much legislation, but when we do not have enough. Certainly I feel this so far as the amenity side of our life is concerned.
It is no good leaving it to education, to better feeling and to good will to find a solution. We have to deal with things of this sort by legislation, and only by legislation. I admit that when one has legislation in regard to civic amenity aspects, one relies on bodies like local planning authorities to implement it. Many local planning authorities—and, after all they are manned by people like us—are very feeble. They are not as good as they should be. They often rely on advice from experts and professionals which is not as good as it should be. Nevertheless, in the last resort it is we who administer the law which we feel is necessary to preserve our amenities.
There is one small part of the Bill on which I want to comment and to which I would draw attention. That is the question of the cost of the quality of life issue. There is a cost to be met. I sometimes think that we assess it wrongly. It is entirely a matter of opinion, but I felt that we assessed it wrongly in the case of
1096
the Tees Valley Authority; and I suspect that we may have assessed it wrongly in the case of Ullswater. Here, there was an amenity to be saved; there was a quality of life which it would have cost the community a certain amount of money to maintain. I think the community, in the last resort—again, this was through the advice we gave them—felt that the cost of preserving these amenities was too high. I do not take that view. I think we could have maintained those amenities at a cost, on the end product, which was not unduly high. Nevertheless, we did not take that view.
There is a slight danger with regard to some of the ideas this Bill puts forward, in that the community is suggesting that no small part of the cost of preserving these amenities should be borne, not by the community but by the individual. In the case of the great territorial magnate this is so small an issue that it does not very much matter; he has probably been doing this all along; but where the small owner-occupier is concerned this is far from the case. There are certain difficulties; and I do not minimise these. I know that there are cases where men deliberately pull down buildings to make their land worth more for development, and such cases can be dealt with. But there are a thousand and one smaller ones. The noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, mentioned battle sites. Here is another. If a farmer may not destroy a battle site—and I entirely agree that he should not be allowed to do so—then somehow or other we must see that the cost of preserving that is borne by us and not by the individual.
The same applies, to a lesser extent, in the case of trees. It certainly applies in the case of buildings, and it applies in other directions as well. We have the National Parks where the farmer on one side has to use rather expensive materials for roofing his buildings, whereas one on the other side can put up any old stuff. I entirely agree that he should not be allowed to put up any old stuff anyway; but if, for the benefit of the community, he must spend a good deal more than he would otherwise have done to preserve those amenities, we must see to it that the extra cost is made good.
I put this forward only as a caveat; one must not make too much of it. Indeed, a few moments ago the noble Lord,

1097
Lord Kennet, reminded me of the fact that it sometimes works very much to the disadvantage of the community that we see cases of local authorities—rather ridiculous cases, really—who, when they acquire a building which might otherwise have been developed, have to pay compensation for their refusal to allow the development. I agree that there is an element of internal payments here; that it is one Government Department paying for what another Government Department is doing. Nevertheless, this is a point on which I am quite sure the noble Lord, when he comes to wind up, will air his own views. What is bad about it is not so much one quasi-Government Department, as it were, paying into another Government Department: it is that it discourages local authorities from doing what they ought to be doing, and one feels that on the whole local authorities need encouragement to do more, rather than discouragement.
Again on this point I would make certain reservations. I sometimes think that we schedule rather too many buildings. In the North of England, where every other building is a castle or a peel-tower, virtually every one is scheduled. This is reducing the situation to a farce. It seems to me that in this respect we might with advantage look at the French experience, and schedule perhaps rather fewer items—but making quite sure we maintain those that we do schedule. These are details, my Lords, and they are outside the Bill.
I welcome the Bill chiefly as a measure of the way we are thinking on these matters; as an indication that we are becoming more aware of the needs and of what can be done. I also welcome it because I think there is implicit in the Bill—though it is not actually expressed—a feeling that there is no conflict between preservation and proper development. There is the feeling that when it refers to preservation it refers to it in such a way that it means what we understand by conservation; that is to say, the best use of all these things, whether old or whether the best modern development we can devise. So, my Lords, I welcome the Bill, not only for itself but for what it foreshadows
4.26 p.m.
LORD HAILES: My Lords, I should like to add my congratulations to all those responsible for this excellent Bill, which is the result of the close cooperation of Mr. Sandys, who deserves special congratulations, the Civic Trust and the Government. I wish to speak only very briefly, as several noble Lords who know more about these matters than I do wish to speak, and others have already spoken. But I felt I must say a few words, principally from my experience, such as it is, with the Historic Buildings Council for England, of which I have the honour to be Chairman, for the Bill touches upon the work of that Council at so many points.
We in this country have been very slow in waking up to our responsibilities in the matters with which this Bill is concerned. Extraordinary though it may seem, I think I am right in saying that, although for many years voluntary societies—the National Trust, and so on—have done much in forming public opinion and in other ways, apart from that concerning ancient monuments there was no legislation until after the last war, when we had the Town and Country Planning Acts, to which the noble Lord, Lord Holford, has referred, and which provide, among other things, for the making of preservation orders and listing of buildings.
Then in 1953 there was passed the Historic Buildings and Ancient Monuments Act, which made it possible for the first time for grants of public money to be made to owners of buildings of outstanding architectural or historical value. This is not the occasion to speak of this legislation at any length, except to say that but for it, owing to the decay, the neglect and often near-despair of the post-war years, the face of Britain as regards its architectural historical heritage would have now been a very different and very tragic one. Had that been the case, there would have been less material for this Bill to deal with.
However, there is still much that is piecemeal and incomplete in this whole field. I am sure that this Bill, which I hope will be law very soon, will do a great deal to pull things together and give new form and meaning to the whole concept. I am glad to say, incidentally, that one bit of piecemeal by which the listing of buildings was under one Minister,

1099
and the wherewithal, such as it is, of preservation was under another, have recently been combined under one Minister—the Minister of Housing and Local Government.
This Bill is far from being primarily a Bill of pains and penalties, but it is the fact that in former annual reports the Historic Buildings Council for England drew attention to abuses, to which the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, has referred, such as the demolition of worthy buildings in anticipation of a preservation order or the occasional—I am thankful to say only occasional—calculated destruction of a listed building in defiance of the law and in face of a wholly inadequate penalty, and so on. I think that in this Bill the new safeguards, the new powers, and the much more alarming penalties—which I understand under Clause 2(3)(2) can be swingeing—should prove much more effective; and if they do not, I presume there could always be an amending Bill by which the penalties could be made greater.
I suppose that the most important provision of the Bill is in Clause 1 for which, for the first time, statutory provision is made for the preservation of whole areas—"conservation areas"—of architectural or historic interest, as distinct from the preservation of individual buildings of special architectural and historic importance. It is to be the duty of the local planning authority to designate these areas and to have always in mind their duty to preserve and enhance them. Although the Historic Buildings Council was essentially designed to care for individual buildings, as time has gone on—and the noble Lord, Lord Holford, referred to this—we have become more and more conscious of their surroundings. While we could recommend help for a fine house we could do nothing to avert the danger of unworthy neighbours. When in 1960 the Historic Buildings Council extended its activities to what we call O.G.V., "outstanding group value", that is to say, giving grants to groups of houses that individually did not come up to the mark, we had no power to prevent unsightly development near them, often cheek by jowl, thus spoiling the whole.
I take it that when this Bill becomes an Act the responsibilities of the Historic
1100
Buildings Council will become involved in some way in the system of conservation areas. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, if he is ready to do so, will say something about that when he speaks. Possibly it will work in with a further extension of the present work of the Historic Buildings Councils in their towns schemes which could become absorbed in the wider conception of this Bill. But if it is to be a case of "wider still and wider" for the Historic Buildings Councils—and we should certainly welcome that—it will have to be financed. I am tempted to pursue this and to quote figures; but I do not think it would be the appropriate occasion and I do not think it would be fair to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, who is so devoted to and active in the cause we are talking about to-day; and I know he fully appreciates the problem. But if one sees what is spent annually on the Arts in general, the amount that comes to the Historic Buildings Council—although one must not look a gift horse in the mouth—is almost derisory.
Perhaps however the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, could say something about Clause 4, which deals with the making of loans as well as giving grants to houses. I am not quite sure how finance will come in there; although I have a shrewd suspicion. But we welcome this proposal in principle, because it will give the Historic Buildings Council more room for manœuvre. However, I think the general theme of the Bill, which is the most important thing of all, is that although, as I understand it, the Minister will have certain responsibilities and reserve powers, the obligations and duties contained in all three Parts of the Bill are placed fairly and squarely on the shoulders of the local authorities. I am sure that is the right way to do it. Any attempt at coercion might engender resistance and the objects of the Bill would be defeated.
Everyone knows that local authorities have much important work to do apart from that in the field of conservation and preservation. I hope I shall not give offence when I say that in this particular field their record has been unequal: some have made full use of the Local Authorities (Historic Buildings) Act 1962—also, I think, the result of a Private Member's initiative—and some have not.

1101
But this Bill, which—and here I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe—I do not suppose for a moment will be the last Bill of its kind, has such far-reaching powers to preserve our national heritage of architecture, history and beauty which is second to none, to any country that in due course I trust there will be, perhaps with the willing help of local civic and amenity societies, a real drive by local authorities to get the very best out of the opportunities which this Bill provides.
4.36 p.m.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, I like this Bill. I think the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, has rendered a valuable public service in bringing it before this House. I must confess that I was rather fascinated at one stage of his speech when he started to embark upon a comparison between beautiful trees and beautiful girls. Unfortunately, he did not carry it through to the conclusion; nor shall I. In fact, in view of my age I am probably not qualified to do so. But I love beautiful trees. That is one of the particular reasons why I welcome this Bill. Probably I love trees because my grandfather was a village blacksmith with a real spreading chestnut tree outside the smithy door. Sixty years ago, I spent many hours watching the sparks fly.
I move very much in local government circles and everywhere I find a warm welcome for this Bill. I have been for over twenty years a county alderman, a chairman of a county council, and so on. That may make me something of a civic amenity in myself. If so, I hope I shall be preserved. This Bill, unlike so many other Bills affecting local government that come before this House, is not going to arouse any fiery political controversy. It has no great revolutionary changes; it merely does a few useful jobs. Because of that I think it will be welcomed by all public-spirited citizens as a whole.
I do not think there is any easy way of singling out one particular part of the Bill as being more important than the others. There is no obvious point at which to start the examination, so I will return to the old-fashioned system of starting at the beginning. Clause 1 improves the law with regard to the preservation of historic and architecturally beautiful buildings. That in itself is a very worthy object. But, as other noble Lords have said,
1102
Clause 1 goes much beyond that. It enables us to designate what are called conservation areas so we shall not merely preserve historic buildings, but preserve them in their own historic frame.
In the past preservation orders have too often been made on historic buildings, only for those buildings to be damaged by excessive traffic, which is growing in volume every year, or to have the whole picture of the scene ruined by some modern shop or housing development that has been allowed alongside or in the near vicinity. In Essex we have tried to use our normal planning powers to prevent that happening. We have not necessarily preserved beauty spots and beautiful buildings as isolated museums, but have tried to ensure that they were preserved in a proper setting. We have made some fifty orders in recent years, mainly in beautiful little towns like Thaxted, Saffron Walden, Coggeshall and Witham. In the course of our ordinary planning procedure we are trying to create conditions favourable to the preservation of these old houses of quality. This Bill will be a real encouragement to those local authorities which have souls as well as public bodies.
My Lords, it can be done, and the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, mentioned towns in France and in some other countries. I have often been impressed, when travelling around Germany, by the way one is sometimes able to turn off from a main arterial street in a city into some little backwater where a little mediæval square of buildings has been preserved. There are many of our towns in which we could do the same thing, and the provision in Part I of the Bill will make it easier for us to do so than has been the case in the past; although, as I say, there are some local authorities who have made use of their ordinary planning permissions in order to bring about that state of affairs.
These preservation orders are usually well worth making. I remember a mansion in my county, part Tudor, which was bought by two men who were determined to demolish it. We, as a county council, bought it and made a preservation order. We did not keep it idle as a medieval museum, but sold it to a charitable organisation which I think concerns itself with the care of what are called distressed gentlefolk. This organisation carried out

1103
essential repairs and they are now able to rent homes to a number of families who live in very gracious surroundings. It would have been a shame to demolish that mansion, which stood in the midst of a beautiful park. It was owned, back in the days of Henry VIII, by Lord Rich, one of his Chancellors. The first Queen Elizabeth slept there; of course she slept in a good many places, because she used to get around. It was also the seat of the Court of one of the dethroned monarchs of Europe who found refuge in this country, and I think that we did well in saving this building from the hammer of the demolition workers.
My Lords, Part II of the Bill will give extra powers to local authorities to ensure that their districts are not denuded of beautiful trees. In Essex we have been very ferocious in the action that we have taken against people who threaten to indulge in that kind of activity. We have been able to do so because many years ago we promoted a Private Act of Parliament which, among other things, gave us power to act in this way. We have also carried out a lot of tree planting. There is a yearly item in the county budget for tree planting, and now that the transplanting of mature trees has reached a stage which I think I can say is of technical perfection, I hope that we shall be able to do still more in the future than we have in the past. This Bill will give encouragement to those councils which need it. We have one body in my county which hardly needs any encouragement, the Basildon New Town Development Corporation, which has planted nearly half a million trees since it was established about fifteen years ago.
I hope that in those parts of the Bill dealing with trees we shall not have the legislation drawn so tightly as to make the owners of old elm trees and trees of that kind afraid to have them lopped or topped in the interests of safety. I remember that at the old rectory where I lived for twenty years we had a majestic ring of elm trees round one side of the house. It was not until I called in an expert that I discovered the state of permanent danger in which we were living, so I hope that no owner of elm trees will find himself prosecuted or persecuted under this legislation if he
1104
takes the steps which he thinks are in the interests of public safety.
Now to Part III, my Lords, where we move from the ancient to the modern. This Part of the Bill gives local authorities powers and also calls upon them to perform certain duties with regard to cars abandoned on the roadside. This legislation is certainly overdue. The other day I saw twenty abandoned cars along twenty miles of an arterial road. But I hope that there will be some safeguard provided here as well. There are motorists (and I speak particularly as one who for forty years worked on newspapers and used to drive home in the early hours of the morning) who experience occasions when they have to abandon their cars by the roadside because of foggy conditions, or because of the icy state of the road—and we all know of the legendary case of the young man driving a girl home who suddenly runs out of petrol along an isolated stretch of road. I think there must be safeguards for motorists who are genuinely compelled to jettison their cars for a night or two.
I am not particularly happy about the clause which calls on local authorities to create dumps where householders may throw their refuse. I think that public health considerations have here to be borne in mind, especially if people are to be encouraged, or permitted, to dump verminous old mattresses or perishable food, or tins which have contained food. We do not want this Bill ultimately to become an Act for the Encouragement of Bugs and Rats in Public Places, but that is what may easily happen.
I know as well as anybody the enormous amount of illicit dumping that goes on. My present house stands on the verge of Epping Forest, and every Sunday morning when I go for a walk I see enough old petrol cans, lavatory bowls, mattresses, old chairs and baked bean tins to enable me to set up half-a-dozen stalls in the Caledonian Market. I am not convinced that official council dumps for this kind of refuse would be the right way to tackle the problem. I would rather see the authorities permitted to make a charge for moving refuse of this kind from people's back yards.

1105
My noble friend Lord Silkin expressed some slight apprehension about the extent to which, in one case after another, we were designating certain areas of land, and he feared that the day might come when the whole of our countryside might be so designated. Well, my Lords, under our town development maps and town and country planning maps the land is virtually all designated now, and so I should not allow that to frighten me. All these are matters of detail which I think may be usefully considered in Committee.
There is, finally, the question of money which I had intended to raise earlier in my remarks, but which has been dealt with by a number of noble Lords. This legislation will put an extra financial burden on local councils, and therefore upon their ratepayers. Noble Lords will understand the psychology of local councillors. Council elections come round each year, and they do not like having to go to the electors to apologise for having to put up the rates; and everything that tends to put up the rates, even though in itself it may be a relatively small item, is something which councillors will not be too keen on doing. So I sincerely hope that there will be some form of assistance from the national Exchequer to enable local authorities to interpret this legislation really enthusiastically without the fear of repercussions for financial reasons which might follow any action they take. The Bill as a whole aims at making Britain a prettier place. Anything that is pretty should be welcomed, and it usually is. So I enthusiastically support the Bill, and I hope that it will have a fast passage to the Statute Book.
4.48 p.m.
LORD STRANG: My Lords, I wish to give a warm welcome to this Bill. As the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, explained in his admirable exposition, it does three things in three separate spheres, all of which badly needed doing. In all these ways, and as the noble Earl has said they are positive ways, the Bill should do something to improve the aspect of our towns and countryside to help to save them in some measure from the desecration which never ceases to menace them. As the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe said, perhaps over-modestly, it is a modest Bill;
1106
but it is an extremely useful one. The initiation of the Bill owes much to the vision and energy of the Civic Trust, and it is fitting that it should have been sponsored in another place by the founder of the Civic Trust, Mr. Duncan Sandys.
There are three preliminary points about the Bill which are perhaps worth making. First, it has been wholeheartedly commended by the Government. Secondly, in the course of the proceedings in another place the Bill was largely redrafted, with the help of Parliamentary draftsmen. The result is that it comes to your Lordships' House in extremely good shape and should not require very lengthy consideration. Thirdly, during the debate in another place the Bill was equally warmly welcomed on both sides of the House. In many places the Bill lays duties on local authorities; in other places it confers powers on local authorities, and in, I think, two places it gives the Minister power to give directions to local authorities or to make orders in default of action by local authorities.
The proper relationship between Whitehall and local authorities in regard to action by the latter in the kind of field covered by the Bill will always be a matter of debate. The conception which seems to be implicit in the present Bill is that it is best to rely to the largest possible extent upon the willing co-operation of local authorities and not to provide, beyond necessary, measure for direction or order from Whitehall. Like the noble Lord, Lord Hailes. I have sympathy for this view, but the fact remains that local authorities vary widely in their efficiency and in their willingness to act. The noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, has just blown the trumpet for Essex, and probably rightly so. It is fair to say that financial considerations will have a bearing on this in the eyes of some local authorities, and the noble Lord. Lord Leatherland, rightly drew attention to this.
From this point of view, Clause 1 of the Bill now before us is of some interest. In subsection (1) a specific duty is laid upon local planning authorities—namely, the duty of determining and designating areas of special architectural or historic interest. In this particular case, this provision is backed up by subsection (2), by which the Minister is given the power to give local planning authorities, after

1107
consultation with them, such direction as he thinks necessary with respect to their fulfilment of the duty thus laid upon them. This, I think, is the only place in the Bill where such a power of direction is provided, and in this place I think it is rightly provided.
The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, asked, "What kind of direction?", and I think that at some stage in our proceedings we should like to know a little more about what is intended by these words. Once an area has been designated under this clause, what then has the local planning authority to do about it? The answer will be found in subsection (5). One would think that the duty of local planning authorities here is somewhat too vaguely expressed. What the local planning authority has to do, if I may quote the words of the clause, is to have regard to the
"… desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the designated area …"
in the exercise of its powers under the Historic Buildings or Planning Acts. "To have regard to the desirability" are vague words which place no specific duty upon the local authority, and one may wonder whether this goes far enough and whether it might not be possible to place upon the local authority a definite responsibility to preserve and enhance. But perhaps as a matter of practical politics the existing text is as far as one can go.
In one other place in the Bill there is provision for a default power in the Minister. That is to be found in Part III, which deals with the removal and disposal of abandoned vehicles and other refuse. In this part of the Bill the various duties laid upon the local authorities are defined in specific terms, and they are very extensive. They include the provision of refuse dumps and the removal of abandoned vehicles. Here the local authorities are not left entirely to themselves. If they fail to carry out their duties in this respect their failure may be inquired into by the Minister, and if he is satisfied, after holding a local inquiry, that there has been such failure, then he may, by order, require the authority to carry out the duty in such manner as he may prescribe. It seems to me to be right that where duties are so specific in a practical sense as they are in this part
1108
of the Bill, and where they may be tiresome and somewhat difficult to perform, it is right that there should be in the last resort this default power in the hands of the Minister.
With these few words, I repeat the hope that the House will give this Bill a Second Reading.
4.55 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LINCOLN: My Lords, I wish to say how much I welcome the new provisions in Part I of the Bill. It is now twenty years since the passing of the Town and Country Planning Act 1947, and I think it will probably be agreed that the area where it has been least effective is in the preservation of the centres of our towns and cities. A survey made by the Civic Trust at the beginning of this year gives the illustration of one town of 70,000 people where there were 130 houses listed as being of architectural or historic interest. There are now only 25, or perhaps 30, of them left. That is the measure of the erosion which has gone on, even with the operation of the Town and Country Planning Acts. Therefore the need for such a measure as this seems to me to be without possibility of contradiction.
The moving of the emphasis from the individual building which must have either historic or architectural interest to the area is of immense significance. I think that if we are going to persuade the local authorities—and it has already been said how they vary in their quality and sensitiveness on this matter—to act in this matter, we must be able to give good reasons to the property owner or developer why we regard it as important that in any particular area certain groups of buildings should be preserved and individual property rights should be limited or overruled.
I believe that the social and organic life of a community is a living thing. A community is not just a collection of individuals. It has an organic life. This is something which is not artificial and cannot be taken for granted. As we know from building our new towns, it is something which is laboriously built up generation after generation. This organic life needs to have co-ordinated planning. Every great civilisation bears witness to this fact. But there is a further point. I believe that in the old-established

1109
communities we must preserve visual reminders of the long continuity of community life in that place, reminders of the cultural and spiritual traditions out of which the community has come and by which unconsciously so often community actions are modified. To destroy wantonly, without any deliberate plan for replacement, the old centres of our towns and villages often destroys this sense of continuity and tradition, which at the present time the community desperately needs as a kind of spring-board for its outward-looking action.
At one time, before I went to America, I was very critical of the movement of works of art and buildings from Europe to America. Having been to America, I am entirely converted. I believe it to be absolutely right that the American people should have visible signs—they are almost sacraments—of the great cultural European tradition out of which they come. Although, for example, a thing like the Cloisters in New York may sound absurd, if you go there and see it you recognise that it is a creative achievement to which millions of Americans go, and I believe something in them is stirred as to their heritage and tradition. This is something that I think has to continue and has to be safeguarded.
In almost every town and village of this land there is a nucleus of old buildings, usually associated with the parish church, and this nucleus of buildings is the visible expression of the experience of community life over the centuries. Certain buildings in the group can be safeguarded. I think it is not unfair to say that in this respect the members of the Church of England, with many well-wishers, have preserved this astonishing heritage of the parish churches of this country at the most enormous cost. In the county of Lincolnshire there are no fewer than 700 buildings, many of them with tiny communities around them. Nevertheless, these buildings have been preserved. And there may be the odd building of architectural interest. But at present there is nothing to prevent what happens again and again. First of all, an old building, not of great architectural merit but part of the group, falls into decay. Often in a village it reaches a stage when it is just cleared, and all that remains is tumbledown brick
1110
work and nettles, and the thing becomes a sort of scar, a sore in the heart of the village.
Secondly (and this has happened as a result of the Town and Country Planning Act), because of the difficulty of getting planning permission for a new house, very often a house—again of no great architectural merit, apart from the group—will be sold; it will have to be pulled down, and in place of it a new house will be built. This is not necessarily a bad thing. But what so often happens is that the building is built without any sensitivity to the environment. The owner has seen some particular model at some building exhibition, and thinks how pretty it will look. I do not think we want just prettiness in our villages; we want something better than that. Thirdly, there is the building which is bought by a developer. Here, again, much depends on the planning authority, but so often the building which is put up is designed, possibly here in London, without any sensitivity to the neighbourhood and in no way relates to it.
I want to make it clear that I am not a preservationist, as such. I should hate the idea of kind of "olde worlde" ghettoes surviving in the heart. This would be terrible. I think there is a proper place for development, even in the centre as a living thing. But what I believe to be important is that there ought to be a burden on the developer to prove to the local authority that what he is going to do is sensitive to the neighbourhood in which he is developing, and not something which is imposed upon it irresponsibly.
Again, this does not mean the preservation of particular styles. There is a very good illustration in Coventry. If you go to the North-West corner of Coventry Cathedral you will find a 17th century half-timbered building; immediately adjoining that you find an 18th century building, and near to that there is this modern building. There is perfect harmony; they all seem to be sensitive to each other. Or there is the example of King's College, Cambridge, with the Chapel and Gibb's Building side by side. It is more subtle than just trying to build in old style. I am reminded of the words of the new President of the Royal Academy, Mr. Monnington, who said:
"All the best work is traditional."

1111
But he added:
"It is often not until the next generation that you see how the tradition has been continued."
I do not think we want to discount the possibility of continuing a tradition within this central area, but it has to be something which goes beyond the immediate interests of the individual or the particular developer.
I want to say here that we owe an enormous amount—and it is part of our English way of doing things—to the whole idea of the Civic Trust, the body of people concerned and interested, who quite spontaneously come together and exercise a particular interest for a neighbourhood. We have many illustrations of the way in which this has effectively safeguarded and salved particular places. The noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, has spoken of the work in Essex, and the development of the Thaxted Society, with the co-operation of the county council, of the survey which has fairly recently been done by David Insell and associates. I think this a glorious illustration of how voluntary association and interest, co-operating with the local authority, can have a tremendous effect on these very things.
This we must encourage, because the Act itself, if it is to be implemented effectively, still requires people of sensitivity, understanding—it is difficult to describe the exact qualities which are needed. It is unlikely, humanly speaking, that one can be sure of finding these, even in the county planning office. One would hope to find groups of people who will sometimes have to act as a gadfly. This is a good thing for the Civic Trust to be. Many horrors would have been perpetrated but for the gadfly playing that particular part, determined to see that the legal planning authority exercises all the expertise that is possible and that of opportunism and insensitivity are challenged. I believe we can hope that as a result of this Bill many areas, without being restricted to being some kind of museum piece, will be preserved. And the reason for this is that we may have these visible signs of continuity of the great heritage and tradition out of which we come.
5.09 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I, too, should like to convey my thanks to
1112
the noble Earl for introducing this Bill to-day. When he told me about it the other day I said I hoped that I should be able to get here before the debate finished—at that time he seemed to think that there would be only two or three speakers—and that I should not have to leave before I had been able to help him. I mention this last point because I have an engagement later which may require me to leave before the end of the discussion, and if that should happen I hope your Lordships will forgive me.
I agree with, I think, almost every speaker this afternoon that this Bill, so far as it goes, is a good Bill. In some respects it does not go as far as many of us would like, and as Lord Strang particularly emphasised, it is very vague in some particularly important parts. I hope it will be possible to tighten it up a little in the Committee stage, and that the noble Earl will not say that that is very dangerous because it may mean that we shall lose it if we attempt to do so.
I would also pay my tribute to Mr. Duncan Sandys and the Civic Trust, which he has played such an important part in building up and which has done a tremendous amount for urban civilisation in this country over the last few years. As a very keen worker in the National Trust, and the C.P.R.E. perhaps more particularly, I have always felt that when he was Minister in charge of the planning arrangements he did much to give local authorities the push which they often require, as Lord Strang pointed out, and we were all very grateful to him; and here is another reason for gratitude this afternoon.
I felt very much in agreement with the speech of the right reverend Prelate who has just resumed his seat. Indeed, I think I agreed with everything he said. I should like to comment on many of his remarks, but there is not sufficient time and I do not want to spend what time I have in commenting on individual speeches, except that I should like to follow up what the noble Lord, Lord Hailes, said, speaking from such an intimate knowledge of the work of the Historic Buildings Council. He and his colleagues have really done wonderful work there. I do not think that small sums of money have ever been expended more profitably in this country. I had the opportunity of

1113
seeing this from the angle of the National Trust, who have benefited a great deal from their help. There can be no doubt that the historic buildings of this country owe an enormous amount to this; and that this miserable pittance was provided only just in time to save very many of them. When we look back from the next century, I think we shall feel that this money, which does not come to the amount which is spent on a bomber from first to last, has been very much more valuably spent than most of the money we spend on bombers. I should like to say that, because I feel this very strongly.
This Bill really consists of an innovatory part, the first clause, and a number of very useful proposals for minor amendments of the law. I should like to say a word or two about some of these, though I shall deal with them very shortly, and particularly in relation to Part II, which deals with trees. I find myself in very strong agreement with several noble Lords who have spoken about the subject this afternoon. The noble Lord, Lord Henley, made a very good point indeed about the way that trees in cities, in urban areas, are maltreated all the time by pollarding. The men who are put in charge of the pruning arrangements are usually people with no sensitivity whatever, and it almost makes one cry to go through the streets of some of our great cities after this terrible operation has taken place. I hope that in this Bill, or in some way, the appropriate Minister will take powers to deal with this business, because it is one of the worst eyesores in very many of our cities.
The planting of trees, as the noble Lord, Lord Holford, particularly emphasised, is of very great importance. The aspect of this which appeals to me very much is the stepping up of penalties for the deliberate disregard of tree preservation orders and the cutting down of trees without the necessary licences from the appropriate Department. We in the National Trust have suffered very severely on more than one occasion, for a valuable stand of trees can bring in enough to pay all the fines which magistrates can impose, even if they impose them all at the top level, and yet leave a very substantial profit for the miserable men who deliberately break the law
1114
in this way; and they usually succeed in getting away with it—at any rate that is our experience in the National Trust—before we hear about it and are able to get an injunction.
I hope that these higher penalties will be effective, but I myself would be prepared to put a man like that into prison. Many of the unfortunate men who I, as a chairman of quarter sessions, have to sentence to prison are much less guilty in the eyes of the community than the people who behave in this way. These trees are part of the culture of the country, and deliberately to destroy them in this way seems to me to be in just the same sort of line of conduct as defacing a picture or some other great work of art. I should like to see the provisions of this Bill tightened up even more, and to see the courts given power in proper cases to send a man to prison for this kind of behaviour, as a lesson to others and to deter them from this kind of conduct.
The business about dumping rubbish is, again, a very serious one. I live on the edge of a common on the North side of London, where people bring not only their old motor cars but their old bedsteads and all sorts of other rubbish just to get rid of them. And this is happening all over the country, as the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, emphasised. It is at this point that the urban dweller goes out into the country very often, and the country dweller suffers from his activities of this kind. It is very important, I think, that the authorities should be given powers to handle this particularly noisome problem.
It is interesting to reflect that the Englishman, in a way, is much more a countryman than a town dweller. These crusades (I do not know whether one should call them that) tend to start in the country. The National Trust starts in the country. It is followed by town and country planning, the country planning being much more highly developed—or the control certainly is in many areas—and much more tightly applied in the country than in the towns. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Henley, who referred to advertising. Advertising is really not a problem in the country any longer. The Scapa Society was so successful in its efforts to get the law tightened up in relation to advertising in

1115
the country that it had no more work to do and had to wind itself up. It is true, of course, that in the urban areas there is still a problem in connection with advertising. But I think that one of the things on which we can legitimately congratulate ourselves in this country is that we have been much more successful in preventing unsightly advertising in the country, and controlling it in the towns, than any other country it has been my fortune to visit. This has frequently been commented on by sensitive visitors from foreign countries after spending a holiday here.
I should like to say just a few words about the first clause and the first Part of the Bill, which is to a large extent innovatory and makes a very important beginning. Your Lordships had a most interesting debate, in which I was not able to take part, about the Arts only a week or two ago. I have not had time to study it very thoroughly in Hansard; but so far as The Times went, it did not seem that there was very much emphasis on architecture, the outside part of culture; and that, I thought, was a pity. I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Holford, said. After all, architecture is that part of our art which is visible to everybody.
We cannot go about the streets without bumping up against it. To see pictures one has to go to a picture gallery; or to hear music one has to go to a concert hall. But architecture is, par excellence, that part of our cultural heritage which every citizen bumps up against, and I think that to a large extent, if unconsciously, it forms the taste of large numbers of people. Some of them are beyond hope—they could not have any taste formed—but I think large numbers of people develop a quite reasonable standard of taste through walking about the streets, even in London, and more so in some other cities—particularly Edinburgh, perhaps—and many continental cities. In parenthesis, I should like to say how much I found myself in agreement with what the noble Lord, Lord Holford—a distinguished architect—said about work on a tabula rasa being not always so good as the work which the architect has to fit into an already developed area. Whenever I go to the National Trust Office, which is just out-
1116
side St. James' Park Underground Station, I spend a minute or two looking at that remarkable building which the late Sir Charles Holden built. He was not one of our greatest architects, but he was a very good one, and I think St. James' Park Station is very much his finest piece of work. He had to put it in a very difficult place, and I am quite sure that it was the struggle to put a good building into that place which produced that piece of architecture. When, in Bloomsbury, he was given a tabula rasa and he built the Senate House, I am afraid it was not as good as those of us who worked in the university hoped it would be.
Throughout Western Europe from the seventeenth century, and particularly during the eighteenth century, an urban architecture of great importance and loveliness, often reflecting the cultural traditions and sensitivities of different European nations, was built up. In this country, as John Somerson has shown in his admirable book on Georgian Architecture, particularly in London squares and streets, buildings of real beauty were built during that time and into the nineteenth century. When I first came to London Bloomsbury, to which he devotes a good deal of attention, was still intact. There is not very much of it left. It is a tragedy. I was walking through there only the other evening and found that several streets which had been there last autumn had now been razed to the ground. There are parts of Kensington which are still very fine, but there again the demolition gangs are moving in and the speculative builders are buying up the properties.
I hope that this Bill will be on the Statute Book in time to save some of this cultural heritage which has formed the artistic outlook of many thousands of Londoners. Therefore, I have the greatest pleasure in welcoming this Bill, and I hope that it will shortly be on the Statute Book.
5.25 p.m.
LORD AUCKLAND: My Lords, I rise to congratulate both my noble friend Earl Jellicoe and my right honourable friend the member for Streatham, Mr. Duncan Sandys, for having initiated this most important Bill. It has been suggested that the Bill has not gone far enough. With

1117
that I agree, but one has to remember that this is a Private Member's Bill, and those of us who have had experience of moving Private Member's Bills, as I have, will know that if one tries to "push one's luck" too far, so to speak, one may lose the Bill. In any case, the Government have promised an elaborate countryside Bill, which we await with great interest, because it is bound to have a profund significance so far as the present Bill is concerned.
I think the real value of this Bill will be seen by future generations. There is a tendency—and I think there will be general agreement here—for city centres and town centres to be pulled down or altered somewhat indiscriminately. Sometimes it is the price of progress which has to be paid. Sometimes it is necessary, and sometimes I submit it is not so necessary. But these are probably points which may be pursued in Committee, although obviously a long Committee stage is something we should like to avoid, because with a Bill of this kind its progress would be inevitably jeopardised.
I should like to say a few words about Clause 13, and the question of trees. Being a lover of trees, I deplore as much as anyone the need for having to cut them down. I live in the county of Surrey, where we have many lovely areas of tree land, particularly around the hills, where there is some of the most beautiful country in the whole of Southern England, and also the Sussex Downs, which I know very well and where I have spent many happy hours, particularly in areas such as Friston Forest. When it comes to replacing trees—and I think this part of the Bill is most necessary—we must take great care about the trees which are to replace those cut down. I submit that conifers and most deciduous trees are particularly desirable, whereas elm trees, of course, are highly susceptible to weather conditions. I hope that when the Bill becomes law attention will be paid to this matter. Of course there is a financial problem here. I am a little uncertain as to who is to pay for the replacement of these trees. If it is to be done by private people, obviously they will not want to be put to enormous expense.
I live almost on the edge of a common in Surrey. I know there has been recent legislation on common land, but I hope
1118
that this Bill at least touches on provisions regarding common land. Quite apart from the dumping of cars and other objects, to which I shall refer in a moment, there is the danger of fire. In a dry summer, particularly on the common near where I live, it is no unusual sight to see a fire engine—or perhaps more than one—combating fires, some of which may have been caused by sheer vandalism and others by carelessness, such as leaving broken bottles which catch the rays of the sun, at such time as the sun decides to shine. These fires can do untold damage, not only to wild life but to shrubs and trees, and those of your Lordships who are authorities on common land will know how long it takes to replace flora and fauna when it is destroyed in this manner.
My Lords, I turn now to Part III and the question of refuse, abandoned cars and suchlike. My noble friend Lord Cromartie, who is unable to be here to-day, has particularly asked me to raise this matter in relation to Scotland, and particularly Northern Scotland where he comes from. Knowing that area myself, I should like to ask the Government what plans they have, particularly for the rural areas, where there is not the necessary personnel to make the collections of these vehicles. Also, who is to pay for this work? Not all county councils, particularly in the North of Scotland, are particularly wealthy, and, alas, places such as the shores of the Gairloch and other areas have tended to become dumping grounds, not only through the actions of people passing to picnics and for other purposes, but because people tend to dump old prams, bicycles, cars, refrigerators on some of the loveliest countryside. I hope that particular attention will be given to requiring a proper method of payment for the collection of these vehicles. I note from the Bill that there is virtually free collection of these objects. This work is desirable, but what is it going to cost?
Not far from where I live there is a dump which is primarily for council house tenants. I am not for one moment going to suggest that council house tenants are necessarily any more untidy than other people, but the collection of these objects is not done very regularly. It is absolutely vital, if this Bill is going to work, that a really regular collection

1119
takes place. All your Lordships will have seen litter bins full of orange peel, papers and other rubbish, and they are full primarily because there is not a regular collection. I hope that in this Bill a real duty will be laid on the local authorities to undertake regular collections. It is all very well having a Litter Act—and I am entirely behind the Litter Act: in fact I think the penalties are, if anything, too low—but there must be a duty to collect the litter regularly so that people do not go by a litter bin or dump and say "It is much too full; I will just throw it on the ground". I think this is a very important point to keep in mind.
There is one omission from the Bill which I hope will be rectified, if not in this Bill then in the forthcoming Countryside Bill. This concerns fire. All too few places of natural beauty have proper fire precautions, and this is particularly true of common land, as I said a few moments ago. Whether it is possible to do it in this Bill I do not know, but it is something to be considered for the future.
Finally, as has been mentioned, there is the question of safety. As a Vice President of ROSPA I am very anxious to see that these old cars, many of them rusty, and it may be with petrol tanks half full, are removed as soon as possible to prevent the kind of accident—sometimes fatal—which happens to a number of children every year. With those words, I commend this Bill to the House.
5.35 p.m.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: My Lords, I take it that one of our main duties in connection with this admirable Bill, which I join with other speakers in welcoming very heartily, will be to ensure, so far as possible, that its provisions are not evaded. I rise to call attention to the possibility which seems to me to exist of the evasion of Clause 19. I have given notice of the point which I am about to raise to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, though I am afraid that it was rather short notice. It may be that in his reply the noble Lord will be able to set my fears at rest.
A month or two ago I was walking down an unrestricted road in London, and I saw a somewhat aged minicar with
1120
an advertisement on the windscreen. The advertisement indicated that the car was for sale for the sum of £75 and gave the telephone number of the vendor. I do not know whether this way of disposing of an old car is legal under the present law, but I do not think that it would become illegal under the provisions of the Bill we are discussing. I do not believe that a court would hold that a car is abandoned if it is being offered for sale; yet an old car offered for sale, even though it may seem barely saleable, is just as unæsthetic as an old car dumped.
5.37 p.m.
LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, I shall not detain your Lordships very long. I should like to say first of all how glad I am to see this Bill before your Lordships, and how deeply all of us are indebted to the right honourable gentleman who was responsible for its initiation and its progress through another place, and also to the noble Earl who is looking after it in this House. I agree with everything that has been said this afternoon, and your Lordships may well suppose that in that case there is very little else for me to say. That is true, but I have one or two points I should like to make on each Part of the Bill. They are all of them rather similar. They are basically founded on certain anxieties, if I may put it that way.
I am delighted by the provision that local authorities shall be called upon to schedule certain areas in their jurisdiction. I suppose it is inevitable that this task should be put upon the local authorities, but some of us who have had a certain amount of local authority experience cannot feel entirely happy about that attribution of power. It may be—and it has been said here this afternoon—that there are local authorities which are good, and some which are not so good. Within the last few days your Lordships will have heard or read a great deal about the gasometer in Abingdon. I dare say some of your Lordships even went to look at this proposed horror. If you did, I wonder whether you looked at the far more horrible horror, the destruction of the market place in Abingdon, committed, quite happily presumably, with the approval of the planning officer, if of course there is a planning officer. Unfortunately, it is only too true that there are not planning officers in all the local

1121
authorities. But even planning officers are not guaranteed to be right because, unfortunately, they still have to consult their City Fathers—and I expect all your Lordships at one time or another have come across an alderman or a councillor who is quite certain that he, who has lived there all his life, knows best what is needed to improve the outlook and the development of his town. I suspect something of the sort happened in Abingdon.
LORD ILFORD: My Lords, will the noble Lord allow me to interrupt him for a moment, to remind him that one of the major difficulties in the Abingdon case was that the planning authority had no power to prevent the erection of this gasometer?
LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, I am aware of that. It was, of course, the county council. But clearly the county council have a responsibility for the towns in their neighbourhood; and I should have thought that if a strenuous opposition had been put up by the people of Abingdon—who, incidentally, let me say at once, in other connections are an extremely lively and reliable municipality—then I think that the county planning officer would have advised against this destruction and, what is worse, the replacement.
I should like to say one or two words about trees. I am delighted by the proposal that trees, like houses, are to be protected. I am not quite clear how they will be protected because, as your Lordships are aware, a tree which has been damaged by the cutting of its roots, for example, does not die immediately. How long after the erection of the new building or the construction of the new street, or whatever it is, will the builder or contractor be held responsible for the death of a local tree?
I should like to differ slightly from my noble friend Lord Silkin in one respect. I agree with him entirely in regard to a variety of trees, but I am not sure that the Japanese flowering cherry is the answer to every architect's dream. I should have said that though there is a place for such trees (and beautiful they are when properly placed), among buildings something more substantial and something like a forest tree is much more effective and much more to be desired.
1122
I am as pleased as anybody in this House by the proposal to eliminate, if possible, the accretion of refuse. But I do not believe that this will be achieved by refuse dumps. These dumps are a nightmare, a "hideousity", an abomination. They stink, and their appearance is unspeakable. Surely the disposal of refuse has to be considered in the light of modern possibilities. There are instruments which will crush this refuse and render it much more easily disposable. These tools are extremely expensive, costing, I believe, as much as £1 million.
It seems to me perfectly clear that no single local authority can possibly undertake the installation of such an apparatus. It is therefore inevitable that they should be supplied by the central Government, with perhaps one in every area large enough to keep it occupied. I am convinced that this is absolutely essential if this major blight upon the face of our countryside is to be removed and prevented from recurring. I hope that I have not sounded too critical, but that my criticism may be useful. I commend this Bill to your Lordships.
5.45 p.m.
LORD WEDGWOOD: My Lords, I should like to add my thanks and congratulations to the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, for introducing this admirable Bill, which I am sure will go far to meet the needs of the country in dealing with these difficult problems of preservation and the efficient disposal of wasted assets which now so increasingly litter our countryside. I speak as a countryman who believes that this greatest asset we possess is at all times in need of protection, not only for the benefit of those of us who live in it, and therefore have the greater responsibility to protect it, but for the swelling urban population as a whole who seek relaxation and restoration of spiritual values in returning to the natural beauty and tranquility of our British countryside.
We have all experienced in our travels those many happy stops by the roadside, perhaps for a picnic or a short walk to look at the view, and in our ramblings have come across that unsightly junk heap in a corner of a field, or in some hidden quarry or some disused pit; or, in picking our way through the woodland admiring the bluebells or perhaps listening to the bird life, have stumbled over

1123
some rusty old horror, and discovered that the undergrowth is littered as far as the eye can see with all these remnants of earlier mechanical masterpieces. It is not only our own reactions which show disgust and repulsion at this blighting of the landscape; our many visitors from overseas are also repelled by this ever-accumulating evidence of some national lack of civic pride and, until now, by our apparent inability to deal effectively with it.
The noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, referred in his opening speech to the desperately fragile situation on preservation; and the words of the noble Lord, Lord Strang, whom we heard earlier to-day, during a previous debate (on February 23 this year) referred to a "losing battle in defence of the countryside", and the necessity of calling a halt to the "continuing, irreparable spoliation of the dwindling countryside" will be as fresh in your Lordships' minds as they are indeed true of the position to-day. There are also some who may remember an article in a weekend supplement, almost a year ago, which specifically covered many aspects of this spoliation, and showed pictorially the hideousness of these dumps which have been mentioned by so many of your Lordships this afternoon, and stated there the urgency of the situation. So it is indeed most heartening to read the provisions of this Bill before us, and to realise that when they become law they will go such a long way to redress that balance from the losing side nearer to the winning one.
In welcoming this Bill and speaking in its support, I should like to mention one factor—it arises under Part III—which seems to me to be not entirely provided for. That concerns the provisions for the removal from private land which is generally adjacent to public roads of old cars and other mechanical débris for which the landowner cannot really be held responsible. As I understand it, the relevant clauses—Clauses 19, 20, 22 and 23—read to the effect that if a motor vehicle or any other thing is abandoned:
"on any land in the open air or on any other land forming art of a highway"
it is the duty of the authority to remove the vehicle. Or, under Clause 23, they:
"may if they think fit … remove the thing".
1124
This seems to deal effectively with the future as regards the highways, but it does not deal completely with past abandonments on land which may be privately or publicly owned but on which, by reason of its situation, the owner has not been able to prevent refuse dumping. I am not certain, but it may be that there is a gap in the Bill on which it may be difficult to legislate in a suitable manner.
Perhaps the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, has examined this point. I believe that if we are to go forward in what I hope is going to be a national purpose with the passage of this Bill, to preserve and enhance what is very much worth preserving in our countryside and also to clean up the detritus of past years, some greater direction, and possibly financial support, may have to be given to local authorities if they are to tackle dumping grounds where neither the owner of the land can be held responsible for the cost of clearance nor can the last owners of the junk be traced. Perhaps there is a case for the availability of a once-for-all grant to enable local authorities to clear up the squalor of the countryside and for a general direction that this should be done with all possible speed. The noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, referred earlier to this aspect when he mentioned the increased expenses which local authorities might well have to consider, and undoubtedly it might affect their view as to whether they should clear a particular dump or not. Where charges can reasonably be levied, so much the better; but where they cannot be suitably attached then the local authorities should be enabled financially to exercise their powers and "see fit" to remove "the thing". The noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, said that not a word in this Bill could be unintelligible to your Lordships. Perhaps the "thing", although all-embracing, is a little unintelligible.
Certainly I, as one British taxpayer, feel that the expenditure of extra money for clearance is something upon which I should prefer my money to be spent rather than in some other directions, and I suspect that many of your Lordships feel the same. I think there is a problem in who will pay for the clearance of dumps and in the effect that this may have on local government views as to whether they "shall think fit" or not. I hope that this matter can be gone into during

1125
the passage of this wholly admirable Bill, and perhaps the noble Earl will be able to think of a possible solution if he considers, as I hope he does, that these points are worthy of further examination.
5.55 p.m.
LORD RAGLAN: My Lords, in general what this Bill sets out to achieve is excellent, and it is a very great credit to its sponsors who have worked so hard to try to make everybody appreciate our countryscape and townscape and to help make it, and keep it, an agreeable and clean place in which to live. I have some criticisms and suggestions to offer upon the Bill, and some questions to ask, upon which I hope my noble friend will be able to help me when he comes to reply. However good the principles behind Part I of the Bill which seeks to preserve the character of certain areas, I have some reservations.
I feel very cautious about encouraging parts of Britain to be turned into museums. One can go too far. The kind of thing of which I am thinking has already occurred in National Parks. Those who live in them have to abide by some curious rules in regard to, say, the colour and texture that they must make, and keep, their roofs. Some people are charmed by stone-tiled and clay-tiled roofs. My experience of them is that they are awkward, leaky and expensive to maintain; and most slate roofs, are, in my opinion, ugly, leaky and expensive to maintain. The simplest and cheapest form of building material yet invented is concrete asbestos sheet. Yet some people throw a fit if one uses it on a barn, let alone on a house. In one area which I know quite well—not a National Park—farmers have solemnly had to paint their barn roofs with cow dung to hide the offensive whiteness. They are encouraged to have white walls, but not white roofs. To me, there is little æsthetic difference between a white roof, a red roof, and a grey roof.
The trouble is that asbestos cement is a new material, and is associated in people's minds with factories. It is likely that stone tiles were at one time looked upon by some with disfavour when they replaced thatch, which certainly has no virtue in itself, unless it be a certain quaintness. There is no reason why asbestos cement could not be moulded
1126
to look like tiles, though that would really be a little absurd. This is the sort of rule which can—and it is likely will—be made in designated areas, and I hope that the protests of the inhabitants will be listened to and respected by those who seek to impose regulations about something as arbitrary, whimsical, subjective, impracticable and expensive as æsthetic tastes and opinions can be. That our countryside looks like it does is very largely accidental. One must appreciate that it is, and always has been, changing, and we must mind what we are about if we try to freeze it in any one position.
Historic buildings are a different matter, for there are rarely doubts about what one is trying to preserve, and there are grants for upkeep and replacements. Here I think that we should make it as certain as we can that an historic building, once listed, is maintained as well as it reasonably can be maintained. It appears to me that amendment to the Bill might profitably be made to help towards this end. The first is in regard to Clause 2 where, perhaps rightly, an offence is committed where it is proved that the person charged did not know, and could not reasonably be expected to have known, that the building preservation order in question had been made. I do not know the procedure at the moment as to how a new owner is informed that his purchase is designated or listed. It would be much less easy to plead ignorance if the designation were entered in the conveyance, and perhaps on the deeds. The same could and should apply to tree preservation orders under Part II. In both cases entering the designation order on the deeds would have the additional virtue of fairness, for a prospective owner would be almost certain to be informed or warned thereby.
The next amendment which I should like to make is one to cover the case of somebody who buys a property which is listed as being of historic interest or as an ancient monument, and who just lets it fall to pieces by neglect. Clause 3 of the Bill refers to:
"any person who, but for this section, would be entitled to do so, does or permits the doing of any act which causes or is likely to result in damage to the building"
and so on. So what the clause says is that if he does something, he can be prosecuted; it does not say that if he

1127
does nothing, he can be prosecuted. Neglect and injudicious treatment are mentioned in Clause 10 of the 1953 Act, but in that case the Minister has to be told by the Ancient Monuments Board that the building is being neglected, when he can serve an interim preservation notice on the owner.
What can happen though, and I suspect it is happening at the moment in a case of which I know, is that someone can purchase a house and grounds, perhaps in a strategic place on the edge of a town or in the middle of a town. He purchases it at a reduced price because it is listed as being of historic interest. He can let it fall down because nobody from the Ancient Monuments Board happens to come round, and can then claim an absurdly high grant to put the place in order. When that is refused because the place is not worth it, he may successfully apply to pull it down and put houses there instead. I do not know how one could word a suitable Amendment which applied to houses but did not necessarily apply to ruins, but some way should be found to do it, and it should be an owner's duty, so far as is reasonable, to see that his ancient monument does not fall into decay.
Before I leave the matter of buildings, I wonder whether my noble friend could enlighten me on this point. Under the Leasehold Reform Bill estates which have so far been managed by responsible landlords will be split up. Crescents and terraces and squares may have been painted uniformly by the landlords, but on enfranchisement each tenant will be free to paint his house any colour he likes. Even one freeholder can absolutely ruin such a terrace by painting his house a different colour. I want to know whether Part I can be made to cover this matter.
I have some questions about Part III, To relieve the towns and countryside of old vehicles and other ironmongery would be splendid, but it may not be easy or cheap, because, however quickly motor cars appear to disintegrate in normal use, they need professional attention and large and costly machinery to destroy them entirely at the end of their lives. The noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, has mentioned the various machines for scrapping and baling. I should like to know
1128
how local authorities will be expected to cope with and dispose of old cars and scrap which they will be collecting, and how they will be encouraged to form a syndicate to buy the huge balers which will otherwise be beyond their means. Perhaps I have asked too many questions, and the remainder are really Committee points.
Finally, I should like to say that I wish the public would learn to be more tidy-minded. By that I do not mean that the whole country should be clinically cleaned, with everything trimmed and regimented neatly in rows. I should not like to see it like that, because that sort of tidiness is only for cemeteries. I am talking of the public being tidier about litter. On the day I first read this Bill I was sitting in my car at the traffic lights where Beauchamp Place joins Brompton Road, and a woman came out of a shop with a small, empty jar in her hand. It might have contained boot polish or face cream. Quite deliberately, she bent down and put it into the gutter and then she dusted her hands and walked back into the shop. I was flabbergasted but I was too pushed for time to do anything about it. But that woman, after all these years, still thought that the gutter was the natural repository for rubbish. Others think that over the hedge is the best place. I wish that somehow we could succeed in educating people into thinking otherwise.
6.5 p.m.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, I owe the House an apology for not having heard the whole of this debate, and I rise only to put a point very shortly. I told my noble friend the substance of it, but I confess that I find it very difficult indeed to work out, because this legislation and other legislation to which I propose to refer in a moment follow on a number of amending Acts and the like, and one really does not know where one is in the whole matter.
If I am right, the Minister of Works is still the guardian of a number of ancient monuments, and there are arrangements as to their preservation and the like in the Historic Buildings and Ancient Monuments Act 1953. Though there have been some changes made, that, in substance, is still the position. If I read the Act rightly, I do not think

1129
it includes buildings occupied as dwellings by anybody other than the caretaker, but it does include a great many buildings which, had they been occupied, would possibly have been a subject for the Bill which we are now considering.
I should like very much to know—not now, because this is not a question which one can expect any Minister to answer without notice—what is the position about ancient monuments and ancient buildings in this country. What are the respective jurisdictions and functions of the Ministry of Housing and the Ministry of Works? I notice in one part of this Bill, in a clause which deals with loans in lieu of grants in certain cases, a reference to "any Minister", and I think the legislation says that "any Minister" may include the Minister of Works. I rise to mention this, because when I was in another place I had to do with some of this legislation in Committee, and I remember that at that time there was double jurisdiction, which no doubt had a historical foundation but which seemed to have little administrative sense about it. I am rather disappointed to see that there is no attempt to deal with that question—if, as I suspect, it still exists—in a very useful Bill for which time has been found. That is really all I want to ask.
I should like to add that this does not apply to Scotland, because Scotland has a Secretary of State who is, as it were, a Prime Minister without a Cabinet, and the whole thing is co-ordinated in the Scottish Office—at least, I hope it is. I am not quite certain about Wales. Certain functions have been transferred to Wales lately, and there may or may not be a similar difficulty there. But it is a very real point. It has gone on like this for very many years indeed, simply because nobody has ever faced up to the question of trying to see what was the most economical and sensible way of dealing with the preservation of ancient monuments and buildings as a whole in the country.
6.9 p.m.
LORD OAKSHOTT: My Lords, I apologise to your Lordships that at this late hour I should intervene in this debate without notice, but I can assure you that it will be for only a very few minutes. I am wholeheartedly in support of this Bill and I would, if I may, respectfully
1130
add my congratulations to my noble friend Earl Jellicoe and to my right honourable friend Mr. Sandys; and, indeed, not only congratulations but warm thanks, too, for tackling this problem at last. I am, if I may say so, especially attracted by the concept in Part I of the conservation and preservation of areas as opposed to single, particular houses. I am sure that this is a very big step forward in what we are trying to do.
Mention is made a good deal in this Bill about local authorities. I wonder whether I might ask the noble Lord, Lord Kennet: what is the real position of the area of Whitehall? In introducing the Second Reading of this Bill this afternoon, my noble friend mentioned this, I think, on one occasion. If I remember rightly, it is not a matter in which a local authority has any jurisdiction at all, but is a matter for the Government of the day. The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, probably knows what I have at the back of my mind in asking that question. I remember that some years ago, in another place, there was a great deal of discussion and some controversy regarding the future of the Foreign Office, and at Question Time I asked the then Minister of Works, Mr. Geoffrey Rippon, when it was their intention to pull down the Horse Guards. That was not quite as silly as it sounds, because if you are thinking about the preservation of buildings, and if a building like the Foreign Office is sacrificed, then long after the reaper has caught up with all of us here, in perhaps fifty years' time, someone is going to come along and say, "The Horse Guards does not fit this area, in these particular surroundings; therefore, that must come down too." I believe that a decision in principle may have been taken about the future of the Foreign Office, but I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, that he should not regard this pass as completely sold, and that if we are thinking about preservation and conservation this should be high on the list.
I do not know how in a field like this I dare even comment on anything which may have been said by the noble Lord, Lord Holford, to whom the country owes so much for all his work, thought and ideas, but he said something during his speech to-day which worried me a little, if I understood him correctly. He was talking in the context, I think, of

1131
public buildings, and I understood him to say that these old, beautiful buildings, with wonderful sculpture, flying buttresses and so on, which were built in the past, were models of discomfort and inconvenience inside, whereas the new buildings which were going up had all the amenities and comforts inside that they very rightly should have. This worried me a little, because I cannot see why one cannot have both the convenience and the amenity inside and the beauty outside as well; for I have the fear that posterity is not readily going to forgive this generation for some of the things which we have perpetrated in our time.
May I say one word about Part II? The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, referred to the beauty of trees—and how right he is! He spoke of the need for elasticity (I think that was the word he used) in the approach to this problem of replanting and so on, and I am sure he is right about that. I also agree absolutely with what the noble Lord, Lord Faringdon, said a few minutes ago, when he remarked that the flowering cherry is not the answer to everything, and when he also remarked upon the desirability of planting forest trees.
It is conceivable, when you are considering replanting, that there may be some commercial considerations as well. I would therefore express the hope—and perhaps my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, may think this worthy of consideration—that the Forestry Commission should be brought in to advise on the species most suitable for replanting in any given area. They have the experience and the knowledge, and I cannot think of a better body to advise on what would be a very important decision over replanting, and one which will affect for many years to come the area in which the planting is to take place. I therefore hope that this suggestion may be thought worth while considering. Having said that, I would once again say how very strongly I support this Bill.
6.15 p.m.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, perhaps I may start by taking up some of the stray points, as it were, and work backwards through them. The noble Lord, Lord Oakshott, asked about the position of Whitehall. The position is that it
1132
is a street in the area of the Greater London Council and in the City of Westminster, and most of it is Government property. There is the Whitehall Plan, which was inherited from the Conservative Government, and reaffirmed by this Government; and part of that Plan, which was laid down for the consultants before they were hired, was the demolition of the Foreign Office. I believe that the demolition of the Foreign Office and new building on that site is not among the first things which are to be done under this Plan. The general situation of Government property, as the House well knows, is that, although Crown property is exempt from the planning law, there is a procedure whereby consultations are held between the owning Department and the local authorities concerned, so that in effect very much the same thing happens as would happen if planning law were applied in its full public rigour.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord on that particular point? Am I right in thinking that, with the qualification he has made about the particular ownership of the public buildings in Whitehall, there would be nothing against the London borough council concerned and the G.L.C. together designating Whitehall, if they so wished, as a conservation area?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I can think of nothing against it on the spur of the moment, and the observations of the Greater London Council on the Whitehall Plan are, as the House knows, already in the hands of the Government.
My noble friend Lord Mitchison asked me about the relationship between the Ministry of Works and the Ministry of Housing and Local Government in this field. I will, if he wishes, give him a full and proper answer later on, when I have had time to prepare it. Generally speaking, there are in the country ancient monuments, which stem from legislation beginning in 1913, and there are buildings listed as of architectural and historical interest, which stem from legislation dated 1944. Normally, the ancient monument is uninhabited. It may be a ruined abbey—that kind of thing. But not all are uninhabited: some are inhabited. I could find out later the precise proportions. Always, I think, the

1133
listed building is inhabited. Until last year the control of listed buildings was in the hands of the Minister of Housing and Local Government, but the funds for their maintenance were in the hands of the Minister of Works, and the control of ancient monuments was in the hands of the Minister of Works. What has happened recently is that the funds for the maintenance of listed buildings have been transferred from the Minister of Works to the Minister of Housing and Local Government. There is a faintly tricky boundary line here, but I must say that in practice it does not give us too much trouble. We work closely together and the two sets of powers are handled together.
The noble Lord, Lord Raglan, asked about the effect of leasehold enfranchisement upon estates which are largely leasehold and which all look nice because they are painted the same colour. We can go into this question in greater detail when the Leasehold Bill comes before us, as it shortly will, but this point has been thought of, I am glad to say, and when a leasehold estate is broken up, or partially broken up, by enfranchisement what will happen is this. We all have in mind great estates, especially in London, where this will apply. The freeholder will apply to the Minister of Housing and Local Government for a declaration that his estate has been a well-managed estate. If he obtains this declaration, which should not be too difficult to obtain, he will then arrive at a scheme of management which will be adhered to by both himself, as residual freeholder in houses which have not been enfranchised, and by the new freeholders in houses which have been so enfranchised. This will be a unified scheme of management; and this will then have to be approved by the court. I think we need have no fear that Belgravia or the Cadogan Estates are going to burst out in a rash of pink and green paint. This provision in the Leasehold Bill is designed, at any rate, to ensure this.
My Lords, as many speakers have recognised, Part I of this Bill carries us beyond the concept of the "single gem" towards the concept of the whole area, or zone, in a town or village. Not that the Bill has nothing to say about single gems: it was only last year that the owner of a
1134
14th century manor house near Solihull, in the Midlands, illegally knocked it down and was duly fined £100. I am not precisely informed of how much the deal was worth to him; but I believe it was considerably more than 100 times as much as the fine he paid. Under this Bill, he could be fined a sum equal to or—there is no ceiling—above whatever profit he got out of the new development on the site of that 14th century manor house.
This is Part I and it sets the tone of the Bill. It introduces an altogether more determined era in the planning of these matters. The noble Lord, Lord Raglan, asked me two very interesting questions. He asked whether the fact that a building was listed ought not to appear on the title deeds of that building and so be immediately apparent to any future purchaser. It does, of course, appear on the Land Register, or, in Scotland, on the Register of Sasines; so, if the would-be purchaser makes an ordinary search, he will find out. It may be that he does not make the ordinary search and will never know. As a "snap" reaction, my view is that it is probably enough as it stands, but I will look at it again.
The noble Lord's other interesting suggestion was about wilful neglect and decay. The Bill copes with the owner of a listed building who deliberately removes a tile. He can now be ordered to put it back, and can be prosecuted if he does not. But what about the owner who deliberately sits back and twiddles his thumbs, hoping that the tiles will fall off themselves—as of course they always do. And when that happens the building decays and is lost. I think this is a most interesting suggestion. I am not sure what the right answer would be. If the noble Lord feels like putting down an Amendment on this point, with exploratory intent, I should welcome it.
The noble Lord, Lord Hailes, inquired about the effect of the provision that the Historic Buildings Council will be able to give loans as well as grants in future. I do not know whether he had in mind the possibility that this was the thin end of a wedge tending towards a reduction. of the total sum of money available for the Minister to expend on the advice of the noble Lord's Council. That is not the idea at all. It is to give the Minister increased flexibility in his operations. There are many cases where a loan would do the trick and where a grant would

1135
not be necessary. The provision is there only in order to allow that to happen. I should like to say at this point how grateful my right honourable friend is, as were his predecessors, for the work done for a long time by the noble Lord, Lord Hailes, as Chairman of the Historic Buildings Council, and the noble Lord, Lord Holford as chairman of what is now a sub-committee of it, on the actual technical criteria to be adopted when buildings are listed.
A provision in the Bill which has not been noticed—it is a small one, but it makes a beneficial change—is that a local authority can now acquire buildings compulsorily for the purpose of preservation whether or not they have a building preservation order on them. This means that all the 102,000 buildings on the statutory lists can now be compulsorily acquired by the local authorities for that purpose. I do not suppose they will acquire many. Unfortunately they will not have the funds. But this introduces yet another area of flexibility. The bringing of parsonages within the ambit of the planning laws is another clear advance. As a matter of fact, I think everybody in the Ministries concerned believed that they were within it. "An ecclesiastical building in ecclesiastical use", which is the term used in the Planning Act, sounds like a church. But, lo and behold! a court one day decided that it also covered a parsonage; that this was an "ecclesiastical use". We were surprised; everybody was surprised. The anomaly is now rectified.
But, my Lords, the great point of this Bill is the establishment of the conservation area. The Bill for the first time gives statutory effect to this idea of group value. We have all pointed it out. This is the biggest advance of all. The noble Lord, Lord Strang, took exception to the weakness of the words which bind the local authorities, having designated an area, simply to "have regard to the desirability of maintaining and enhancing" and so on. He said that it would have been better to bind them to "maintain and enhance". This is an interesting proposal. I should like to consider it between now and the Committee stage. One can see pitfalls in it; but I agree that to "have regard to the desirability
1136
of" is not as strong language as it might be.
Many noble Lords have asked the question that arises after an authority has designated its area: What is it supposed to do about it? What does the Minister propose to do about it? What are the powers of direction he has? Basically, it is to be up to the local authority to decide what to do about it; and I think everybody conversant with this field realises that the great problem is how much money they have with which to do it—money for paying out grants and, let us face it, for hiring skilled staff to decide what is the best thing to do. I hope that the local authorities will designate rather a lot of land, large areas; that they will be rather liberal. The fact that the area is designated is not in itself going to provide the money to do the necessary jobs; but we hope that in the future the money will come along. Then the area will be there and the thought and the planning will be ready to match with the money when it does come along.
I hope the local authorities will designate not simply the High Street, the little mediæval yards, the obvious bits. I hope they will designate whole quarters of towns and, in some cases, whole towns within the walls. I hope that they will designate Victorian quarters, good Victorian development, with fine streets which are still untouched and which should remain untouched. I hope that they will designate villages. I hope that they will have some liberality of designation in this field.
They are not going to be without advice. My right honourable friend will be publishing later this year a book called Preservation and Change—a title familiar to many noble Lords who work in this field. It has been in preparation for a long time. It contains the background doctrine about how to reconcile what is old and good with the need to develop new and good things. It is not technical; it is in no sense mandatory. It is simply background information, and it contains a mass of pictures of things well done and things badly done. The Minister, soon after the Bill passes, will also send out to local authorities a circular which will contain much more concrete advice on how to proceed. Between now and then I shall be in touch—I hope in continuous touch—with the

1137
Civic Trust and the Historic Buildings Council on what ought to go in the circular.
Lastly, my Lords, on the question of direction. My noble friend Lord Silkin asked whether there could not be a Schedule to the Bill saying what the Minister could give directions about. I should be rather against that. I think it would be better to leave it open, as far as the Bill is concerned. The circular is going to contain hints of circumstances which might give rise to ministerial direction. The obvious circumstances is the case where one local authority do nothing for "x" months. It may then he necessary for the Minister to prod them. One can imagine (although if the circular is widely drafted it should not arise) an awkward disparity of standards between one local authority and another. If there is not a corporate body of wisdom developed in time, one local authority might put down dozens or hundreds of small conservation areas and others might put down one or two simply enormous ones. This situation ought to be avoided and we shall help the authorities to avoid it.
Despite all the good advice that Lord Hailes and Lord Holford have given successive Ministers, and despite the existing powers—which are insufficient; and this Bill goes some way to rectify them—we are at present legally losing listed buildings at the rate of rather more than one each day, including Sundays—that is, about 400 a year. I do not know how long it takes, on average, to knock down an old building, but if we say that it takes a week, we must imagine that somewhere in this country there are seven listed buildings being legally knocked down.
We can improve the powers—we are improving them; this Bill is doing it. Everybody hopes that in due course we shall be able to increase what is known in the trade as the H.B.C. slice. At present it is running at £450,000. The noble Lord, Lord Hailes, compared that with the amount of money available for the live arts and museums, which is considerably more, and the contrast strikes one in the face. In time it will be increased, but I do not know when. I think that even when it is increased to any considerable amount there will still
1138
be a gap between the cost of building and letting or selling new building, and the cost of restoring, repairing and maintaining and letting or selling an historic building.
We must develop planning procedures—and this we are working on hard with the local authorities at the moment—to direct the right amount of wealth into the historic quarters of our towns; not too much, otherwise you "bust" them up and the pressure for skyscrapers becomes irresistible; not too little, otherwise the buildings decay, people simply go elsewhere, and the buildings fall down. I am not without hope that we may, in time, develop planning procedures with wisdom and experience and hit it just about right in most of our historic towns. I hope we shall get the right amount of wealth by normal planning Bills, by channelling the wealth here, there and elsewhere; with industrial development in one place, transport in another, and so on, so that we can make a living concern of these historic centres without knocking them down.
Various things will have to be done beyond the Civic Amenities Bill. We should look ahead to future legislation. The Minister has under consideration at the moment various provisions which could go in a later Bill, in particular the matter of the compensation payable to a householder who is denied permission to knock down his old house and build something more profitable. At present a local authority acquiring a listed building for the purposes of preservation has to pay not only compensation for the value of the building being acquired, which is normal, but also compensation for the value resident in the very development it is preventing. It says to the vendor, "The development you propose is anti-social, but still we will compensate you for not being allowed to do it". This matter is under consideration.
My Lords, I turn now to Parts II and III of the Bill where there is a reference to trees. I do not want to take the House in detail through the Bill because the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, did that. The noble Lord, Lord Faringdon, inquired how long after new development a developer might be held to be liable to replace a tree if it had died, after some delay, because the roots had been cut.

1139
The answer is that there is no limitation on the period. If a tree dies, the local authority may decide that it was due to the developer having been careless about the roots, and take appropriate steps. If the developer argued, the matter would have to be settled by the courts. There is no limitation.
I turn now to the question of rubbish. The noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, inquired about the most interesting case of a car bearing a "For Sale" sign which had been placed in a street. Many factors would have to be taken into consideration. Quite likely the car would not be licensed, and if that were so it would he an offence to leave it about. The "For Sale" notice might be bogus. Under the provisions in this Bill a local authority might take the trouble to follow up the offer for sale and if the notice was bogus the car might be held to be abandoned. It would then be caught under the Bill.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: My Lords, would it not be difficult to prove to a court that the sale notice was a bogus one?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I think it an obvious conclusion that it would be difficult indeed, but the short answer to the question is that to put a "For Sale" notice on a car which is in the street, whether the vehicle is stationary or moving, is not in itself an offence; nor is it in itself—nor will it be in itself—proof that a car has not been abandoned. in the terms of the provisions of this Bill.
Several noble Lords expressed fears about stinking rubbish dumps and asked whether large new rubbish dumps would appear because of the provisions in the Bill. Of course, nothing in the Bill changes the existing public health provisions about rubbish dumps, and nothing, in the Bill—I profoundly hope and confidently believe—will change the standards which local authorities observe about rubbish dumps. All it is intended to do is stimulate local authorities to provide rubbish dumps, especially for the enormous things. and especially for cars and "things", by the way, is intended to be interpreted very largely as parts of cars, It is intended to stimulate local authorities to provide places where these may
1140
be taken and left. I hope and suppose that the fears about an increased incidence of bad dumps in the country because of this Bill will not prove justified.
The noble Lord, Lord Auckland, inquired about what would happen in Scotland, especially in the case of the poorer local authorities. I should perhaps say that everything in the Bill applies to Scotland and there are poor local authorities in England as well. The provisions in the Bill have the welcome and blessing of the Scottish local authorities' associations. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Hughes will look at the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, and if necessary will make a further statement, or observations, about them when we come to deal with the relevant clause in Committee.
Lastly, my Lords, I would join with virtually every other speaker in congratulating and thanking the "father" of the Bill, Mr. Sandys, and, shall we say, its "uncle" the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, who brought it before your Lordships' House. For me it has been a great pleasure to work with Mr. Sandys and with the Civic Trust in the drafting of the Bill, and I look forward with equal confidence to its being a pleasure in the future to work with the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, during the Committee stage. My Lords, the Government give this Bill 100 per cent. support. We are confident that it is an excellent measure and that it will mark a turning point in the history of attempts by Private Members in another place and Members of your Lordships' House, and Governments, to make this country an even nicer place to live in than it is at present.
6.36 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I shall detain your Lordships for only a moment. I should like to thank all those noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. They have brought a very wide experience and much particular expertise to our discussions. I would particularly thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, for his informative and constructive remarks. I shall certainly undertake to consider very carefully—and those are not light words—between now and the Committee stage the specific suggestions which have been made. It is obvious that I may count on the continued advice of the noble

1141
Lord, Lord Kennet, and the ingenuity of the Parliamentary draftsmen. In conclusion, I should like to thank your Lordships for the reception which you have accorded to this Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

ROAD SAFETY BILL
6.38 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Road Safety Bill, has consented to place Her interest, so far as it is concerned on behalf of the Crown at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a. —(Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments.
Clause 2:
Breath tests
2.—(1) A constable in uniform may require any person driving or attempting to drive a motor vehicle on a road or other public place to provide a specimen of breath for a breath test there or nearby, if the constable has reasonable cause—

(a) to suspect him of having alcohol in his body; or

(b) to suspect him of having committed a traffic offence while the vehicle was in motion.

LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD moved to add to subsection (1):
"Provided that no requirement may be made by virtue of paragraph (b) of this subsection unless it is made as soon as reasonably practicable after the commission of the traffic offence".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the House will remember that both in Committee and on Report the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, and the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, raised a doubt regarding Clause 2(1)(b), which provides for a driver to be required to provide a specimen of his breath for a
1142
breath test if a constable has reasonable cause to suspect him of having committed a traffic offence while his vehicle was in motion.
The noble Lord, Lord Conesford, said during the Committee stage, that although everyone assumed that this referred to a recent traffic offence, after careful examination of the words it was possible to construe them as a reference to an offence committed some weeks, and perhaps some years, previously. I expressed an objection to the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, that we should include the word "recent", because I took the view that it might increase our difficulties, in that we could be directing the attention of the police to the fact that it could be a recent offence in the sense that it could have been committed some weeks before. It is clearly the intention of the Government that there should be some direct relation between the moving traffic offence and the amount of alcohol in the body. I was pressed by noble Lords at the end of the Committee stage to undertake to see what could be done. This Amendment is the result.
It is not a perfect formula, because I do not believe that a perfect formula is possible. We could lay down a rigid time limit, but this would be arbitrary and would inevitably lead to anomalies. On the other hand, a more general indication of what Parliament have in mind could be open to different interpretations and hence make the task of the courts more difficult. If this Amendment is accepted, it could still be argued that there could be difficulties in exceptional cases where it is not reasonably practical for the police to take the required test for several hours, or even for several days, because they had failed to catch the driver at the time of the offence or soon after. The police will still have the advice of the Home Secretary to guide them.
The Amendment will make it clear that there is no question of the police having an unlimited power to apply a breath test to any driver who has committed a moving traffic offence. It therefore reduces the possibility of a perverse employment or interpretation of the subsection. My advisers and I have worked hard to see whether we could meet noble Lords. I will be frank and say that this is not so good as I should like it to be,

1143
but in all the circumstances it is the best that we can do. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 33, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Shepherd.)
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord and his advisers for the work they have done to meet the arguments put forward by my noble friend and myself on this matter. It is not an easy problem. I think that the Amendment which the noble Lord has moved is better than he made it appear to the House, and I support it. The real value of the Amendment is that it gives an indication to the courts as to the way in which this clause should be interpreted. I think it will be useful to have this guidance to the police as to how they should operate these powers, but that is no substitute for a Statute providing what it is intended to provide. Without this Amendment, there is really no guidance to the courts who are to adjudicate on this matter, guidance which would enable them to say that paragraph (b) would not apply, even though it might be that the offence had taken place six months or a year before. With this Amendment, it is clear that there must be a close relationship between the commission of an offence while the vehicle was in motion and the driver being stopped by the police for a breath test to be taken. As the noble Lord knows, I should be against any specific limitation of time, and I think this Amendment is just about right. I conclude as I began, by thanking the noble Lord for the time and trouble he has taken to meet this point.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, may I give a passing sigh over the fact that when a master of the English language like my noble friend Lord Conesford thinks that there is something to be achieved by inserting the word "recent", it takes three lines in practice to achieve this result? May I make one brief suggestion? The Amendment is a proviso to a subsection which enables a police constable to act on suspicion, but the proviso itself appears to abandon the concept of suspicion, because it says that the police constable has to act reasonably quickly "after the commission of the traffic offence", making it appear as
1144
though the constable does not act lawfully unless an offence has actually been committed, which I think is not the intention. I think it would have been better to have inserted the word "suspected" in the proviso, so as to make it read:
"after the suspected commission of the traffic offence",
making it clear that the proviso, as well as the subsection to which it applies, still deals with a case of reasonable suspicion. But it is rather late in the day to be putting forward a suggestion of this kind.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I have been conscious for some time that the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, wished to share the cloak of the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, as a protector of the English language, particularly so far as legislation is concerned. I assure him that the words I have suggested in this Amendment, which the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, has so warmly supported, are not to be classed with the original suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Conesford. We have moved a good distance away from "recent". I am grateful to the noble Lord for having drawn my attention to his point about inspection before we commenced proceedings, and I have been in touch with the Parliamentary draftsmen. I would explain that although the words on the Marshalled List give the appearance of being a separate power, they follow immediately after the word "motion", so that the subsection would read:
"…if the constable has reasonable cause … (b) to suspect him of having committed a traffic offence while the vehicle was in motion, provided that no requirement be made …"
I am advised that the word "suspect" at the beginning of that sentence is sufficient, and that there is no need for a second "suspect". I hope that explanation will satisfy the noble Lord.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 9 [Determination of plated weights and other particulars, and goods vehicle tests.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS (LORD WINTERBOTTOM): My Lords, I beg to move the Amendment standing in the name of my noble friend. This Amendment is the product of the continuous

1145
process of consultation that is going on. Clause 9(8) provides a penalty for the driver who fails to comply with the requirement of subsection (6)(c)(ii), the driver who fails to be present when required during the examination of his vehicle, or fails to drive it when directed to do so, or fails to operate the controls if directed by the examiner.
This is a case where the interests of the owner and the driver may be different. The driver may have little interest in his job or vehicle and therefore may refuse to collaborate with the examiner. The flow of work along the testing lines will be delayed, and therefore this cannot be allowed. On the other hand, it is conceivable that a driver may wish to absent himself from his vehicle without being able to ask permission of the examiner, who himself may be absent. One can see this sort of situation arising if there was an epidemic of gastric 'flu and both had to be absent from their places. The Amendment leaves sufficient flexibility in the regulations so that in such circumstances the driver does not automatically render himself liable to a penalty under subsection (8). This is the aim of the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 45, after ("thereof") insert ("being a contravention which is declared by the regulations to be an offence").—(Lord Winterbottom.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 13 [Supplementary provisions]:
LORD WINTERBOTTOM LORD WINTERBOTTOM moved, after subsection (1), to insert as a new subsection:
"(2) Without prejudice to any regulations made by virtue of section 9(6)(c) of this Act, as applied by this section, the Minister may give directions with respect to the manner in which examinations to which such regulations apply are to be carried out".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a simple drafting Amendment. It is designed to achieve uniformity between the provisions of Clause 9, which deals with plating and testing examinations for pre-type approval vehicles and non-type approval vehicles, and the provision of Clause 13, which covers, among other things, examinations for replating a type approved vehicle on which a notified alteration affecting a plated weight has been made. In regulations for the purpose of
1146
such examinations under Clause 13 examination procedures laid down in Clause 9 may be imported, but no provision exists at present in the Bill for the Minister to give examiners directions, as he can give under Clause 9(7), as to the manner in which examination is to be carried out. If the power is given to the Minister for examination in Clause 9, the same power ought logically to be given to him where under Clause 13 he applies Clause 9 procedure to an examination. This is an Amendment to achieve consistency between Clauses 9 and 13. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 45, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Winterbottom.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 18 [Operators' duty to inspect, and keep records of inspections of, goods vehicles]:
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, this is a simple drafting Amendment designed to make it clear that not more than one person is essential for the purpose of inspections under Clause 18. We are not foreseeing groups of people examining vehicles; one will be sufficient. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 24, line 41 leave out ("suitably qualified persons") and insert ("a suitably qualified person").—(Lord Winterbottom.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 19 [Licensing of drivers of heavy goods vehicles]:
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I move Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 together. These are pure drafting Amendments. The subsections, as drafted, refer to "area" when meaning "traffic area". Since the full term "traffic area" is used elsewhere in the Bill, and defined in Clause 29, these Amendments are moved for the sake of consistency. I beg to move Amendment No. 5.
Amendment moved—
Page 26, line 35, after second ("the") insert ("traffic").—(Lord Winterbottom.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 6.
Amendment moved—
Page 27, line 28, after second ("the") insert ("traffic").—(Lord Winterbottom.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 29 [Supplemental]:
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Raglan has achieved a right and left here without knowing it. At the Report stage of the Bill, his Amendment leaving out the word "again" was accepted. If this is correct, the word "again" in Clause 29(3)(b) is equally unnecessary and could be confusing. It is therefore proposed to leave it out. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 35, line 1, leave out ("again").—(Lord Winterbottom.)
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, I think this proves that, when it comes to the English language, all the purists are not on this side of the House.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 33 [Short title, citation, commencement and extent]:
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, this Amendment is merely simplification. Clause 33(4) at present provides that:
"This Act, except so much of section 6 as relates to persons subject to service discipline within the meaning of that section, does not extend to Northern Ireland."
With the Amendment I am now moving the Bill will read:
"This Act, except as provided by section 6, does not extend to Northern Ireland."
I am certain that this is an improvement. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 36, line 21, leave out from ("except") to end of line 22 and insert ("as provided by section 6").—(Lord Winterbottom.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I should like to take Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 together. This again is an attempt to bring order into the Bill. Parliamentary draftsmen like sections to run in numerical order. This brings sections 185,
1148
193 and 195 in the right order in the Bill when it is printed. It is apparently desirable. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 37, line 11, at end insert—
("3. In section 185(1), for the reference to section 184 there shall be substituted a reference to section 16 of this Act").—(Lord Winterbottom.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I beg to move No. 10.
Amendment moved—
Page 37, line 14, leave out paragraph 4.—(Lord Winterbottom.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass. This is an important Bill, shortly to become an Act, and I should like to say a few words before we part with it. First of all, I wish to express my great appreciation to the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, and his noble friends who took part in the processes of the Bill, either in debate or in Divisions. I should like to express appreciation also to the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, for his persistent examination of the drafting of the Bill. I could not help thinking, when I saw some of the Amendments, that the Parliamentary draftsman, apart from being a very good Parliamentary draftsman, also had a sense of humour, and was able to spot some of his own defects, which were defects that had escaped the notice of the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, and put them right. I am grateful, too, to the noble Lord, Lord Molson, for having moved an Amendment in Committee, which we were later able to accept on Report and which empowers constables to arrest without a warrant any person driving while disqualified.
It is interesting that, although we may have had some disputes on one or two parts of the Bill, at no stage has there been any question of the need for this legislation. Part II of the Bill certainly will bring about a major improvement in our goods vehicles. I believe it will lead to far better designs, and this may well contribute to our export trade. But Part I, dealing with drink and driving, which will affect all our social habits, has

1149
perhaps been more in our minds than Part II.
I should like to give your Lordships some recent statistics, because they have a bearing on the reason why this Bill is thought to be necessary, and why the public should regard this Bill, when it becomes an Act, as something that must be abided by. The Government have asked for laboratory tests to be carried out on drivers or riders killed in road accidents to discover their blood alcohol concentration. More recently this arrangement has been extended to cover all road users. Results for December, 1966, are complete, and we have a large proportion of those relating to the first quarter of this year.
In December, 1966, nearly half of the drivers and riders killed had been drinking. Over the whole period, December to March, 2 in 5 of those for whom we have reports had been drinking. Significantly, two-thirds of those who had been drinking had blood alcohol levels above the prescribed limit of 80 mg., and nearly half in excess of 150 mg. It is too soon to draw firm conclusions from this exercise, except perhaps that these latest figures suggest no improvement over previous results obtained by the Road Research Laboratory. Nor do they give us any grounds to suppose that British drivers behave differently after they have been drinking than do those drivers who have been subject to detailed studies in other countries.
Until recently it had not been possible to estimate the proportion of accidents which would not have happened if none of the drivers involved had been drinking, but as a result of studies carried out in Canada, in Czechoslovakia and recently at Grand Rapids in Michigan, accurate estimates can be made. If no one ever drove after drinking, then at least 20,000 casualties could be saved each year. And since we know that 80 per cent. of accidents due to drink are caused by drivers whose blood alcohol level is above the prescribed limit, we can also say that if no one ever broke the new law at least 18,000 casualties could be saved. We recognise that it is perhaps too much to expect that this law will never be broken, but a very similar law introduced in Austria resulted in a reduction by one-third in the number of accidents due to drink. If we apply this
1150
saving of one-third to the estimated savings in casualties which I have already mentioned, we think that, at the very least, we could save in a year 150 lives, 2,000 serious casualties and 4,000 other casualties. My Lords, this is the minimum. Surely, to avoid at least this toll of lives needlessly lost or shattered it is well worth making the changes in our social habits which this Bill calls for.
I recognise that in the early stages of the operation of the Bill there will be hardship, there will be a sense of anger, and certainly the Minister responsible is not going to add to her popularity because of it. But I would ask the House, and the country, to weigh up this factor. We can all enjoy ourselves at parties and in public houses and the like; we can all take a drink. But we are not forced to take a car to the party, to the public house or to the place of entertainment.
A new sense, a new discipline, is required. It will be an inconvenience, but I hope that the country and those people who will complain will weigh up that moment of inconvenience to them compared to the saving in the first instance of 150 lives, and, perhaps just as important, the saving of those 2,000 seriously injured. We have only to go to our casualty wards to see the shattered bodies that are brought to them. I hope that those people who may complain because their convenience is in some way affected—their pleasures are not; their convenience is—will weigh that up, and I hope the country will co-operate with the authorities in the enforcement and the administration of this Bill. I hope that we who have taken part in the proceedings on this Bill will be able to say that we have taken part in a step that will have a major effect in reducing this terrible toll upon our roads.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Shepherd.)
7.5 p.m.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, the figures which the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has just given us are most impressive, and confirm as nothing else could the confidence we in this House place on this Bill as a contribution to reducing the incidence of accidents on our roads. As he mentioned, the Bill is all the better for going through this House,

1151
particularly in terms of Clause 30, to which the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, referred. Now we must wait and see the effectiveness of Part I, and must overcome the difficulties, legal and medical, and the technical difficulties, which are certain to arise from the application of the Bill and the prosecutions thereunder. But the debates at all stages have revealed how as yet the statistics, the basic facts from which we make our deductions, are still imperfect, as therefore the deductions must be.
Although it is clear from what Lord Shepherd said that great advance has been made in the whole approach to the subject within a very short period of time, the vital necessity of thorough research has again been brought to the forefront. I have been tempted to speak, very briefly, at this stage by the announcement in yesterday's papers that the Ministry of Technology has made a grant of £24,000 towards the Motor Industries Research Association. May I express the hope that this will not mean that the Ministry of Transport's support of the Road Research Laboratory will be restricted by the Treasury by a like amount? Rather may it be a spur to the Treasury and to the Ministry to see that the budget for the Road Research Laboratory is entirely adequate to enable it to make full use, absolutely full use, of the skilled manpower and superior facilities at Crowthorne which are shortly coming into operation. I repeat the importance of co-ordinating the research of all the research bodies concerned, whichever they may be—a principle which your Lordships have already recognised.
7.8 p.m.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, may I join with my noble friend Lord Ferrier in asking the Government to step up yet further the resources they put at the disposal of the Road Research Laboratory? More research, more information, will all help the cause which the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, is advocating of trying to get this message over, and indeed in getting over the whole message of road safety, to the public as a whole. May I begin my few words by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, for his patient and lucid explanation of the range of technical points in the Amendments on the Order
1152
Paper. In saying farewell to Part II of the Bill, may I send my good wishes with it. It is a useful start in making tighter regulations for goods vehicles, a very difficult field in which to legislate, and I am sure the Government have been wise to proceed by regulation with the utmost flexibility. As the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has said, not only will this give us greater road safety here, but it will probably improve our prospects of exports as well. So I certainly wish the Government well in their development of regulations in this field.
I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, for his kind reference to my noble friends and myself for the part we have played in the debates here on this very important Bill—and it is a very important Bill. He rightly claimed that there is nothing between us on the main principle of the Bill. Experience in this country, and indeed in all other countries which have tried to tackle the extremely difficult problem of drink and driving, has led to the conclusion that it is a practical necessity, if drink and driving is to be checked, that there should be a statutory definition of the level of alcohol which amounts to impairment.
We all support the noble Lord and his noble and right honourable friends in the Government in putting this Bill on the Statute Book. I should like to thank the noble Lord for the new statistics which he has given us: they are both impressive and horrifying. We are all aware that these singularly unpleasant fatalities and serious accidents occur because people drink and then drive, and he rightly claims that his target of perhaps a third of the accidents being prevented, if the Austrian experience is repeated here, is a very worthwhile target. I entirely endorse his words. It is certainly a target which is well worth trying for.
During the debates we have had on certain aspects of this innovation there have been some differences of opinion, but I hope the noble Lord is in no doubt that he has my support, and indeed the support of all my noble friends, in putting this Bill into action. In the debates my concern has been only to impress on the Government the drastic nature of the change in the drinking habits of the nation which they are setting out to make,

1153
and to plead for humanity in administering the new law. I hope that it will not embarrass the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, if I say that I believe that the success of the Bill in practice will depend more on the kind of human understanding which he brings to governmental problems than to the missionary zeal which his right honourable friend the Minister of Transport sometimes brings. The police will indeed have a difficult job to do in endeavouring to make this law effective. I have great confidence in the common sense of the police. They are exceedingly experienced, both in the administration of the law and in the frailties of mankind, and can be relied upon to proceed with fairness and with wisdom. Both qualities will certainly be needed to make this legislation effective.
The noble Lord spoke of the possibility of hardship and anger in the case of some of those who may be prosecuted and convicted. But I would remind him that at the end of the day the co-operation of the public must be won, and that the Minister of Transport, while she is absolutely right to stand firm and to put this Bill on the Statute Book, must at the same time win the co-operation of the public if we are ourselves, as a community, to win the greater safety on the roads for which we are all striving.
Finally, while this is an important section of road safety I would point out that it is only a small section of the whole field. We are talking about 6 per cent. of the accidents; the other 94 per cent. have still to be tackled, and at the end of the day we depend on the self-discipline of the average driver. In giving the Government my full support in putting over this extremely important legislation I ask them to redouble their efforts in the rest of the field, because there are many other factors still to be tackled.
7.14 p.m.
LORD POPPLEWELL: My Lords, it was not my intention to speak, but I thought the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, might have mentioned something which is very near his heart. I am sure it was an oversight that he did not mention it, and so I propose to do so. This important measure which we all so greatly welcome will interfere with our social habits in this country to a very considerable extent. Therefore I sin-
1154
cerely hope that there will be an intensive propaganda campaign—or, shall we say, an information campaign?—drawing attention to the changes which are now taking place, in order that we may win and keep that co-operation for which the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford has so rightly asked. For myself I wholeheartedly welcome the Bill. I am pleased with its passage through your Lordships' House.
7.15 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I will respond to this debate with only a few words. I very much agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, has said in regard to research and the great importance of the Road Research Laboratory. It is perfectly true that a large number of accidents in which drink is not a factor could be prevented if we knew more about vehicle designing, road construction, and the question of the lighting of our streets and of our vehicles.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, may I add tyres to that list?
LORD SHEPHERD: I agree. There are many aspects about which we need to know a great deal more. I have no figures available, and without notice I have no way of giving a specific assurance to the noble Lord. But I will say this: that in the light of what the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, said about my right honourable friend, and from what I know of that lady, of her intention and her tenacity of will, I have not the slightest doubt that she will fight to get what she believes is necessary to reduce the accidents on our roads.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, and with my noble friend Lord Popplewell about co-operation and the need for an information campaign. This is one field in which I can say again that I know of the tenacity of my right honourable friend. I think I can say that she is trying to wring the last halfpenny out of the Treasury so that we may have a campaign of such a size and quality that no one will be able to complain that he did not know this Bill had come into force and did not know the implications of it. We shall do what we can, but in the end, as the noble Lord has said, it is what we as motorists, and we as the people, will do. If only we could get people to weigh up

1155
what is their convenience and what is the cost I have not the slightest shadow of doubt which they would choose.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

SUPERANNUATION (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL
7.19 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, it is customary, in asking that a Bill be given its Second Reading, to give some account of its general intention and of the way in which its various parts fit together to achieve its purpose. The purpose of the present Bill is simply to make good a number of deficiencies in the substantial and complex body of legislation which governs the pensions of those in the public services, and, in respect of certain provisions, to give statutory cover for a small number of payments for which no statutory authority exists other than that conveyed by the Appropriation Acts. Those noble Lords who have studied the Bill closely in an endeavour to discern in its provisions some general principle, and have failed to find one, may take comfort from the fact that there is no grand design to be discovered; the aim is a modest one of removing unintended anomalies, and filling certain gaps in the complex structure of public service pensions. It is concerned, that is to say, with what one might term "running repairs".
Unassuming though it is, however, I believe that the Bill is a useful one. If some of its provisions seem of very minor significance in comparison with many of the issues which come before us, noble Lords will need no reminding that to those concerned they may be of real importance. It will be seen from what I have already said that it is not an easy matter to make the usual kind of Second Reading speech on a Bill of this kind. I hope, therefore, that it will not be taken amiss if I speak quite briefly on this occasion and give only a general account of what are in the main a series of detailed and somewhat technical provisions.
1156
First, as I have already indicated, Clauses 1 and 5 of the Bill give statutory authority for the continuance of payments which have hitherto been made extra-statutorily. There is a longstanding undertaking on the part of the Treasury that they will pay pensions only in accordance with the provisions of the Superannuation Acts. It sometimes happens, however, that circumstances arise in which payments do not fall strictly within the provisions of the Statutes, but in which the withholding of the payments would lead to manifest inequality. In these cases—and they are comparatively rare—it is the practice to make awards which seem fully justified, relying for statutory authority upon the Appropriation Acts. Such cases are, however, regarded as extra-statutory in order to draw attention to them, and if there are sufficient cases of any one kind suitable opportunity is taken to secure statutory authority for the payments.
The Bill also extends the field within which superannuation and related benefits may be paid to public servants. For example, Clause 9 provides for the payment of pensions to full-time presidents or chairmen of industrial tribunals, whilst Clause 14 empowers the Secretary of State for Scotland to grant superannuation benefits in respect of service as a full-time medical commissioner of the Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland.
Gaps of a somewhat different kind are made good by Clause 7, which provides for the application of the terms of the National Health Service Superannuation scheme to people who are in employment concerned with the health services, but who are at present outside the scope of the relevant regulations; by Clause 10, which permits the payment of life pensions to children of deceased contributors to the House of Commons Members Contributory Fund who are incapable of earning a living, because of permanent physical or mental disability; and by Clause 13, which enables the Secretary of State to apply police pension regulations, suitably modified, to police cadets. None of these extensions involve any new point of principle or innovation in practice. The aim is to bring under superannuation cover certain groups of people who in one way or another are at present inadequately provided for and who ought not to be left as the victims

1157
of gaps in the network of pension arrangements.
The Bill's third main purpose is to plug gaps in the existing legislation dealing with those who serve in two or more appointments in the public sector. Clause 3 and 4 are concerned with certain public service pensioners (former judges and Governors) who are re-employed in the public sector, so that the question arises of the abatement either of the public service pension or of the remuneration of the second appointment.
Other deficiencies in the present arrangements covering staff transferring from one employment to another in the public sector are dealt with in Clause 11. The main changes are to make possible transfer arrangements between the separate superannuation schemes for teachers in England and Wales and in Scotland, to improve the arrangements for transfers to or from police service, and to open the way for greater freedom in the payment of transfer values when there has been a substantial interval between periods of pensionable employment in the public sector by making provision for the payment of interest by the person transferred when he repays any sum received on account of his pension rights in his first employment. The remaining clauses are so miscellaneous in their purpose that they defy any form of classification, and I will not weary noble Lords by referring to each of them in detail.
I hope, however, that what I have said will assist noble Lords to find their way about what I fear is a rather complex and technical Bill. None of its clauses introduces any radical new developments in superannuation practice. This is not the right time to undertake fundamental changes in this field. Nevertheless, I commend the Bill as a valuable contribution to the smooth running of the superannuation arrangements over the public services as a whole. However carefully we try to foresee the just needs of all our public servants, the field is so diverse that it is scarcely surprising that over the years gaps, uncertainties and anomalies are brought to light which, if they are not put right, will gradually undermine confidence in the essential fairness of the various pension schemes concerned. This Bill undertakes some timely repairs and maintenance to keep our house in good
1158
order. Its provisions have been the subject of consultations with the various staff interests concerned, and I think that I may safely say that they are entirely non-controversial. It will be observed from the Explanatory Memorandum that, apart from Clause 16 (which opens the way for the introduction of new arrangements for the crediting of interest to the teachers' superannuation accounts, and which might cost something of the order of £2½ million to £5 million a year) the net cost of all the provisions in the Bill is unlikely to exceed £60,000 a year.
A Bill of this nature covers a wide and complex field, and I hesitate to claim an intimate grasp of all its detailed technicalities. But if there are points on which noble Lords would welcome further elucidation I shall be glad, with permission, to try to deal with them later in the debate. In the meantime, I hope that I have said sufficient to persuade noble Lords that the Bill is a useful one, and worthy of support. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Bowles.)
7.27 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I am sure we are all very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bowles, for his very rapid and lucid explanation of what is indeed a very complicated and difficult Bill. I have heard it referred to as a "hotch-potch", a "rag-bag" and even a "dog's dinner", but whatever its description it is certainly an extremely useful measure in that it makes amendments in the light of experience in legislation affecting various superannuation schemes in the public service. In fact I would say that it is a pity that we do not have machinery for the review and amendment of some of our legislation in particular fields more often. So often worthwhile small alterations in the law that arise either through changed circumstances or because Parliament in its wisdom has not foreseen all the possible circumstances, and which may be very desirable changes, are never put into effect because of the lack of time in the legislative programme. I wonder whether those who are interested in Parliamentary reform could not perhaps at some stage produce some sort of machinery, something like the Committee on Consolidation Bills, which could look at legislation some years after it was

1159
passed, pick out small minor administrative changes that would be desirable, and then incorporate them in some omnibus Bill of this sort. However, in the field of superannuation there have emerged enough difficulties and anomalies to warrant this Bill, and I certainly welcome it.
It is impossible, as the noble Lord has said, to make anything in the way of a Second Reading speech about the Bill, because it consists of a number of different clauses quite independent of each other. I only wish to mention two clauses. The first is Clause 1, which is very welcome. Clearly, there are a number of civil servants serving in overseas territories, often loyally doing their duty in difficult and dangerous circumstances, and it is only right to be quite sure that there is no anomaly about their superannuation provisions. I know that the Statutes have been liberally interpreted, and that there has been no quibble as to whether a particular civil servant was technically on or off duty; but now there can be no doubt about it, and the superannuation provisions are quite clear.
I would refer to Clause 11, which allows a teacher to move from England and Wales to Scotland, or vice versa, without loss of pension rights. This is a very satisfactory clause, and the only thing to which I would draw attention is this. As I understand it, there was an Amendment inserted in another place which enlarged the clause to cover part-time teachers. I hope this means that the Government are getting near the stage of producing a superannuation scheme for part-time teachers, which has been promised a long time. This is essential if we are to get more and more part-time teachers in the schools, and I hope that such a scheme is shortly to be announced. With those few words, I am delighted to support the Second Reading of this Bill.
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, for what he has said. Although it is difficult to compare consolidation with what he had in mind, I know what he means. Of course, consolidation must never change the law as it exists. I am sure the noble Lord knows that.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

TURNHOUSE AIRPORT SECOND RUNWAY
7.31 p.m.
LORD FERRIER LORD FERRIER rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a statement as to the prospects of having the second runway at Turnhouse Airport completed by 1970. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper. This Question has been in the No Day Named list since January 18, but I did not seek an earlier day because, on December 13 last, I had asked a Starred Question about Turn-house Airport buildings and received the following reply:
"A final decision on the site"—
that is, the site of the buildings—
"must await the result of the runway survey which is now being carried out."
I said:
"I assume from that that the final alignment of the runway has not been settled. Is that the case?"
I received a reply:
" My Lords, it has not yet been settled. The result of the survey will be published in February of next year."— [OFFICIAL.REPORT, 13/12/65, col. 1546]
Well, February has come and gone, March has come and gone, April has come and gone—delay, delay, delay.
But delay is no new feature in this matter of the Turnhouse runway. It goes back a decade at least. It is nearly six years since the Toothill Report also pointed attention to the inadequacies of the City's airport. The subject has been mentioned in debate after debate, and Question after Question, not only in your Lordships' House but in another place. I am not blaming this Government alone; I blame their predecessor as well. I think less than nothing of the theme song, "The Thirteen Wasted Years", considering that more than half of that time was spent in tidying up. But I do say that for years policy and forward thinking over Scotland's airports, and precision and energy in planning, have fallen far short of the desideratum.
The main obstacle to efficiency has been the dichotomy of Whitehall and the Secretary of State, and perhaps readiness down here to pooh-pooh Scotland's problems. I say this deliberately and with

1161
some knowledge, in that I was a member of the Prestwick Airport Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry in 1959, presided over by the noble Lord, Lord Kilmany, when he was in the House of Commons. I was struck during the proceedings of that Commission by the muddle and ineffectiveness of the whole fabric of the system. Overlapping between the Ministry and the Secretary of State had led to mistakes, duplication and delays almost beyond belief. I only hope that over Turnhouse this Government may do a little better.
On March 22 the noble Earl, Lord Perth, in answer to a Question, was informed that four and a half years was the calculated time for the completion of the second runway. I am glad to say that at least one advantage has stemmed from the late hour of this debate—that it has enabled the noble Earl to reach the House after returning from abroad. On April 26 in another place exchanges took place in which the Minister admitted to some surprise at the length of time, four and a half years, indicated for the proposed work. He also said that he was going up to Edinburgh this month—that is, in May—to meet the Corporation. Let us hope that he has better luck than the Lord Provost of Edinburgh when he tried to fly to London with his officials in March to see the Minister on this particular subject. He had to come by train, because of cross-winds on the airfield, and he missed a whole day.
It is, of course, essential that Edinburgh should be consulted. I only wish that I had more confidence in Edinburgh's grasp of her own traffic developments; and I suspect that much of the blame for the Turnhouse situation can be laid at the door of the Edinburgh Corporation. But this airport problem is no longer exclusively Edinburgh's concern. Years ago, before the Forth and Tay bridges were constructed, perhaps it was; but to-day it concerns the entire Eastern half of the central industrial belt. Perth and Dundee are now little further from Turnhouse than Lanark or Peebles. To-morrow, in 1970, it will concern not only Scotland in general, or indeed the whole United Kingdom, but the Commonwealth. I refer, of course, to the Commonwealth Games. Indeed, it is the prospect of the Commonwealth Games in 1970, and all that they imply in terms of
1162
traffic and prestige, which highlights the urgency of the matter—and the matter is urgent.
In April a Written Answer to the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, produced the recent figures of diversions because of cross-winds. The noble Earl would have been here to speak to-day but for an important engagement in Scotland. I do not propose to go into the delays and dangers of the diversions due to crosswinds, to which other speakers will doubtless refer. I only remind your Lordships that thousands of passengers, and people and transport which go to meet and convey them, are inconvenienced and put to great expense by these diversions.
It must also be remembered that outward flights have to be cancelled and delayed or transferred to Glasgow; and further—I think this was a point which was made on another occasion by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn—there are times when planes can only take off with restricted loads, with the inconvenience which flows from such an occurrence. All this means cancelled bookings and the non-availability of seats. And besides, some people have simply given up the thought of using the air service to and from Edinburgh because of its unreliability. Business people cannot afford to take a risk of cancelled appointments or frustrated meetings, such, shall we say, as the Lord Provost of Edin-burgh suffered the other day.
This problem of the cost to the Scottish economy of the inferior air service is well set out in the Toothill Report. But, quite apart from losses to the airlines and the cost to Scottish business, it is no wonder that the airlines themselves complain of the poor load factor. How can a modern service pay in these conditions? No wonder they seek higher fares. What is more, current traffic and financial results are simply not relevant as a basis for estimating the potentialities of a route such as this one, as they would be if Scotland's capital had a capital airport.
It is right to say that the Edinburgh airport in its present form, and with its absence of proper radar equipment, is so tricky that the airline captains have to be "cleared for Edinburgh", as they call it, before they can be allowed to bring

1163
a machine in there. After all, the alignment of the present runway has the steep end of the Pentland Hills in line with one end of the runway, and the two Forth Bridges in line with the other. I had it in mind to refer also to the airport buildings in their relation to the railway, but I do not propose to do so in view of the lateness of the hour. But if the noble Lord would care to discuss the matter with me afterwards, I think I have some information which may be of service to him.
I have made no reference to what is undoubtedly the most important factor of all; namely, the airfield requirements of the civil aircraft of tomorrow. I do so deliberately only because I know that this will be the burden of the contribution of my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye to this debate. His long experience and extreme competence on the subject is well known to your Lordships. As for the cost of the runway, it has been hinted in this House that the money might be better spent elsewhere or in other ways. But is it realised that the present situation is enormously costly to the community as a whole at this very moment of time, as I hope I have shown in what I have already said? The airlines find the service a loser, but the public would use it if it were efficient. The traffic would be there if the service were efficient. The diversions cost incalculable sums. But for the skill and confidence of the pilots there would be many more diversions. Indeed, but for their skill the risk of some costly catastrophe would be a real one. It is ridiculous that a technically exacting and rapidly expanding industry like the air transport industry should be hamstrung on this important route as it is at present.
This serious matter requires prompt action. The broad decision to get on with another runway is an easy one. So far as I know (in the absence of any statement such as we were promised) there is only one possible alignment for the new runway. But of course it would be foolish to say that the implementing of such a decision is going to be easy. Far from it. The complexities—ranging from public inquiry and land acquisition through the realignment of the A9 main road to the diversion of the Gogar Burn—are formidable, and anybody with any
1164
knowledge of these things cannot do otherwise than sympathise with the Minister, especially—and I emphasise this—when superimposed upon it all must come some sort of settlement with Edinburgh Corporation. But to say that it must take four and a half years is nonsense. It could easily take more if the present "non-momentum" is maintained. But with firm purpose—which includes a settlement, once and for all, with Edinburgh Corporation—with energy and precision, it could take less. It could be done in time for the Commonwealth Games in 1970. It is quite wrong to say that there is no urgency, as this debate I believe will show. I should like to thank noble Lords who intend to speak (as I shall have no other opportunity, this being an Unstarred Question) and I look forward to the Minister's reply. I only wish that the promised statement could have been made, if only to have saved me from taking up your Lordships' time.
7.45 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, payload and regularity are the key words for the success of operating any civil airline, and payload and regularity are also the key words applicable to Edinburgh Airport, if it is to play its part in the British civil aviation system. Edinburgh Airport has the worst diversion record of any airport in the United Kingdom. The cross-wind situation is going to get worse in future. As noble Lords probably know, certain regulations are laid down as to when an aircraft may land with a cross-wind of a certain strength—what is technically called the cross-wind component. The cross-wind component is calculated according to the length of runway, in that an aircraft must be able to land within the cross-wind component allowing for a 12-knot tail-wind. That is all right for Viscounts and Vanguards, but now the Comet is coming into service in Edinburgh, and the runway is only just big enough to take the Comet; and the Trident will be going into Edinburgh in due course, and the same applies in regard to that aircraft. Therefore, those aircraft must have the cross-wind component reduced because the runway is not long enough to allow them to land with a 12-knot tail-wind. It is appalling—and I use the word advisedly—that we should contemplate putting splendid new

1165
types of British civil aircraft on to our main domestic routes, such as Edinburgh and Glasgow, and know that we shall have to operate them with a financial load penalty because the runway is not sufficiently big to take the full capacity at which they are capable of operating.
On the matter of cost, last year about half a million passengers who flew to Edinburgh faced the possibility of a diversion and a dislocation of their journey because of the high incidence of diversion from several causes. Based on the annual capital charge of what is needed to put Edinburgh Airport right, I think it works out at about 9s. per passenger; and with the gloomy time scale which the Government have given us of approximately 5 years to make this new runway, and allowing for an increase of traffic, this 9s. per passenger might well be halved. That, surely, is not an unreasonable amount to pay to get rid of the risk, about which the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, spoke, to all passengers flying to and from Edinburgh, and from such incidents as that from which the Lord Provost suffered quite recently. If it is a fact that four-and-a-half years are going to be required from the time of decision to go ahead, I would say: give the decision now. I know of the negotiations between Her Majesty's Government and the Edinburgh authorities, but somebody is going to pay at some time or other, so why not get on with the job now and let the settlement come within the ambit of the negotiations?
I have one more point before I sit down in relation to a matter which is tied up with the runway, and that is radar. I believe it is the view of the Department that radar is not necessary. If that is so, I would take issue with the Department. Any airport handling half a million passengers should have radar assistance. It is interesting to note that Turnhouse has more aircraft movements than Glasgow because of the large number of private and small aircraft operating in and out of the airport. Therefore, there is a big problem in the traffic pattern in regard to the mixing of large civil scheduled airliners and these other civil aircraft. Turnhouse is responsible for the safety of half a million persons, and I believe that, coupled with the project for the new runway, there must be radar installation. My final word is this. Of
1166
course, new terminal buildings are nice things to have; but before you go about getting new terminal buildings you should attempt to make the airport suitable for taking modern types of aircraft in order to achieve the maximum safety obtainable.
7.49 p.m.
LORD KILMANY: My Lords, very few people are more qualified to speak in such a debate as this than my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye, with his knowledge as a pilot in the First World War, his knowledge as an Air Minister in the Second World War, and, finally, as an ex-director of British European Airways. He is therefore well briefed in all his facts. I do not think that anybody who has listened to my noble friend's speech, and to the opening speech of my noble friend Lord Ferrier, can be in any doubt that it is a fact, and a sorry fact, that Edinburgh, the Capital City of Scotland, does not have a first-class aerodrome. It seems to me that that is a state of affairs which no one on either side of your Lordships' House who comes from Scotland should be prepared to tolerate. It is bad for the status of Scotland, bad for the trade of Scotland, bad for our tourism, bad for our self-respect; and, in truth, it is bad for our tempers, too.
It is intolerable that we should have to put up with diversions again and again; and as my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye said, we at Turnhouse have the worst diversion record of any airport in the United Kingdom. To me it is amazing that Governments have been prepared to tolerate so little progress being made, and to show so little urgency in this matter. As my noble friend Lord Ferrier said, on December 13 the Minister replying for the Government said that there was to be a survey as to the siting of the second runway, and that the result would be published in February this year. We are now in May. What has been happening during those months between December and now?
We have had figures of flights cancelled at Turnhouse Aerodrome. In March, 62 flights were cancelled; in February there were 54, and in January, 12. One would have thought that such figures as this would have been a spur to action, and that we should have been

1167
given the survey sooner rather than later. But, no. The survey is not yet at hand, though it may be that the noble Lord who is to reply this evening will be able to give us welcome news about it. I hope that may be so.
Let me not waste time at this hour of the night. It must be agreed that the facts in favour both of a longer runway and of a second runway are overwhelming. I should like to make clear that I am not basing my case purely on what one reads in papers, but on the experience which almost all of us who use this service have had. It was not just in the couple of months when the crosswinds were particularly prevalent that we found ourselves diverted. Just before that time I, like many others, found myself diverted from Turnhouse away to Abbotsinch. And when we got to Abbotsinch was there another aircraft waiting to take us on? Oh, no! There was not. On the contrary, we had to sit and wait until an aircraft was collected and manned, although one would have thought that a call on the telephone, with up to two hours to get the other aircraft prepared, would have been an obvious step.
The other experience I had—and I mention only the two—was a fortnight ago, going North from London to Turn-house. We were due in at about 6 o'clock and were doing rather well. We were within ten minutes of landing when the captain spoke on the loudspeaker: "This is the captain speaking. We are having slight difficulty with one of our flaps, and I have decided that Turn-house runway is not entirely suitable for landing in these conditions. So I propose to change course and land in Manchester instead"—which he did. As a result, we eventually arrived at Turn-house fully three hours late. I do not for a moment blame the captain, and I am sure that he was very wise. But I do blame the Government for tolerating an aerodrome which cannot accept even small emergencies. On that occasion nobody minded very much. It is incredible to me how tolerant passengers are. Their fortitude is commendable, and they accept inconvenience without a murmur. One almost thinks it would be better if we became more indignant
1168
and made our indignation felt.
The only time that I can recall anyone getting excited in an aeroplane was on that simplest of all flights from London to Edinburgh after we had boarded the plane. We were all snuggling into our seats looking forward to something to eat, and reading the Evening Standard, when the air hostess said to us in dulcet tones, "We welcome you aboard our Vanguard aircraft and should be leaving for Glasgow in a few minutes' time." That had a very disconcerting effect on all of us, because our tickets were to Edinburgh and our plans were to go to Edinburgh. One turned to the other and said, "Look here. You are going to Edinburgh, aren't you?" The other replied, "Yes, I am going to Edinburgh, but the girl said Glasgow." There was much concern. Happily it was found that she had made a mistake in the names of those two important towns. But, seriously, this is a scandal and it requires urgent action.
I believe that the only person who can take that action is the Secretary of State for Scotland. I know the dichotomy of responsibility and I know that Edinburgh Corporation come into it. But, after all, we have had an example of a vigorous Secretary of State dealing with a more or less comparable need for Scotland, when we required a Road Bridge over the Forth. My noble friend Lord Stuart of Findhorn, who was then James Stuart, listened to all of us in the East of Scotland and all of us in the Edinburgh area. He had us behind him and he knew it; and he went to the Cabinet and declined to take "No" for an answer. Cannot the present Secretary of State follow that example. I believe that if he does he will have not only the East of Scotland, but all of Scotland behind him in urging for action at Turnhouse aerodrome. Let him show us that he, too, can lead.
7.58 p.m.
LORD BALERNO: My Lords, I shall not give your Lordships any of my harrowing experiences, because I am not so graphic in description as the noble Lord, Lord Kilmany. But I assure you that he has not overstated his case in any way whatsoever; and the incidents he related can be multiplied a hundredfold. The noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, emphasised the importance of regularity on an air service, and when the alternative

1169
train service takes only six hours the importance of regularity becomes even greater. If you have to plan to be down in London for a meeting and have to allow three hours for the not unusual (I was going to say normal) delay, you may as well make your journey by train. Until that situation is overcome, and a more regular service is running, there will not be a full capacity of passengers on the flight to Edinburgh. There is no doubt that once there is regularity the number of passengers will greatly increase.
The noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, to whom we are very grateful for putting down this Question, spoke of the pilots on the Edinburgh route being specially picked. They have to be selected and they have to be experienced on the Edinburgh runway. I believe that the reason why so many diversions of Comets have been made in recent months is that the pilots are still gaining experience of the runway. Once they have more experience there will be fewer diversions of Comets. We hope that there will be a sufficiency of pilots trained to service these Comets coming into Edinburgh.
The noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, talked about the Commonwealth Games in 1970. Will the pilots of these Commonwealth planes have to be trained on the Edinburgh runway? Why should those flights be exposed to the dangers of this particular runway? Or is this perhaps just a device to ensure that everybody coming to the Commonwealth Games has to pass through London and be flown on from London in a plane piloted by a pilot who has experience of the Edinburgh runway?
With our climate on the East Coast of Scotland, and with those haars coming up from the sea, we must have provision for blind landings. A blind landing can never be made on the present runway—that is quite impossible. Looking forward to the future (and I say this in deference to the judgment of the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, not being an airman myself), if we can expect that all major airports will be equipped to take blind landings, then the sooner the Edinburgh runway is put into a state to take blind landings the better.
The noble Lord, Lord Kilmany, has taken out of my mouth the words about the tribulations of getting the Forth Road Bridge under way. The number of excuses and evasions that were given in
1170
the initial stages of pressing for the Forth Road Bridge are very like the number of evasions and excuses that have been given over recent years about the impossibility almost of getting a proper runway established. A decent, safe runway is certainly going to be installed at Turnhouse. Why not get on with the job now?
8.3 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I rise for only one moment to plead with the Government not only to listen to the case which has been put forward so powerfully, and with such a wealth of convincing evidence, by my noble friends, but also to act upon it. I do not suppose there is any Member of your Lordships' House who has so much experience as the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, of what I would call the Whitehall "bureau-monster". That is a term which I am borrowing from the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin of Bewdley—and a very good term it is, I think. The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, spent many years fighting against this monster in order to get the Tay Road Bridge built a little more quickly—or, indeed, built at all, because they did not think it should be built. He was eventually successful. There is no one who understands better than he does the nature and habits of the monster, which are chiefly imperception, imperviousness to argument and automatic repetition of old, traditional, out-of-date answers. Its chief talent, I think, is the presentation of what Sir Winston Churchill described as "the padded cells of indubitable fact and the solid masonry of unanswerable objection," which one is always brought up against when one makes any useful proposal to this blinkered bureau-monster.
Now that Government activity is permeating so much into nearly every compartment of our lives, I think this is a very serious thing, because in so far as the monster has any mind at all it is a metropolitan mind. It cannot understand the needs of Scotland or of Wales, or even of the more distant English Provinces. That is probably the main reason—it is certainly one reason—for the big increase in the Nationalist vote in Scotland and elsewhere which we have recently witnessed, both in Parliamentary and in local elections. Some people may think that a good thing; but it is not a

1171
good thing that the growth of nationalism should be so much stimulated, as it is, by the neglect and the delay of things which ought to be done. It is holding up our development area policy, upon which we are all agreed, and also our policy on dispersal, upon which we are all agreed.
In towns like Edinburgh businessmen and professional men are in their offices working at 9 o'clock in the morning, and they do a full day's work. In London it is almost impossible for either managers or staff to get there until 10 o'clock, and then they have to leave an hour early in order that they may get to bed in time to get up early enough to get them in at a reasonable time, and not in the middle of the morning. What a tremendous waste of industrial potential and efficiency this is! In order to correct these things we must get better, more efficient, transport in this island, and it really is indefensible, I think, that while we are discussing whether we should have a third or a fourth airport for the Capital of England the Capital of Scotland has not even one that can be called a decent airport.
My Lords, last week, when a Question was asked on this subject in another place, the Minister first replied that it was out of the question to get this second runway in time for the Commonwealth Games in 1970, but later there seemed to be a gleam of hope, because he expressed surprise at the estimate of his own officials. He promised to look into American methods of construction which had been brought to his notice, and said that he was going to Edinburgh next month. I appeal to the Edinburgh Corporation not to put any obstacles in the way of getting this thing done quickly (because it is so much to the interests of their city as well as to Scotland that this should be done) and also to the Government to look very critically indeed at the official estimates which they are being given. Because, my Lords, this thing can be done if the Government will take the political decision to give it the necessary priority. Priority is what is required. The thing can be done long before 1970. I would appeal to the Government now to look at the evidence, to decide to give the work the necessary priority and to carry out the required action within the necessary time.
8.9 p.m.
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, I am going to speak very briefly. We have all heard one Government after another plead that this is not an economic thing to do, and that the traffic is not there. But we have heard again tonight that this argument is one that does not bear examination. We do not know that the traffic is not there, because anybody who wants to go to Edinburgh and who has to be certain of getting there by a specified time does not go by plane but by train. We just do not know what the traffic would be if there were the certainty of getting there at the time desired.
My Lords, if the argument to be used is that it is not an economic thing to do at the present time, I suspect (and listening particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, I feel confirmed in this) that in five years time a Government will be able to say this with even greater justification. Because in five years time the better planes that we have heard about will not be able to go in on any economic basis at all. While the British services will do something, the hope of getting the Continental services to risk going into Edinburgh with some of the better planes they have will be remote. They just will not do it. The Government will then be able to say: "It is not economic to do it now"; and so it will go on. This really is a disgraceful situation for Edinburgh, the Capital of Scotland.
My Lords, the other thing which struck me, and struck me very hard, as I listened to the debate is the real risk associated with this flight, as other noble Lords have pointed out, and the fact that pilots must be specially trained for it. I pray that it will not happen, but I have an awful feeling in my mind that one of these days there may be a great disaster on the airport—and then some action will be taken. I appeal to the Government to avoid such a risk; I appeal to them to move now, having heard all that has been said.
Let us look at what normally happens in London. London is the Capital of England. The other day it was proposed that £65 million should be spent on building a short underground railway extension—and it is not as if it will be economic. We all know the subsidy that London Transport receives from the

1173
Government. Yet they are planning more building, and no doubt the Government will give way. Why? I suppose they think that vote-wise—and I am not blaming this Government more than any other—it may have a great appeal to a great number of people. This is not a good argument. We have seen the rise of the Scottish feelings on this matter—I join with all other noble Lords in begging the Government to move and to move now.
8.13 p.m.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, I must say that I rise with a great deal of trepidation, faced as I am by the cohorts of noble Lords from Scotland; although I am helped in this by the support of my noble friend from Scotland beside me. I cannot help feeling that he might have dealt far more effectively than I with some of the points raised. But let me first of all try to answer the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, concerning the survey which last December my noble friend Lord Rhodes said would be published in February.
I think there may be some slight misunderstanding over the exact term "published". What in fact my noble friend meant at that time was that the Report would be ready and available to those concerned. It is a very long and voluminous technical Report which could not be published as a White Paper in the normal way. In fact, the final draft of the Report was ready, as my noble friend said, in February, and the content of it was communicated to Edinburgh Corporation. It was received by the Government in its final form on April 24. So I think I can say that my noble friend is vindicated, in that February was the time when the guts of the Report were made available to those most concerned, the Edinburgh Corporation.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, the fact is that the word "published" was used. I cannot be blamed, and neither can others, if we awaited its appearance with bated breath. The word "published" was used.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, I do not blame the noble Lord at all for thinking that "published" meant the more
1174
normal use of the word; that it would be available in the Printed Paper Office.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, my point is that had I understood it so I would have put down this Question earlier.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, a good many points have been raised by various noble Lords and all of them, I say quite frankly, are accurate. There has been, so far as I know, no mis-statement of fact at all in what was said. But I believe there has been a great deal of misapprehension, and people who listened to these statements may have got the wrong impression of what is the actual position. For instance, the noble Earl, Lord Perth, spoke of the real risks which are run by passengers who land at Turnhouse. I am sure that he does not really mean to suggest that passengers flying in from London to Turnhouse run any greater risk than those flying into London from Manchester, or into London from Glasgow, or into London from Paris, or into London from Washington. I think it would be unfortunate if the impression arose that Turnhouse was a dangerous airport at which to land. Its safety record—
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, may I ask why the pilots have to be specially trained?
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, I was just coming to that point. The safety record of Turnhouse is as good as that of any airport in the United Kingdom. I want to make that very clear. It is true, of course, that pilots have to be specially trained or, at least, have to have special landing practice at Turnhouse Airport. But that is the normal practice of all good airlines, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, will agree. One does not take a pilot who has never before landed in Brussels, in Cairo or in Istanbul, and send him off with a plane load of passengers and tell him to land there. He has practice landings in unloaded aircraft in order to get used to local conditions. That happens at Turnhouse.
Although the statements made were correct, the impressions given were most unfortunate. I hope that they will be corrected in the minds of noble Lords,

1175
and in the minds of those who have listened to this debate and who will read it. I do not for a moment deny that, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, the key words for success at Turnhouse are "regularity and payload". It is a fact that the airport needs improvement. Improvement is costly, but it will be carried out; there is no doubt about that. The only questions are: when will it be carried out? When will it be economic for it to be carried out? When will it be practicable for it to be carried out?
I have great sympathy, as an air traveller myself, with any passengers, be they noble Lords or not, who board an aeroplane and find themselves landing at some place other than their expected destination, or who go to an airport hoping to take off at a scheduled time and find that they have to wait a couple of hours. I am not unsympathetic to that, and I do not deny that it happens. The question is not whether the improvements shall take place, but when they shall take place.
The only way I can answer this question properly is to describe, as best I can, the situation at Turnhouse Airport at the present time. The main runway, which is 6,000 feet in length, unfortunately is sited—and the original reason for this I do not know—at an angle of 70 degrees to the prevailing wind. Therefore, for a great deal of the time it cannot safely be used. Instead, the subsidiary runway, virtually facing into the wind—that is, in the correct direction—has to be used. But that is only 3,400 feet in length.
Let me, at this stage, correct another factually correct statement but one which is somewhat misleading. I do not deny (I do not know the figure exactly, but I accept it from the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye) that Turnhouse has a greater rate of diversion that any other airport in the United Kingdom; but it is most misleading to suggest that the rate of diversion is due to cross-winds.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, I did not suggest that.
LORD WALSTON: No, my Lords, the noble Lord did not suggest that; but the impression, I think, might have been gathered by some people who listened to him (I am sure he did not mean to give
1176
that impression) that the majority of these diversions, at least, were due to crosswinds. In fact only about one-sixth of the total diversions are due to cross-winds. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, is shaking his head, but those are the statistical figures over the last two years, and one must not take simply one month or two months, or a particular week, when looking at this from an economic point of view and a sound point of view. One must see what is the figure over a general period of time.
That being so the fact that only 0·7 per cent. of flights are diverted because of cross-winds means that even were the runway to be lengthened or altered, as noble Lords are advocating, there would still be a great majority of diversions. Lengthening the runway into the prevailing wind would put an end to only a small proportion—one-sixth—of the total number of diversions.
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, may I ask whether the noble Lord is quoting up-to-date figures, or are those figures only to the end of last year? We have had a very bad experience in the last two months.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, I know that the last two months have been bad. My figures are for the years 1964 to 1966, over a long period, and during that time there have been bad periods and good periods. I know, and the noble Earl knows perfectly well, because he asked a Question which I answered, that during February, I think it was, the number of diversions was extremely high, and many of them were due to cross-winds.
LORD BALERNO: My Lords, would not the noble Lord agree that if there are so many diversions, it is vitally important that we should be able to take in blind landings?
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, that is another point I was just about to come to, and perhaps I should deal with it now if it is the wish of noble Lords. Radar control is undoubtedly needed. I am not sufficient of an expert to know how much the proposed radar control, and the radar control which is being asked for, would cope with that type of blind landing. I suspect that it would cope with only a few such landings. Its main object would be, as I understand

1177
it, to cope with the density of traffic above the airfield, and not to bring aircraft in to land in times of extremely poor visibility.
It was also, I think, the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, who told us that Turnhouse had more air movement than Glasgow; and that is perfectly true. The figures are, for Turnhouse approximately 50,000 last year, and Glasgow 37,000. But once again these figures are to some extent misleading, because they include all forms of flying, a very large amount of which relates to light aircraft from flying clubs, and so on. If you take the airliner movements, or air transport movements—and these are the ones which arc most important from the flight control aspect of safety control—you will find that Turnhouse has 10,000 compared with 31,000 for Glasgow.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, I think that the Minister may not have got that quite right. Radar is required in order that you can sort out the pattern as to what aircraft are where. Whether they are little aircraft, privately owned or airliners does not really matter. In fact, because there are more movements at Turnhouse I think the demand for radar is just as strong there as at Glasgow.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, with the greatest respect I would disagree with the noble Lord in that matter. Of course it is necessary to sort out all the aircraft: that is perfectly true. But the important difficulty in the control of aircraft coming in to land is not caused by the small flying club aircraft, which is under radio control from the control tower and takes off when it is considered safe to do so, does a circuit and lands again. The scheduled airliner comes in, maybe, from above the clouds and may arrive at varying times. Therefore it is a much more difficult problem for the control tower to look after that kind of aircraft. Again I am not arguing that this is not necessary: it is necessary; and I hope that this is a matter where the Government can act perhaps more quickly than in other matters.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, can the Minister look into those figures again? It is not that the aircraft are not scheduled aircraft, but private aircraft from flying
1178
clubs. The Ferranti undertaking in Edinburgh have one, if not two, of their own planes, and I have never been to Edinburgh Airport when I have not seen a Dove, or some other type of aircraft, often from overseas. A great many of the aircraft on non-scheduled flights are business aircraft.
LORD WALSTON: I do not for a moment say that these aircraft are only from flying clubs. A very large proportion of them are not. I am afraid that I cannot tell the noble Lord what is the proportion between those and the other sort. I will see if the figures can be found, because they would certainly be of interest and value in this discussion.
My Lords, if I may come back to the main problem of the two runways, there is the one main runway, which is 6,000 feet long and is at the wrong angle—70 degrees off. Then we have the 3,400 foot runway, which is correctly angled. That one, I think we all agree, cannot be extended. The only way to build a new runway at the correct angle with the prevailing wind would be by an entirely new layout, which would necessitate cutting the A9 road. That can he cut only when a new motorway or some alternative route is completed. That is the limiting factor in building this entirely new runway. The present schedule leads one to expect that it will be possible to cut the A9 in 1973.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me for interrupting, but surely it does not cost a fortune to build an underpass.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, it would not cost a fortune, but it would add very considerably to the cost. And when, in any case, the road is going to be abolished within a matter of years, I think that most noble Lords, with their minds on the need to reduce public expenditure, and on economy and on value for money and all the rest of it, would say that that would not be a worthwhile expenditure. Therefore I do maintain, without prejudicing the decision, that prima facie there is a case for saying that until that part of the A9 has been superseded by a motorway, and therefore could be cut, the main runway of an appropriate length cannot be built, except at an exorbitant cost.

1179
That leaves us, my Lords, with the existing runway of 3,400 feet, which we all agree cannot be used during crosswinds, and the other runway, the main runway of the airport, of 6,000 feet, which could be lengthened—there is no question about that. It could easily be extended by 950 feet towards the south-east. It would then be adequate for the Trident III, and the BAC 111–500, but not always under a full load, because that would give only just under 7,000 feet—to be precise, 6,950 feet. The further 1,000 feet which could be put on to that runway, and which would make it adequate for the Tridents, and so on, under more or less normal flying conditions, again would have to cross the A9. So once more we are held up by the existence of the A9.
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, I am very sorry to interrupt the noble Lord again, but do I understand him to say that there is no question of anything being done, except a small lengthening. until the A9 has disappeared; and that since work on that will not start until 1973 it will be ten years, on the basis of the other four and a half years for the construction, before we can expect a decent runway in Edinburgh? Is that what I am to understand?
LORD WALSTON: No, my Lords, that is not what the noble Earl is to understand. I must say that every question I have been asked so far has asked something to which I was just about to come, if I had not been interrupted. I am happy to stay here as long as your Lordships like and give way, but your Lordships will get satisfaction to the full limit of my knowledge by allowing me to continue with the minimum of interruptions.
I did not say that we should have to wait until 1973 before we could start doing anything. The present plan, still under discussion, is that the new runway and all the preliminaries of planning and the acquisition of land should be geared to the final finishing date of 1973, so that when the A.9 is eventually superseded by the motorway and can then be cut, we shall have the runway completed except for a small piece which can be done in a very short time. So if this
1180
plan is adhered to, there will be a complete runway in the right direction in 1973. It is always possible to extend the existing main runway, not only by 950 ft. to the south-east, but by a further 1,000 ft. across the A.9, if an alternative road is produced either by an underpass, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Somers, or by means of enlarging an existing small road going through a village. These are expensive matters and my honourable friend the Minister of State, Board of Trade, is going to Edinburgh within the next week to discuss this with the Edinburgh Corporation.
The small extension to the main runway which can be carried out will never be able to counteract the effect of crosswinds, but it will allow modern aircraft to land a good deal of the time, though it will not give a 100 per cent. service. These apparent delays, due to the "bureau monster", have in my view been not unreasonable. I know that the noble Earl, Lord Perth, said that until there are good runways good aircraft will not be using Turnhouse. The B.E.A. is the main commercial user, and until their plans for their new aircraft are finalised—they are getting close to that but are not there yet, and I am not blaming B.E.A. for not getting their finalisation forward—we shall not know definitely what types of aircraft are going to fly to Turnhouse.
I hope that when the time comes for us to discuss Government expenditure and we are being pressed to reduce it, noble Lords who have urged us to increase Government expenditure on this matter will come to the House and convince some of their noble friends that there are occasions, as has been so eloquently said, when Government expenditure may be in the interests, if not of the people in the South of England, then in the interests of the people in the North of Great Britain.
LORD BALERNO: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the existing runway at Turnhouse is not of sufficient width to take the aircraft contemplated in future, or even aircraft coming in under radar control? So the extension of the existing runway is hardly even a palliative.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, it may be that in addition to extending the runway there has to be a widening; but compared with the other things we have been talking about, that is a relatively simple matter.

SAINT MARY-LE-PARK, BATTERSEA BILL
Reported, without amendment.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before nine o'clock.