Lords Sitting of 2 December 1969

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock: The Lord Chancellor on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Leicester.

ADVERTISEMENTS AND RACE RELATIONS ACT
2.36 p.m.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follow s:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware that the absurdities now arising under Section 6 of the Race Relations Act 1968, which renders it unlawful to advertise for an Indian cook for an Indian restaurant though not for a Chinese cook for a Chinese restaurant, spring directly from their refusal to accept an Opposition Amendment moved on October 15, 1968, to exempt advertisements where, in relation to the particular employment concerned, the ethnic or national origin of a person is a bona fide occupational qualification: and whether they will now introduce amending legislation to bring this section of the Act into accord with public opinion and common sense.]
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the purpose of Section 6 of the Race Relations Act 1968 is to prevent discriminatory advertisements. These can be a particularly blatant and objectionable form of discrimination and can give offence even if they relate to acts of discrimination which are not themselves unlawful under the Act. Twelve months' experience has confirmed the need for a provision and the effectiveness of the section for this purpose. Parliament appreciated the desirability of making some provision for advertisements which are clearly unobjectionable, and Section 6(2) provides an exception for advertisements in respect of employment abroad and of aliens required for employment in this country. Parliament decided that it was not practicable to take these exceptions further without opening the door to advertisements which would be offensive or related to a real intention to discriminate. The Government are keeping the operation of this Act under review. Any amendment of the advertisement provisions would have to take account of the basic difficulty I have mentioned.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I was not questioning the main purpose or the desirability of the main purpose of Section 6 of the 1968 Act? Is he aware that the Opposition Amendment was opposed by the Government on the ground that discriminatory advertisement of any kind is a particularly offensive form of discrimination? Will he explain, then, how it is offensive for somebody to advertise for a Scottish cook for a Scottish household?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the noble Lord was not asking about the main purpose, but I am setting the main purpose out. I think the main purpose is more important than particular incidents of this kind. As for the particular Scotch porridge advertisement to which he refers, personally I do not think it was offensive, and it was a pity that the individual who sought to make mischief out of it raised the matter in the way that he did.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether he does not regard it as a little ironical that the Opposition, which in principle opposed all legislation about race relations for ten years, should seek credit on this incidental Amendment? On this particular issue, may I ask whether it would not be possible to leave discretion on these matters in the hands of the Board.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I will not comment on the first part of the noble Lord's question, but as to the second part, the Board, like anyone else, has to work within the terms of the law. I should have thought that with common sense and good will this section could operate successfully. It is not necessary for individuals to register complaints, and I should have thought that the Board could treat a complaint, which obviously set out to create mischief, in the way in which it was put forward, and handle it on the merits of the particular complaint.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, is it not a fact that the drafting of this Amendment when it was put forward was found to be completely defective and that if it had been accepted it would have led to a completely open door for all sorts of abuses? Is this not a small price to pay for an Act which is working extremely well, which was extremely difficult to devise, and which deals with a very serious problem in this country?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord. I am advised that even if Lord Brooke's Amendment had been accepted, the Scotch porridge case could still have been raised.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, arising out of the noble Lord's reply to my noble friend Lord Brooke, which appears to deal not only with colour but with discrimination, could he give guidance as
4
to what would be the position were an advertisement to be placed for some specific talent and the obvious talented person should be red-headed and there were to be a clear statement that only red-headed people would be considered?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, if I can help the noble Lord, I would refer him to the provisions of Section 8(11). I think that would help him if he wished to employ a red-headed person.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, can the Minister say whether the right honourable gentleman, Mr. Grimond, has given notice that he is introducing a Bill to amend this section, and can he confirm or deny the statement that has appeared in the Press that the Government are helping him with the drafting of the Amendment?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am surprised at the laughter of noble Lords. We are here dealing with an area of human affairs in which it must be more difficult to legislate than in any other area I know. As to Lord Conesford's question, I am aware that Mr. Grimond has indicated that he is proposing to bring forward an amendment. It is not true to say that the Government are helping him to draft the amendment.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, I have now consulted subsection (11) of Section 8 which the noble Lord quoted. Under its wording, have I not the right to claim that he has not answered my question?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, one of my dearest intentions is to help the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, if I possibly can. I think he will find that if he wished to employ a person of a particular nationality or descent, with attributes possessed particularly by persons of that nationality or descent—and conceivably red-headedness might be such an attribute—he could quite properly employ such a person; but it would be improper and unlawful to advertise his intention if the advertisement was offensive.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, could that not be described as discrimination?
LORD GIFFORD: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether he is aware that certain individuals and sections of

5
the Press are clearly using the Scottish cook case to ridicule the whole of the Race Relations Act, and would they not be serving the cause of race relations better by emphasing the positive work done by the Race Relations Board?
LORD BESWICK: I am much obliged to the noble Lord. I say this again. The Act has now been on the Statute Book for 12 months. The Board have 12 months' useful, constructive and effective work to report. There have, in fact, been 168 cases of complaint under this particular section. In almost all of them—in all but six—they have been complaints which quite properly have been investigated. The six were cases where some persons set out to create mischief.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, will the Government consider the possibility of a sensible Amendment, in view of the fact that it is not the Press but the ordinary, common sense public who cannot help laughing at these ridiculous cases which have excited so much comment?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the noble Earl does this House less than justice. Of course, if there were a sensible Amendment which was watertight it would be considered and, I have no doubt, accepted. The only reason why the Amendment which was put forward on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, was not accepted was because it would have led to other difficulties.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, while I appreciate what my noble friend has said, that it is difficult to legislate for these subtle discriminations, may I ask him whether the time will come when he will introduce legislation of a quite simple order in regard to which no difficulty at all will be found—that is, to stop discrimination against sex?

RESURFACING OF M.4 MOTORWAY
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: 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 re-surfacing process has been
6
used on the M.4 Motorway between the London Airport exit and the Colnbrook exit, how many complaints they have received about it and how many broken windscreens were reported as due to it during the past three months.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (LORD SHEPHERD): My Lords, the surface dressing consisted of pre-coated stone chippings of high resistance to polishing with a tar binder containing a 1½ per cent. polyvinyl chloride additive. Since September 1 my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport has received 28 letters of complaint about loose chippings on this section of the motorway and 150 reports of broken windscreens.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, for his Answer to my Question. In view of this exceptionally bad record of complaint and of broken windscreens on this stretch of road, can the noble Lord tell us whether the Minister of Transport is intending to meet the claims of motorists who have suffered on the road?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I understand that this is a matter for consideration of each separate case in which a claim may be made. At the moment this is under consideration.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, speaking as the 151st victim, I would ask: would not my noble friend agree that it is the unfortunate innocent party who is likely to suffer this damage, due to the carelessness of the driver in the car in front?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, in his supplementary question my noble friend has drawn attention to the advice that the police give motorists as to speed on this particular road. It is the people who disregard these warnings who create so much of the havoc.
VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord what conditions determine whether the 50 m.p.h. flashing lights on this particular stretch of road should be used? Is the noble Lord aware that the lights were not in use last Monday, that they were in use on Tuesday, not in use on Wednesday, but again in use on Thursday? Is it the idea that this road is dangerous only on every other day?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I understand that the loose chippings become more volatile, more dangerous, when we have had frost. This question is being examined at the present time. The decision when to put the lights on is a matter for the police authorities. I will try to find an explanation for the noble Viscount. I cannot answer him to-day.
EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, can the Minister say when the road will again be made safe?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the road is perfectly safe to-day, if only motorists take into account the warnings that the police put up. The reason why this particular tar binder was put down was to deal with a marked increase in the number of accidents being caused by skidding, particularly in wet weather. Before this surface was put down I believe that the number of accidents caused by skidding was as much as 60 per cent., which is well above the normal average for a motorway. It was for this reason that the binder was put down, to make the road safer from the skidding point of view, particularly in wet weather.
LORD COTTESLOE: My Lords, if the road is now safe, could the noble Lord tell us when the notices giving warning of loose chippings will be removed? They were there yesterday afternoon in large numbers.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I wish the noble Lord would look at what I have said. The road is safe now if only people would take into account the speed limit put up by the police.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, I appreciate the noble Lord's difficulties in this matter, but is he aware that the general volume of criticism about the standard of surfacing laid down here is very loud indeed? Will the noble Lord tell us what steps are being taken to rectify the standard of surface which is being put down there to make it satisfactory? Would the noble Lord give us an assurance that this type of surface, which causes such a great deal of trouble, will not be used again? Finally, is the noble Lord aware that a Government which has doubled motor taxation is peculiarly vulnerable to criticism from motorists?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, that remark is typical of what I would expect from the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, on the first day of the Parliamentary week. This particular dressing has not caused any problems on any other motorways. As the noble Lord knows, occasionally, according to the circumstances—the alignment, or the character of the area—the dressing has different effects. This is now being carefully considered by the Road Research Laboratory and by my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport, and I hope that we shall be able to put it right as soon as possible.

CHEMICAL WARFARE: PROPOSED CONVENTION
2.50 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: 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 how far practice in the United Kingdom in relation to biological and chemical agents for war purposes conforms with the policy announced by President Nixon for the United States of America; and whether the United Kingdom representative on the Political Committee of the United Nations will be instructed to support the proposal of the Soviet Union for a Convention prohibiting the manufacture of all biological and chemical weapons.]
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the House will be aware of the intiative which Her Majesty's Government took on July 10 this year when we tabled, at the Conference of the Committee on Disarmament in Geneva, a draft Convention for the Prohibition of Biological Methods of Warfare. We have no biological weapons and no intention of acquiring them. We welcome President Nixon's expression of support for our draft Convention and his intention to seek United States ratification of the 1925 Geneva Protocol to which we have long been a party. So far as the second part of my noble friend's Question is concerned, the Soviet proposal presents certain difficulties in our view, and I would rather not go into detail as to what we would do if it came to a vote.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that Answer, may I ask him whether he is aware that many of us greatly appreciate the initiative which Her Majesty's Government have taken at Geneva and approve the decision which President Nixon has made? But may I also ask him whether the position is not now arising where chemical agents, as well as biological agents, could be brought into a Convention, particularly in view of the fact that the Soviet Union and its Allies are prepared to accept such a Convention?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, we ourselves welcome the Soviet concern over these weapons and are pleased that the Soviet Union and its allies have now come to see the force of the argument put by the British Government as far back as July, 1968. We are surprised, however, that the Soviet draft Convention was presented to the Union Nations General Assembly instead of to the Conference of the Committee on Disarmament. We are sorry, because there are many detailed points which we shall have to consider in regard to the Soviet proposals and which could be better considered at a Committee than at the General Assembly. We should hope that this draft Convention could be submitted to the Committee at Geneva. There is some difference between possible biological warfare and the use of biological weapons, and chemical warfare, and it was for this reason, as I explained to my noble friend, that we ourselves felt that we ought to go for the biological warfare Convention first and then deal with the more difficult one as regards chemical warfare later.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, without wishing to defend the Soviet Government's attitude, may I ask whether it is not the case that they made these proposals at the Disarmament Conference at Geneva and it was open for discussion there before they made the proposal at the United Nations?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the proposals that the Soviet authorities have placed at the United Nations are the first substantive form that we have seen and that we have been able to consider.

SPRINGBOKS' TOUR AND RACE RELATIONS ACT
LORD VIVIAN: 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 action they have taken or are about to take under Section 2 of the Race Relations Act 1968 with regard to the violent demonstrations arising out of the Springboks tour.]
LORD BESWICK: My Louis, Section 2 of the Race Relations Act 1968 makes it unlawful to discriminate on the ground of colour, race or ethnic or national origins in the provision to the public of any goods, facilities or services. The section does not apply to those demonstrating against the provision of such goods, facilities or services.
LORD VIVIAN: My Lords, that is a difficult Answer for me to reply to but, while thanking the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, for it, may I ask him whether he would not agree with me that Part I of the Race Relations Act 1968, in Sections 1 and 2, forbids any discrimination in the provision of—and I quote from the Act:
"facilities and services for recreation on the grounds of national origin".
This being so, surely the Minister will agree that it is unlawful under the Act to interfere in the use of a football ground by South Africans simply because they are South Africans?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, it would be wrong to interfere in the use of the football ground, but not under the Race Relations Act 1968. This would be wrong under the other provisions relating to law and order in this country; and of course it was under the other Statutes that the police endeavoured to make it feasible for this match to take place.
LORD STRANGE: My Lords, arising out of that reply, would not the noble Lord agree that in South Africa very few of the black races play Rugby football, and that it would therefore be impossible to make an international selection to play abroad without bringing in the question of race privilege? Is the noble Lord further aware that the

11
original population of South Africa was Portuguese?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am not absolutely satisfied that I am aware of the second part of the noble Lord's question. The first part does not arise out of the noble Lord's Question on the Order Paper.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, as the noble Lord, in quoting the Act, quoted two sections out of context, which have made it read rather differently but more helpfully from his point of view, can he elucidate further and tell us whether, in Section 2, line 4, "discriminate", as a verb, eliminates "agitate", because it is a case of a minority against a majority?
LORD BESWICK: No, my Lords, I understand to some extent the difficulties which certain noble Lords have experienced in this matter. I understand the difficulty which was shared by Sir Alan Herbert in a letter to The Times recently, but the provisions of this Act are quite clear. If anyone seeks to provide facilities such as a football ground on a discriminatory basis that is unlawful under the provisions of this Act. But the demonstrators had absolutely nothing to do with the provision of the football ground.

TEACHERS' PAY
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask a Question of which I have given Private Notice: To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a Statement on the current state of negotiations over teachers' pay.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, my noble friend Lady Phillips will be replying to this Question in a Statement at a convenient moment after half-past three, after which my noble friend Lord Delacourt-Smith will be making a Statement on the Beagle Aircraft Corporation.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, I beg to move that the First Report from the Select Committee be now considered.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
The Committee's Report was as follows:
1. APPOINTMENT OF SUB-COMMITTEES
(a) Administration. The Administration Committee was appointed as follows:

E. Listowel (Chairman)

M. Salisbury

E. St. Aldwyn

L. Amulree

L. Beswick

L. Champion

L. Denham

L. Henley

L. Strang

B. Swanborough

with the Clerk of the Parliaments.
With power to co-opt further Lords.
(b) Library. The Sub-Committee on the Library was appointed as follows:

L. Amulree

L. Burden

L. Carrington

L. Champion

L. Chorley

L. Reid

B. Wootton of Abinger

with the Clerk of the Parliaments.
With power to co-opt further Lords and to appoint its own Chairman.
(c) Refreshment Department. The Sub-Committee on the Refreshment Department was appointed as follows:

E. St. Aldwyn

V. Goschen

L. Amulree

L. Beswick

B. Brooke of Ystradfellte

L. Champion

B. Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe

L. Sainsbury

L. Strang

B. Swanborough

with the Clerk of the Parliaments.
With power to co-opt further Lords and to appoint its own Chairman.
(d) House of Lords Estimates. The Sub-Committee on the Estimates was appointed as follows:

E. Listowel (Chairman)

E. St. Aldwyn

L. Amulree

L. Beswick

with the Clerk of the Parliaments.
2. REPRINTING OF PARLIAMENTARY RECORDS
The Committee considered a request from the Kraus-Thomson Organisation for permission to reprint in conjunction with H.M. Stationery Office the out-of-print volumes of the Rolls of Parliament and the Journals of the House.
The Committee expressed approval of the project and recommended that a contract for this purpose should be negotiated between H.M. Stationery Office and the Kraus-Thomson Organisation.
3. PARLIAMENT OFFICE AND LIBRARY
The Clerk of the Parliaments informed the Committee of a review of the following posts in the Parliament Office and Library:

Clerk of the Records

Assistant Librarian

Hansard Editorial Staff

Clerical Officer, Hansard Office

Senior Office Assistant, Chairman of Committees' Department.

The Committee authorised the scales of salary consequent upon the revised grading of these posts.
4. REVISED SCALES OE PAY
The Committee sanctioned the application of Establishment Circular D.E.O. (69) (Pay) No. 12—Pay of the Higher Civil Service—to analogous grades of the staff of the House of Lords.
5. ESTIMATES
The Estimate for the House of Lords for 1970–71 was laid before the Committee and approved with an amendment in relation to the provision for Post Office Services.
6. SUPERANNUATION
The Committee sanctioned the payment of the following Superannuation Awards under the Superannuation Act 1965:

(a) Revised Pension and Additional Allowance to Mr. Thomas Eric Webster, Attendant, who retired on October 26, 1969.

(b) Pension and Additional Allowance to Mr. Arthur Edward Slaughter Forty, Second Principal Doorkeeper, who retires on November 28, 1969.

7. HOUSE OF LORDS' FEES—IRISH PEERAGE CLAIMS
The Committee considered the fees payable in regard to claims to Irish Peerages and recommend that they should be revised as follows:

£

s.

d.

On presentation of Petition …

5

5

0

Lord Chancellor's Report

5

5

0

Order made thereon

5

5

0

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now agreed to.
Moved, That the Report be now agreed to.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

POLICE BILL
2.58 p.m.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD SHACKLETON): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. It is not so very long since we had a very full and valuable discussion in your Lordships' House on the situation in Northern Ireland. In that debate the
14
Government spokesman outlined a large number of measures that had been taken, mainly the ones that had been taken by the Government of Northern Ireland, and I do not propose, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, to go over the whole ground again because it was pretty thoroughly ploughed and we were able to look at all the recommendations of the Hunt Report.
The Police Bill in front of your Lordships to-day is not a large measure in itself; indeed, it is of a somewhat technical character and is limited in scope. Nevertheless, it is an important part of the series of legislative and administrative measures to which I have also referred involved in the reform of the Police Force in Northern Ireland. These reforms in themselves are of very great importance, concerned, as they are, with law and order. It is essential in any community for the machinery of law enforcement to command wide public confidence. In recognition of this, in late August this year the Northern Ireland Minister of Home Affairs asked Lord Hunt, together with Sir James Robertson and Mr. Mark, to examine the recruitment, organisation, structure and composition of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Ulster Special Constabulary and their respective functions, and to recommend as necessary what changes were required to provide for the efficient enforcement of law and order in Northern Ireland.
With a most commendable sense of the urgency that the situation demanded, indeed with that sense of duty which we all very fully recognise exists in the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, who I hope will be able to take part in our debate to-day, Lord Hunt's Committee presented on October 3 a penetrating and constructive Report. This enabled the Report to be discussed between the Home Secretary and Northern Ireland Ministers on October 9 and 10, and the communiqué issued after that meeting sets out the principles accepted by the Northern Ireland Government. The Hunt Committee concluded that the main trouble was that the Royal Ulster Constabulary had been asked to do too many different things. It was a para-military force as much as a police force, and the Committee recommended that its para-military role should be split away from its police

15
duties. Only by doing this would it be able to restore its relations with the whole community. Broadly speaking, the Committee said the R.U.C. should be a civilianised and normally unarmed force, and that there should be a police authority, representative of the community as a whole, to which the Inspector-General should be accountable. A purely military force should assume responsibility for helping the Army to keep the border and key points secure against guerilla-type attacks, and a force of special constables on the English pattern should be available to reinforce the R.U.C. in police duties.
All this the Northern Ireland Government accepted. The Ulster Special Constabulary was to continue in being until a fully effective security force was available to replace it; and it would then come to an end. Your Lordships will shortly be considering the Ulster Defence Regiment Bill, which I understand another place has finished after somewhat arduous experiences, under which the new security force will be formed. The establishment of a new reserve for the Royal Ulster Constabulary is in the hands of the Northern Ireland Government following the publication of their White Paper on November 12.
The changes in the role of the R.U.C. are not by any means the end of the police reforms, which, so far as legislation is required, will be the subject of a Bill introduced at Stormont by the Northern Ireland Government. Legislation alone does not bring about that restoration of confidence which everyone wants to see. The new Inspector-General, Sir Arthur Young, has made it his object to create a spirit of confidence in the force; and it is apparent, as your Lordships expected, that Sir Arthur Young has made a very great contribution already. On November 11 the R.U.C. went on duty entirely without arms. The object will be that the only circumstances in which the force will carry arms will be those in which British police forces carry arms; namely, in dealing with suspects or escaped convicted persons who are carrying arms and, it is believed, will use them to resist arrest. Applications to join the R.U.C. are coming in well. The new recruiting forms that began to be used yesterday have
16
no question about an applicant's religion. We are all rather anxious to study the effect of the R.U.C.'s new image on its recruiting, but it is too soon to say any more than that we are optimistic about the result.
This, my Lords, is the background against which this Bill needs to be considered. It does not itself make any reform in the R.U.C.; it is rather a measure of support for reform by making possible arrangements for a closer association between the R.U.C. and the police forces in Great Britain. The Hunt Committee stressed the mutual benefit to be gained from this closer association, which would widen the horizons of members of the R.U.C. and enable them to profit from the experience of forces in Great Britain. They pointed out that the R.U.C. ought to be able to profit by and participate in the extensive research being carried out in Great Britain in the methods of policing and new types of equipment. The Committee formed the impression that the R.U.C. felt isolated from other police forces, and that their morale would be raised by the forging of links with forces in Great Britain. They suggested that the R.U.C. might with advantage adopt the machinery of consultation with exists in Great Britain to ensure good communication between the Home Departments, Chief Officers of Police and other members of the service. Finally, they recommended that it should he possible for the R.U.C. to be reinforced in emergencies by police from Great Britain, and vice versa.
My Lords, not all of these recommendations require to be implemented by legislation. The Bill before your Lordships makes provision in Clauses 1 and 3 for mutual aid; that is, the arrangement for reinforcements from Great Britain to Northern Ireland and vice versa. Clause 2 makes provision for British policemen more readily to undertake secondments to the R.U.C. Clause 4 makes provision for the Police Council for Great Britain to be extended to include Northern Ireland. Before turning to the Bill clause by clause, perhaps I may say that I appreciate there may be particular matters which noble Lords will wish to have dealt with, but for the sake of clarity I am not going to try to anticipate them; all the more so as my noble friend the Lord Advocate will be winding

17
up at the end of the debate. I should now like to give what I hope will be a full enough description of the Bill itself.
Clause 1 provides for aid by way of temporary reinforcement to the Royal Ulster Constabulary by home police forces—that is to say, police forces in England and Wales in Section 14 of the Police Act Stormont Parliament power to enable the R.U.C. to give aid to a home police force. There is already provision for mutual aid of this kind between forces in England and Wales in Section 14 of the Police Act 1964, and between police forces in Scotland in Section 11 of the Police (Scotland) Act 1967. The object is to assist a force whose manpower resources are insufficient to meet an out of the ordinary commitment of short duration. Examples might be a major flood disaster, sporting event, political demonstration or Royal occasion—and we all recall a recent occasion when the Metropolitan Police were in fact fulfilling this role in Wales. Under these provisions, aid may be provided by the chief officer of one force at the request of the chief officer of another. If the Secretary of State regards aid as necessary, he has power to direct a chief officer to provide aid. There is provision for the police authority of the aided force to pay to the authority of the aiding force an agreed contribution in respect of the aid provided. Subsections (1) and (2) make corresponding provision for aid by a British police force to the Royal Ulster Constabulary. It will be necessary for the Northern Ireland Government, in their Bill, to enable this aid to be paid for.
Subsection (3) of this clause provides that when a British constable is sent on mutual aid to reinforce the Royal Ulster Constabulary he will be under the direction and control of the Inspector General. This corresponds to the provision made for mutual aid between forces in this country. There was a good deal of discussion in another place about the Special Powers Acts that are in force in Northern Ireland and it was made clear on behalf of the Government that there was no intention that visiting British policemen should exercise the special police powers that these Acts involves.
It would be right that arrangements should also be made for mutual
18
aid in the opposite direction by the Royal Ulster Constabulary to a British police force. Subsection (4) extends the powers of the Stormont Parliament to enable them to legislate on this topic; they can at present legislate only for what takes place in Northern Ireland. The House may find it convenient for me to refer in this context to Clause 3, though it means taking it out of its turn. This deals with the British end of aid by the Royal Ulster Constabulary to a British force. Two provisions are required. The first is to enact that the aiding officers are under the direction of the chief officer of the aided force and have the powers of a constable in the aided area—as they have in the case of mutual aid within England and Wales or within Scotland. This is done by subsection (1). The second is to empower the police authority of the aided British force to make a payment for the aid to the Northern Ireland authorities. This is the purpose of subsection (2).
Before leaving mutual aid I should observe that I am aware that there is feeling in the service and among the police authorities that the provision for mutual aid should not be brought into force too soon. This arises from the possibility that police officers from Great Britain might be sent to Northern Ireland in circumstances in which they might have to serve alongside a constabulary whose relations with the public and methods of working might be very different from those with which we are familiar in Great Britain. I have already given an indication of the progress already made towards bringing the methods of working of the Constabulary into line with British methods and I am confident that this process will move steadily towards the situation which we desire. However, the Government understand the misgivings of those who are concerned that Clause 1 of the Bill should not be brought into force too soon, and the Home Secretary has given an assurance that this clause—apart from subsection (4)—will not be brought into force until conditions of police operations and service in Northern Ireland are more in line with those in Great Britain. He is also advising chief officers that when the clause has been brought into effect they should consult him through the medium of Her Majesty's Inspectors of Constabulary in case of doubt as to the

19
wisdom of meeting a request for aid—particularly one with political implications.
I now turn back to Clause 2 which makes provision for facilitating short service engagements of members of British police forces in the Royal Ulster Constabulary. There is already provision under the existing law for a member of a British police force, with consent, to leave that force and join the Royal Ulster Constabulary with continuity of service for pension. And where a member of the R.U.C. transfers to a British force, the Constabulary pension code provides for the payment of a transfer value and the previous service in Northern Ireland counts by virtue of our Police Pensions Regulations. It is thus already possible for a British police officer to leave his force and be accepted as a member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary without loss of pension rights, and vice versa. But the present arrangements assume that the transfer will be permanent. The Hunt Report recommended that members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary should be encouraged to apply for posts in forces in Great Britain, and vice versa. This involves permanent transfer, and the legislative basis already exists, although some changes in police regulations will be needed.
The Report went on, however, to suggest the interchange of personnel between the Constabulary and forces in Great Britain by means of attachments or secondments. In order to arrange for short service engagements of this kind, it is convenient to make use of these existing provisions for transfer in either direction. All that needs to be added is a right of reversion at the conclusion of the agreed period of short service. This is what Clause 2 provides. It is modelled on Section 2 of the Police (Overseas Service) Act, 1945.
Clause 4 gives effect to a recommendation of Chapter 7 of the Hunt Report that the central representative body of the Royal Ulster Constabulary should be given a statutory right to take part in negotiations about conditions of service. There is already in existence a Police Council for Great Britain established by Section 45 of the Police Act 1964. This is the negotiating body for the Police Service on specified matters—broadly
20
speaking, pay and allowances and other conditions of service—and the advisory body on pensions matters. It consists of an Official Side—loosely speaking, the employers' side—including representatives of the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Scotland and of the local authority associations; and a Staff Side, including nominees of the various bodies representing the police, such as the two Police Federations. What is needed to give effect to the recommendation is to enlarge this body into a Police Council for the United Kingdom by the addition on either side of representatives of the proposed new police authority and of the representative body of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. For technical reasons, it is simpler and clearer to replace Section 45 of the Police Act, 1964 rather than to amend it so as to extend it to the Royal Ulster Constabulary.
The purpose of Clause 5 is to facilitate the making of certain technical amendments to the Police Pensions Regulations. Clause 6 is formal, and Clause 7 makes provision for the fixing of appointed days for the coming into operation of the various provisions of the Bill. The Home Secretary has given the police organisations an assurance that he will consult them before fixing the dates of commencement for the provisions on mutual aid and the Police Council. My Lords, I began by saying that the Bill is limited in its scope. I have endeavoured to show the way in which it fits into and supports the wider programme. This is an immensely important programme for Northern Ireland. I have deliberately not sought to survey the whole of the Northern Ireland scene nor to conjure up some of the issues which have caused such deep anxiety. I believe that this is a useful and constructive measure. It is through measures of this kind that we shall hope to see the achievement of stability and peace in Northern Ireland. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Shackleton.)
3.20 p.m.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the House for taking us through this Bill both quickly and clearly. As he says, there will be certain points raised during the debate and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will, I hope,

21
deal with them. We on these Benches welcome this Bill. We think it a good measure. I am particularly glad to be able to welcome it in person, as to some extent the "father" of this Bill is my old brother officer, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt.
This is a measure which will help the Royal Ulster Constabulary, when they have finished giving up their para-military duties, to approximate to the police forces in this country. I think I am right in saying—I shall be interested to hear whether the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, confirms it—that one of the things which the Royal Ulster Constabulary would like to do more than anything else is to give up their para-military duties; and this Bill will help. When looking at the Bill we must remember that the Royal Ulster Constabulary is a very small force—I think that there are something like 3,000 of them—but they have a very large area to control; and on occasions probably they will need help, as was said by the noble Lord, the Leader of the House, for things like a Royal Visit, or perhaps a Springbok match, or a series of rather militant strikes.
In addition, under this Bill it will be possible for members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary to come here to attend police colleges, to work with our police and to learn with our police, and for some of our police to go and learn with them. My Lords, I think that this is most important. In fact, this Bill will enable the Royal Ulster Constabulary to do what our own chief constables do. The head of one force asks the head of another force for help. If the head of the other force is able to provide it, he says, "Yes". If he does not think that he can provide help he says, "No".
When this Bill was first introduced many of us had doubts or reservations about parts of it. Many of those doubts and reservations have, I think, been allayed following the debate in the other place, for those of us who either listened to the debate or who have read the Commons Hansard. But doubts and reservations are still held by a great number of people outside this House and the other place who have not read Hansard; and I think, therefore, that it might be helpful if I were to specify, very shortly, what were the doubts we had, and which of them we think have
22
been allayed, and why. There is one doubt which we still hold, and I shall ask the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Advocate, whether he will deal with it more fully when he replies.
The first doubt we had was whether, considering the shortage of numbers in certain police forces in this country, it was wise to expect them to provide help for Northern Ireland in an emergency or on special occasions; whether, in fact, we could spare the men. This provision is referred to in Clause 1(1) of the Bill. There might be a perfectly normal request from the head of one force to the head of another. I do not think that we need be unduly worried about that. If, for example, a chief constable in this country said he could not provide men, he would not have to do so. I think that provision ought to work quite satisfactorily. What worried us more was Clause 1(2) where, on the face of it, the Home Secretary could order a chief constable to send men to help in Northern Ireland, if the Inspector General of the Royal Ulster Constabulary asked him directly to do so. We thought that it would be putting too great a strain on our home police forces if the Home Secretary were able to say, "Well, send men; I do not care whether you can spare them or not." In fact the explanations given by the Home Secretary in another place are, I think, quite satisfactory.
The Home Secretary committed himself but, of course, he cannot commit future Home Secretaries. He, or the Minister of State, pointed out what would happen when there was a great urgency and there was not time to go through the normal channels. The Secretary of State could be asked to provide men, and what would then happen would be that he, or someone at the Home Office, would get on the telephone to a particular chief constable and say, "Can you send 200 men forthwith to Northern Ireland?". The Home Secretary said that so far as he was concerned—he thought that any other course would be inconceivable in the case of future Home Secretaries, and I must say that I agree with him—if. having telephoned to a chief constable and having said, "We want you to send 200 men", the chief constable said, "I have already stopped all police leave; we have two big football matches, a Royal visit and a large procession of some

23
students in the next two days; I simply cannot spare one man", he would not say, to the chief constable, "You must do so". The present Home Secretary said he would not say that, but he cannot commit future Home Secretaries. So I do not think that we need to be too worried about that point.
The next worry we had was for how long would police be sent from this country to Northern Ireland. The wording of the Bill is, "to meet a special demand." The question is: how long is a special demand? The Minister of State went into some detail about this point and said that it was a matter of hours, possibly days; not really weeks. It would be for particular incidents—football matches, and so on. In view of that undertaking, I think the provision is reasonable; but one does not really know what would happen. We sent police to Anguilla for a week or two. I know that they were volunteers, but they went there for a week or two, so far as we all knew. But some of them are still there, after many months. I should like a little more information about this matter from the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Advocate, because there must be some protection for our police officers, to ensure that they are not sent somewhere else for too long a period. So perhaps the noble and learned Lord will comment on it. I am not unduly worried, but it is a point.
The Minister of State went on to say that in any emergency, such as there has been recently in Northern Ireland, which to deal with would take many months and which was very widespread, the Army would have to take over control, as they had done recently in Northern Ireland. That is all right, my Lords; but would the Army be there? As we all know, the Government have not yet stopped running down the strength of the Army. When troops were required for Northern Ireland, even in present circumstances—and there are more regiments still to be done away with—the Army was stretched pretty tightly to provide them. And that, my Lords, at a moment when we had no other urgent commitment elsewhere. One's mind boggles at the thought of what might have happened if the Northern Ireland business had blown up at the
24
same moment as Anguilla. We could be overstretched and there might not be sufficient troops. I think that subject also ought to be commented on by the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Advocate, because if there were not enough troops, whether we wanted it or not the police would have to be kept there longer than was intended.
I have only one more doubt which I should like dealt with. The noble Lord the Leader of the House dealt with it partially, but not fully, and it was not answered very satisfactorily in the other place. It is the question of the law under which our police would operate in Northern Ireland. The law in Northern Ireland is not the same in every respect as it is in this country. In his attestation a constable swears to do certain things, and his oath continues:
"And while I continue to hold the said office will to the best of my skill and knowledge discharge all the duties thereof faithfully according to law."
What law? As we know, it is the Government's intention that they shall not operate the Special Powers Act; but we cannot do away with the Special Powers Act overnight. Many of the laws in this country, such as those dealing with firearms and explosives, come under separate enactments; but in Northern Ireland they all come under the Special Powers Act, and many of the things that can be done under the Act in Northern Ireland are things which we do not like and which our policemen do not like. The Government have said that our police will not be expected to operate the Special Powers Act and, indeed, will not do so, as I understand that until Amendments have been made to the Act we are not going to send police to Northern Ireland. But we are told that police will be available to be sent there when their laws are in line with the laws here. I do not know what that means.
I visualise a young constable going along with a party of constables of the Royal Ulster Constabulary under the control of an R.U.C. officer, and when told to do something which is not in accord with our law he will do it, not knowing that it does not coincide with what he is allowed to do here. I cannot quite make up my mind about how dangerous a risk this is, and so far in neither

25
House have we had a sufficient answer on how this will be prevented. I believe it to be important. Those are the only doubts that still remain. Apart from those doubts, I hope that your Lordships will give this Bill a Second Reading. There is considerable urgency. I think that it would be a great help to the Royal Ulster Constabulary in future and help to make them a police force such as we know in this country, which is what they want to be.
3.33 p.m.
LORD HUNT: My Lords, I think that I should start with an apology in case it becomes necessary for me to leave your Lordships' House before this debate is concluded. I know that the hour is only half past three, and that there is only one speaker to follow me, so that this is relatively unlikely; but it will not depend on me, because I shall be brief. Indeed, I think that it would be presumptuous and improper on my part if I were to speak at any length in this debate, unless it were to speak in frank opposition to the Bill that has come before your Lordships. Perhaps it is superfluous to mention that I support the Bill and express my relief and delight that it has come into being so soon after the publication of our Report. It is gratifying to see that the great sense of urgency which was enjoined upon my Committee by both the Stormont Government and our own Government has been applied to itself by the Government in producing both the measure we have before us this afternoon and the one that we shall have before us next week.
I have only two points to make, knowing now that certain doubts and questions about this Bill have been voiced by the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, which no doubt will be dealt with by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, in due course. The first point I have is to give my personal testimony to the attitude of the rank and file throughout the Royal Ulster Constabulary towards the reform and the provisions in this Bill, which meet a deep and long-felt need on the part of the R.U.C. At every meeting of the county consultative committees in all the counties and cities that we visited, both at the long meetings of the central representative body and in the written evidence given to us by that body, the voice of the officers and men, ex-
26
pressing their sense of isolation and the need for moral and practical support from their colleagues in blue on this side of the water, came through loud and clear. I would say that to a large extent the provisions in this Bill, resulting from recommendations we made on these points, and the other recommendations do little more, so far as the R.U.C. is concerned, than put into print, with the authority which my Committee was able to command, the feelings of the body politic of the R.U.C. That is my first point.
My second point, which is perhaps a more important one, is that, as I understand what the Home Secretary said in another place, it is only after this Bill is enacted that it will be possible for the Stormont Government to take further steps to implement certain other recommendations which require legislation over there. These recommendations include perhaps the most important of all—that is, the formation of a police authority. This is the body of civilians from various professions and public bodies which is to be responsible for the R.U.C. It is the vital link. It is also perhaps as well named the buffer between the Inspector-General, as he is presently known, and the Minister for Home Affairs, and the body to which, as my noble friend the Leader of the House said, the Inspector-General will be accountable.
This is undoubtedly the central and most important part of our Report. it is the key from which a number of other views, on which we did not have time to make firm recommendations and on which in any case we felt it better perhaps to wait for final resolution in Northern Ireland, can be translated into action. If I may, I would mention a few of them, to stress the importance of the Bill we have before us going through to enable these other measures, particularly the formation of a police authority, to be brought into being. On the existence of the police authority depends the implementation in detail of the measures in this Bill, enabling legislation having been passed. The police authority it to be responsible for the oversight of the new procedure for dealing with complaints against the police which is now being put into being by the Inspector-General. It is only when the authority is in being that the Minister will be in a position, as we

27
recommend he should be, to consult the police authority about the orders that he may wish to put into force under the Public Order Act for dealing with processions.
We have recommended a Police Advisory Board and that the police authority should be a member of that Board, which would enable the rank and file to be in direct contact with the Minister. There is the whole question of the nomenclature and rank structure, which will make the exchanges and mutual aid provided in this Bill much easier, once the police authority has made up its mind about the changes in this field. Perhaps the most important is the question of the size of the force. We pointed out how woefully below strength it is and how dangerous the situation could be if disturbances were to happen again—and I would not rule this out as impossible—on anything like the scale on which they happened last August, when the R.U.C. was stretched beyond the limit. The police authority will have to make up its mind what the establishment should be and what measures should be taken to bring the force up to that establishment.
There is the question of forming a Cadet Corps, which we thought was important, and a number of other measures (I will not weary your Lordships by going through them) which depend on the existence of the police authority to make the decisions. Clearly, until this body has come into being, not only the provisions of this Bill but the whole principle of the government of the R.U.C. must remain substantially as it is at present. I could not put it less strongly than that. So, to a large extent, the spirit of the changes in our Report depend on it, and this Bill is the door to all these other changes. I am very glad that this door is to be opened quickly, and I hope that the Bill will be speedily approved so that the rest of the reforms can pass through.
In conclusion, I should like, even though it is early days, to say a word in tribute to Sir Arthur Young. I had the good fortune to meet him yesterday. He was good enough to tell me how things were going. I had not met him before, but I was, as I am sure all your Lordships who know him would have been, immensely impressed. I am going
28
to make so bold as to read a paragraph from my own Report which bears on this point, and which I found so useful when I met Sir Arthur Young. In the last paragraph but one of the first chapter we said this:
"There is one final point; it is perhaps the most important of all those which we have to make. We believe that the recommendations in this report will call for outstanding qualities of leadership to carry them out. There must be a conviction of the need for the changes and a due sense of urgency. There must also be an ability to appreciate the problems of Northern Ireland and the sensitivities of its people combined with a determination to chart a course towards the future, undeflected by the events of the past."
My Lords, I am certain that we have in Sir Arthur Young a man to fulfil those requirements.

TEACHERS' PAY DISPUTE
3.41 p.m.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to answer a Private Notice Question asked earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare. I shall do this by repeating an Answer being given in another place to a similar Question. The Answer is as follows:
"In March the Burnham Committee concluded an agreement on new scales of salary for schoolteachers in England and Wales to run for two years, until March 31, 1971. The agreement represented an increase in the salary bill of 7·1 per cent. In October the teachers' panel presented a new claim for a further increase, to run from April 1, 1970 (that is, in midterm of the current agreement), of £135 a year for all teachers. I estimate that this would cost £44 million or 8½ per cent. of the total salaries bill. At a meeting of the Committee on November 10, the teachers' panel rejected a management panel offer of £50 and the Committee then agreed to adjourn for about one month. It is to meet again on December 15."
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, all your Lordships will be grateful to the noble Baroness for repeating that Answer given to the Private Notice Question. I am sure that all of us deeply deplore the strike of teachers. We recognise that they

29
are a devoted profession, often working in overcrowded and difficult circumstances. Nevertheless, we must deeply regret this kind of action, particularly as it is our children who arc the chief sufferers, and especially while negotiations are still in progress in the Burnham Committee.
Surely the underlying reason why the teachers have taken this drastic action is the complete collapse of the Government's prices and incomes policy. The teachers accepted a 3½ per cent. per annum rise last April on the understanding that this was the limit imposed by the incomes policy. Now they see dustmen receiving 16 per cent. and firemen 14 per cent. No wonder, my Lords, that they are up in arms!
I should like to ask the noble Baroness this question. Is it not a fact that the global sum available to the local education authority representatives on the negotiating committee is decided by the Government? Have the Government made up their mind what this figure is and communicated it to the local education authority representatives in order that at the meeting of the Burnham Committee on December 15 they may be in a position to make a further offer and reopen negotiations? This is essential if we are to avoid a long period of unrest in our schools.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, is not the problem more fundamental than that? I think the teachers have lost confidence in the salary system under which they operate. Is it not clear that the Burnham system is now completely out of date, and that we should be asking for an immediate inquiry to be set up in which the teachers can have confidence? Can the Minister say anything about that?
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, noble Lords will not expect me to comment on the wider issue. As noble Lords will remember, the Burnham Committee is an independent body which was set up under an Act of Parliament as recently as 1965. The panel itself has roughly a 50/50 representation, including two from the Department of Education and Science. So far as Lord Aberdare's question is concerned, I am afraid that
30
I am unable to give him a precise answer now, but I will let him have one later. While my right honourable friend has made some reference to the fact that he regrets the teachers' decision to strike, he has also made the point that he could not deny their right to do so, and, indeed, that action has been taken to ensure that the children's welfare is safeguarded in this connection.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether she is aware of the fact that those people who rely for information on the normal media of the Press, television and radio have not the slightest idea as to the accuracy of the alleged figures which are given relating to the earnings of teachers? Is she aware that in some cases the figures given appear to be both parsimonious and miserable, while on the other hand some of them seem to be very handsome indeed? Could my noble friend ask her right honourable friend to make public, in a White Paper or otherwise, an objective list of the actual salaries paid to teachers?
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I at once accept what my noble friend has said. It is very rarely easy for ordinary citizens to discover the full facts on any matter under discussion. The amounts, of course, are quite easily available and I could give them to my noble friend now. But there are various additional payments which mean that the basic salaries would not give a complete picture. At the moment, the basic scale is £860 rising to £1,600. We must remember, however, that there are allowances, graded posts, posts of special responsibility and so on in addition.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the figure of £860 which she has quoted is what one has to pay to-day for a 17 year old typist?
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I am well aware of that fact, and I am equally aware that our sense of values is something which in many senses may have gone awry. I am sure that this is not the moment to go into that matter; nor can the noble Lord blame the Government for it.

THE BEAGLE AIRCRAFT COMPANY
3.49 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, MINISTRY OF TECHNOLOGY (LORD DELACOURT-SMITH): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to repeat a Statement which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend, the Minister of Technology. The Statement is about Beagle Aircraft Limited. It is as follows:
"When the Government decided in 1966 to take over the Beagle Company, there was a reasonable possibility of the company becoming self-sufficient within a few years. These views were in line with those of the Plowden Committee on the Aircraft Industry which recommended that the Government should give assistance to the building of light aircraft, but should review progress from time to time if the light aircraft business were not approaching the objective of self-sufficiency within a few years.
"As was explained to the House during the passage of the Industrial Expansion Bill, the company then expected to break even in 1972. The company's board have recently reassessed the position and put revised proposals before my Department. Despite considerable achievements during the intervening period the board have represented strongly to me that a commercially viable future would require the development and introduction of a wider product range, including new designs of twin-engined aircraft. Production would be needed on a large scale demanding larger sales, including significant penetration of the American market. Such a programme would require additional working capital of £6 million over the next few years and probably more later to build on the foundations which the board would by then have laid. This reassessment puts the break-even point three years further off.
"After giving the most careful consideration to these proposals the Government have regretfully concluded that, having regard to the need to contain Government expenditure there is not sufficient priority to justify the
32
investment of further public funds in this enterprise in the face of the many competing demands on national resources.
"In the circumstances, the board of Beagle Aircraft Ltd. have had no alternative but to ask their bankers and the Government to appoint Mr. Kenneth Cork as Receiver and Manager as the appropriate step for the preservation of the undertaking and the assets of the company. This the bank and the Government have agreed to do.
"I am not sorry that we made this effort to bring the industry back on its feet. In this we have been excellently supported by the management and workers of the company, who have made the most valiant efforts.
"I hope that those parties who have recently expressed interest in the acquisition of the company will come forward with firm proposals, which will secure the employment and the long-term prospects inherent in the aircraft already developed."
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, we on these Benches are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith, for having repeated that Statement here. We naturally deeply regret that it has been necessary to appoint a Receiver. I thought that the company had been doing fairly well with the Pup aircraft, even exporting them to the United States, as well as to South Africa and elsewhere. The noble Lord must forgive me for having partially lost my voice; but may I ask him what is to happen to the aircraft they are exporting at the moment? Secondly, can the noble Lord say anything further about the parties who may be interested in taking over the company?
I wonder whether any thought has been given to tying up with European partners? I asked this question of the noble Lord in another context only the other day. However, I recognise that the Government are heavily committed on other capital projects, and I certainly would not urge them to raise another £6 million in this particular case to enable the company to develop a wider product range and new designs. None the less, we deeply regret this decision, and hope that other firms, either in Britain or in Europe, will come forward to help

33
save this company which, in the past, has had a good record. I would join with the noble Lord in a tribute to the management and workers in the company.
EARL AMHERST: My Lords, we on these Benches also thank the noble Lord for making the Statement, and express our regret that this company should have been overtaken by ill-fortune. We note that it is possible that interests may be coming forward to provide the necessary finance so as to enable the company to carry on. In the meantime, can the Government say what is to happen to the staff of all categories, both in this country and overseas—if there are any overseas? What is to happen to the aircraft that have already been constructed, but not sold? I think that question has already been asked. And what is to happen to those aircraft that are mow partially constructed in the workshops? Lastly, I should like to repeat a question which has already been asked. Is there any possibility of a link up with Europe that could provide a wider market for this company than has been the case?
3.55 p.m.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, and the noble Earl, Lord Amherst, for the comments which they have made. We share to the full the regrets and disappointment which they have expressed at the situation which has arisen and the conclusion to which we have felt obliged to come.
So far as the position of the aircraft at present in course of construction is concerned, as I said, a Receiver and Manager has been appointed, with power to continue the business for the time being. We must give him time to examine the position, and at this stage I cannot anticipate the outcome of his examination. As to the position of the employees, the situation is that there are approximately 580 at Shoreham-by-Sea, and a further 500 at Rearsby, near Leicester. Their future in the light aircraft industry will depend upon the outcome of the operations of the Receiver and Manager. Noble Lords have asked about the interest shown in this company by other interests, and the possibilities of further finance being forthcoming
34
from sources other than Her Majesty's Government. At this stage I cannot say more than that the points which have been made in respect of the European and United States markets are very much in the minds of those who have been concerned with this situation. There are indications of interest from a number of quarters—these include major American concerns—but I do not think that either I or my right honourable friend can give any further details at this stage.
LORD PARGITER: My Lords, may I ask the Minister what is the present asset value of the company as a going concern? What relationship does that bear to the £6 million extra?
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: My Lords, I cannot give a figure for the asset value of the company as a going concern. That will only emerge in the course of examination of the situation by the Receiver. The figure which my noble friend has quoted of £6 million is the sum which has been put into this company in the period since 1966.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, I have listened to the Minister's Statement with deep regret, as has been expressed by other noble Lords. May I ask the noble Lord whether he does not feel that Parliament and the public are entitled to rather fuller information than is contained in a Parliamentary reply on such matters as the amount of public money which has to be written off? Also, such information as to the number of men who will be thrown out of work; the numbers of aircraft which have been produced, and, most important of all, some further information as to why this debacle has come about for a company which we were told had bright prospects, enjoyed public confidence, public money and had a market available in the medium type of aircraft? I would press the Government to issue a White Paper giving further details of this very sad transaction.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: My Lords, as I have already said, it is a situation which is a matter of disappointment and regret to all of us. I am sure that the noble Lord will agree that it was right that a Statement should be made to Parliament at the first possible moment, and this has now been done.

35
There will no doubt be further opportunities for more detailed examination and debate upon the subject. That is not a matter for me. I will communicate to my right honourable friend the suggestion that has been made about the possibility of a White Paper, or some other fuller statement upon the matter. At present, as I have indicated, the conduct of the company's operations has passed into the hands of the Receiver, and to some extent we must await the outcome of his examination of the position.
LORD GRANVILLE OF EYE: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend this question? If no other concern is likely to come forward to take over this young and enterprising company, does this mean that we shall virtually disappear from the light aircraft manufacturing market?
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: My Lords, as I think my noble friend will be aware, there is at least one other company operating at present in this country in this field. It is certainly the hope of my right honourable friend that it will be possible, in the light of the Receiver's inquiries, to achieve a solution which will make use of this country's long experience and skill in the light aircraft field.
LORD HANKEY: My Lords, would the Government agree that the failure of this company, after a considerable injection of Government assistance, must be partly attributed to the "squeeze"? Would the Government watch the operation of the "squeeze" and its effects rather closely, in order that further failures such as this may be avoided?
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: My Lords, I am afraid I cannot accept the implication of the noble Lord's question. I do not think it can be said that the "squeeze" has been a factor of the importance he attributes to it in this case.
LORD BROUGHAM AND VAUX: My Lords, would there be any chance of the Government's reducing the tariff on imported aircraft so that people who need these aircraft, either for business purposes or otherwise, will be able to buy them more readily than they can when they
36
have to pay out so much money because of very high import duty?
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: My Lords, I am afraid that that is another question.

POLICE BILL
4.2 p.m.
Second Reading debate resumed.
THE LORD ADVOCATE (LORD WILSON OF LANGSIDE): My Lords, the constructive support which this measure has received this afternoon from the noble Lords who have taken part in the debate and also, possibly, the absence from the Benches opposite of the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, who it had been thought would speak in the debate, have reduced my task to one of relative simplicity. But before I turn to deal with the few points which were raised, may I make a number of general observations upon this measure which I hope your Lordships may regard as being in point?
Here in your Lordships' House and in another place, and indeed throughout the length and breadth of our country, during these last months the trials and difficulties of the people of Northern Ireland have been much debated; and the issues, the great issues it may be, have been explored and examined—sometimes, perhaps understandably enough, with a passion reflecting the tension and violence that lurk in the background to all this. The short debate o which we have listened this afternoon reflects the circumstance that what we are now embarked upon is, quite simply, the rather more prosaic task of applying practicable and effective solutions to those problems—problems which we have all known about for so long, but which, for a variety of reasons, have recently led to that tension and violence to which I have referred.
Is it too much to hope that the vigorous initiatives which have been taken—and, I hasten to add, taken not only by the Governments which are involved, because many other people and bodies of people have played their part—will themselves contribute to the creation of the kind of atmosphere in which we shall be most likely successfully to solve the problems and right the wrongs? The problem with which this particular Bill is concerned is the relationship between the police and

37
the public. To quote the words of the Report of the Committee of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt:
"… a good relationship is vital if a police force is to be effective".
This is a small Bill, as my noble friend the Leader of the House said in opening the debate, and on one view involves little more than a technical exercise. It is, however, a not unimportant part of a series of legislative and administrative measures here and in Northern Ireland, and the Government commend this particular item as likely to make a significant contribution to the solution of one aspect of Northern Ireland's problems. The Bill derives, again as my noble Leader said in opening, from certain of the recommendations, particularly those in Chapter 7, of the Hunt Report—that historic document which won such unstinted and, if I may humbly say so, such well-deserved praise in your Lordships' House during the debate oil October 15. So the Bill is a necessary first step in bringing about a situation in which police forces in England and Wales and Scotland may be more closely associated with the Royal Ulster Constabulary. The reasons why this is a desirable and worthwhile step are set out fully in the Hunt Report, and it is not for me, in closing this debate, to take up time in repeating them.
However, before I turn to deal with the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, may I say just a word on the subject of the Northern Ireland (Special Powers) Acts? This legislation, so far as I have been able to find out, has no friends left. If perchance it has, I do not imagine that they are the kind of friends with whom most of your Lordships would wish to be associated. It would not be relevant to the debate to enter into a detailed examination of the Special Powers Acts. Suffice it to say that, while some of the regulations are not especially contentious, others are. And it is recognised by all, including the Government of Northern Ireland, that part of the return to normalcy in Northern Ireland must be the replacement of these Acts. Your Lordships will recall that progress in that direction has in fact from time to time been interrupted by acts of sabotage, as when, for example, in April of this year Belfast water supplies were cut off as a result of an explosion.
38
Let me say that the Government have a clear policy in regard to these Acts. The Northern Ireland Government said in November, 1968, and again in October, 1969, that they were prepared to abandon special powers so long as this could be done without undue hazard. As has been said, the Government here took them at their word and the Home Secretary, through the Minister of State, gave an assurance in another place on November 17 that he would enter into negotiations with the Northern Ireland Government upon the matter. It seems sensible to us that those of the powers which ought to be part of the legislation of any State but which, in the case of Northern Ireland, happen to be special powers, should be provided for in permanent legislation, and that the others should be dropped as soon as possible.
It is not for me here, of course, to say how quickly this exercise might be concluded, but the Government consider that it should be given priority, and everyone who wishes the powers to go will, I hope, help to ensure that they are not needed. Of course as always, unhappily, in these situations—not only in Northern Ireland but elsewhere—some of those who are most vociferous in demanding the abolition of this legislation are the very people who, by their actions, encourage the kind of fears that persuaded others that the legislation must remain in being. The relevance of these Acts to this debate was of course focused in the debates in another place, where concern was expressed lest police officers from other parts of the United Kingdom should be expected to implement the provisions of the Acts, and it was suggested that it was difficult to link the police forces of Northern Ireland with those of other parts of the kingdom if they were operating, as it were, under two philosophies of the law.
Paragraph 143 of the Hunt Report was also founded upon that. This paragraph, your Lordships will remember, referred to the view which had been expressed to the Committee by a number of experienced police officers, that the relationship between the police and the public would be important if the Acts were to be repealed. In this context I would repeat the assurances given in another place both by my right honourable friend

39
the Home Secretary and by my honourable friend the Minister of State. First, my right honourable friend made it clear that he intended to consult the various police organisations before fixing the date for the appointed day.
Perhaps I should apologise to your Lordships for repeating these assurances because in large measure the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, expressed himself, as I understood him, as being satisfied in this particular context. Perhaps your Lordships will forgive me if I emphasise it, but my right honourable friend also stressed that he would consider very carefully the date of implementation and the date of making a commencement order if the Bill became law. He recognised, too, that mutual aid should not be made operative until he was satisfied that the conditions of service would be fair to those required to serve under these arrangements The Minister of State repeated the assurance, given by my right honourable friend in another place on November 17, during the Second Reading of the Bill, that any British policeman who went over to Northern Ireland on short-term mutual aid would not be called upon to operate the Special Powers Act. She went on to say that this was also the intention of the Northern Ireland Government. My Lords, the problem presented in this context is a real one, but I am content to leave it to the judgment of your Lordships whether the Government's approach to it is or is not the right one.
May I now turn to the points put to the House by the noble Lord, Lord Derwent? As I understood it, he expressed some concern lest the tour of duty under a mutual aid arrangement might drag out unduly. I think he acknowledged that assurances have been given that aid under Clause 1 will be sent only when conditions in Northern Ireland are broadly those which apply to police service in Great Britain. In my view, the very fact that this would be so would tend to contribute towards keeping the tour of duty under control. The noble Lord suggested that perhaps experience in Anguilla indicated that what had started as a temporary demand might extend alarmingly in time. I think I can assure the noble Lord that the situation in Anguilla was in a number of respects different from
40
that with which we are dealing in Northern Ireland. This mutual aid arrangement is useful, and is thought of as being useful, only in meeting a short-term need for additional men. It is not thought of as being useful to provide a strengthening of a force for more than a few days; and ordinary policing, as opposed to, say, crowd control—be it a procession or the like—demands a knowledge of local geography, local law and local conditions which members of an outside force would not normally have.
In my view, the crux of the matter is that the nature of mutual aid is that it could afford help only in dealing with short-term problems, and in relation to Northern Ireland it will not be used for long periods. I have said that the Anguilla situation is wholly different. The Anguilla police unit, I understand, is a local police force established under the Police (Overseas Service) Act 1945. The British police who had gone to Anguilla had accepted short-service engagements of the sort contemplated under the present Bill, not by Clause 1 but by Clause 2.
The second point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, related to the possibility that, in present circumstances in Northern Ireland, the Army might become overstretched. I shall not attempt to take up the noble Lord's general point—and I do not think he would expect it—about the attitude of Her Majesty's Government towards the Army, except to say that I think he mistakes it. The fact remains that the Army has nearly ten major units in Northern Ireland and is at present meeting its commitments successfully, and Her Majesty's Government do not envisage that a situation will occur where the Army will be so stretched that police on mutual aid will be left stranded.
The third point of the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, with which I have to deal relates to the position of the constable. He asked, by reference to the constable's oath of service, under what law is he serving. As I understand, it, a constable must perform his duties according to law, and that means the law applicable in the place where he is doing his duty. But, of course, in relation to this matter your Lordships have the assurances as to the practical working of this which have been given by my right honourable friend and to which the noble Lord, the Leader of

41
the House, and I myself, have already referred.
In commending this Bill to your Lordships, may I conclude simply by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for everything they have said to-day, and for, as I have already described it, the constructive support which they have given to this small but important and not insignificant measure.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

ULSTER DEFENCE REGIMENT BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

RENT (CONTROL OF INCREASES) BILL
4.24 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD KENNET): My Lords, this Bill applies to Great Britain. It has two purposes. Part I enables the Housing Ministers to continue to control rent increases made by local authorities if these increases exceed certain limits. Part II provides for the phasing of increases which may arise when the rents of private regulated tenancies are registered. There is a control of rent increases for both council and private regulated tenancies under the Prices and Incomes Act 1968, but this Act expires at the end of this month. The present Bill is to come into force on January 1, 1970, and its control provisions differ from the control provisions in the 1968 Act, which in this respect it will be replacing.
Because of the importance of rent in the family budget, restraint in local authority rent increases has been an ingredient of the Government's prices and incomes policy from the very beginning. The three White Papers on Prices and Incomes Policy issued in 1966 and 1967 stressed the need to avoid or moderate rent increases wherever that was possible. The great majority of local authorities followed the Government's advice. But during 1967 and early 1968 a few authorities made or proposed increases
42
which appeared to be incompatible with that advice. Accordingly in December, 1967, the Government referred to the National Board for Prices and Incomes the reasons for increases in council rents and the phasing of such increases, with particular reference to 21 named authorities which represented a cross-section of rent increases made or proposed at that time.
In their Report in April, 1968, the Prices and Incomes Board recommended that the weekly increase in average standard rents should not exceed 7s. 6d. per dwelling in a 12 month period. The Board did not lay down a suggested maximum for the increase for any individual dwelling but recommended that:
"the principle of moderation should be observed for individual households also."
In the light of these recommendations power was taken in the 1968 Prices and Incomes Act to control local authority increases. This limited the exercise by local authorities of their statutory responsibility under the Housing Act 1957 to review rents from time to time and to make any necessary changes. Since the 1968 Act an authority wishing to increase rents has had to submit proposals to the Minister and obtain his approval before the rent increase could be made.
In dealing with proposals under the 1968 Act, the Housing Ministers have allowed local authorities to increase rents only in order to meet unavoidable increases in costs or to meet the cost of introducing or improving a rent rebate scheme, subject to an upper limit, in any 12 month period, of 7s. 6d. a week for the average increase and 10s. a week for any single house. In only one case has the Minister agreed to a proposal to increase rents by an average of more than 7s. 6d. a week. There was a good reason for this and I will not detain the House with a description of it.
Nearly all proposals under the 1968 Act involved an average increase of 7s. 6d. a week or less, and 914 such proposals have so far been approved. Nearly three-quarters of these involved increases averaging 5s. or less a week, and over a quarter involved increases averaging 2s. 6d. or less a week. Of these proposals, 273 were rejected, 14 because they involved increases of more than 7s. 6d. a week. The remainder were rejected

43
mainly because the authority had not taken all the steps reasonably open to it to avoid, moderate or postpone the proposed rent increase, for instance by using a substantial housing account balance. Where the proposed increase averaged 7s. 6d. a week or less the authority was not expected to eliminate working balances or to make a rate fund contribution greater than it had normally made in recent years.
The 1968 Act was resented by the local authorities—or some of them—because it reduced their previous statutory discretion. But it reduced only their discretion to review rents, to use the statutory word, or to increase rents, to use the commonplace word. It did not directly reduce their discretion to fix reasonable rents and to grant rent rebates. In administering the Act the Minister has not in fact been concerned with the rent levels as such of an individual authority, or with the rents fixed for individual dwellings, only with the increases.
The Government consider that the prices and incomes policy continues to require restraint in rent increases, but we want that restraint to be operated, so far as is compatible with that policy itself, by the local authorities. The Government have therefore made an agreement with the local authority associations in the light of this policy. The associations representing authorities in England and Wales have agreed to recommend to their members certain guidelines for the period January 1, 1970, to June 30, 1971. These guidelines are as follows: First, for a sitting tenant the standard rent—that is, the rent for the dwelling excluding any payment for rates, water rates, furniture and services—should be increased only to the extent necessary to meet any unavoidable increases in costs falling to be met in the period covered by the agreement, or to meet the cost of introducing or improving a rent rebate scheme. Secondly, rents should not normally be increased to reduce a rate fund contribution, but special consideration might be given where the contribution has become abnormally high in recent years.
Thirdly, in any period of one year no general increase in rents should involve an average increase of more than 7s. 6d. a week for the dwellings affected,
44
and no increase for any individual dwelling should exceed 10s. a week, save in exceptional circumstances. Fourthly, it would be against the spirit of the agreement to vary the terms of an existing rent rebate scheme so as to increase rental income. A broadly similar agreement has been made with the Scottish local authority associations.
The Government are primarily relying on this agreement with the associations to achieve the necessary restraint. The agreement covers every local authority in Great Britain except the Greater London Council, who have refused to subscribe to it. The Government intend to buttress the agreement by taking power, in Part I of the present Bill, to control rent increases if they exceed certain limits. Under the Bill an authority will need the Minister's permission to increase the rent of more than 10 per cent. of its dwellings by an average of more than 7s. 6d. a week in any period of one year. This provision closely follows the recommendation of the Prices and Incomes Board that increases in average standard rents above this limit should need the prior consent of the housing departments. Under the Bill an authority will also need the Minister's permission to increase the rent of any single house by more than 10s. a week in any period of one year. As any increase above these limits is very difficult to reconcile with the Government's prices and incomes policy, the Ministers expect that they will be justified in permitting such increases only in quite exceptional circumstances.
There are various things in the Bill to which the control powers do not apply. It is necessary for me to tell the House what they are because one does not want to get a false picture of the inclusiveness of this Bill. The control powers do not apply to rents fixed for new houses; they do not apply to rent increases where there is a change of tenancy, unless the new tenant is a member of the former tenant's family previously residing with him; they do not apply to rent increases attributable to improvements; they do not apply to increases in rates and water rates and charges; they do not apply to increases in charges for lodgers, additional earners and so on; they do not apply to rent increases payable by a tenant as a result of a reduction in his rent rebate; and they do not apply to

45
increases in a charge for services or furniture.
Part I of the Bill is so drafted as to expire after June 30, 1971. But as prices and incomes policy develops, the Government and Parliament may wish to terminate the powers in Part I before that date. The Bill provides that this can be done by Ministerial Order subject to Affirmative Resolution by both Houses of Parliament.
I turn now to Part II of the Bill. The Prices and Incomes Act 1968, and regulations made under it, had set up a system of phasing of sharp increases in regulated rents. That system will die with the Prices and Incomes Act, and Part II of the present Bill introduces a system to replace it. If Part II of the Bill is not enacted, rent increases registered from January 1 of next year will be chargeable at once in full, however steep they are.
In the Government's view, the need for the phasing of increases up to a new registered fair rent still continues for several reasons, partly because rents are sometimes allowed by landlords to get very much out of date and out of line with fair rent levels: for instance, because rent may have been fixed by contract for many years, or a previous landlord may not have bothered about it, the rent has stayed where it was, whereas the new landlord may be interested in getting the highest fair rent he can; or possibly because a landlord has let the rent become obsolete simply because he has forgotten all about it. These are the reasons for which one could get steep increases on registration.
Over half of the rent increases registered in England and Wales—of course that does not mean over half of the rents registered but over half of those which, on registration, were increased in the first half of this year—were increased by over £1 a week, and nearly one-third of them were increased by over 30s. a week. In the Government's view, increases as sharp as, this continue to need to be phased over a period because of considerations of general social policy—such as causing hardship by a major upset in the household budget if there is a swingeing increase of that sort, and because of the prices and incomes policy. Part II of this Bill contin ues the phasing
46
of sharp rent increases for increases registered in 1970 and 1971.
The Schedule to the Bill also produces what is, in effect, a single system of phasing for rent increases, whether they follow upon improvements or registration of a fair rent because the house is in a satisfactory condition, or whether they ensue upon any other cause whatever; so that people will be able to look it up in one single code from now on. I think that on Second Reading I need not take the House in detail through the steps of the proposed phasing. We can come to them in Committee or, if there are any particular points which noble Lords would like to raise this afternoon, I will try to speak to them at the end of the debate. My Lords, I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.— (Lord Kennet.)
4.36 p.m.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, for his clear and gallant effort to commend this Bill to the House. It certainly requires from him a great deal of commendation, because intrinsically it is a bad Bill. If indeed it is, as the noble Lord says, essential to the Government's policy, then that proves that the Government must have a bad policy. He sought to explain that the associations of local authorities had reached an agreement with the Government and that the Bill is designed to give legislative reinforcement to that agreement. I think that he, for his part, will agree that the local authorities refused to endorse the underlying economic policy which he says renders the Bill necessary, and all that they did was to agree to a particular scheme within that policy as the least unacceptable way to them of operating the policy. The Greater London Council were unwilling even to agree that much, and no wonder, because it appears to me that if the Bill becomes law the deficit on the housing revenue account of the Greater London Council, which it will have to ask the ratepayers of London to bear, is likely to reach the enormous sum of £9 million in one year.
Though this is not called a housing subsidies Bill, that is of course what it really is. The principal effect of Part I

47
is to ensure that up to July, 1971, the ratepayers in general will have to subsidise the rents of large numbers of tenants of council houses whose household incomes are such that they do not need subsidies. These are the very people who ought to be making their own arrangements and leaving council houses free for needier applicants on the waiting list.
The principal effect of Part II is to ensure that owners of rented houses which have had their fair rent fixed by an entirely independent authority will be made to subsidise their tenants up till 1972, even where the tenant could well afford to pay the fair rent, and may indeed be better off than the owner of the house.
Not only that, but it is directly contrary to an assurance given as recently as September to the Annual Conference of the Association of Municipal Corporations, that the Government's desire was to reduce the amount of control by Ministers and Parliament over the way in which elected local authorities think fit to organise their affairs and carry out their functions. However, as that was an assurance given not by the Minister of Housing and Local Government but by the Prime Minister, little faith had been placed in it anyhow.
As regards Part I, everybody agrees that local authorities should not charge rents to their tenants beyond the capacity of the household to pay the rent. But where the rent, even the proposed increased rent, is within the capacity to pay, I want to ask why the Government think that the tenant should not be required to pay it. May I have an answer to that question at the end of the debate?
As regards Part II, everyone, or almost everyone, agrees that the system of fair rents embodied in the 1965 Act is equitable between owner and tenant. That being so, I want to ask the noble Lord why it is proposed that for up to two years the owner of the house should be required by the Government to charge less than the fair rent; that is, to subsidise every tenant regardless of the tenant's means. May I have an answer to that question also at the end of the debate?
I have one more question, which is a subsidiary one. Have any instructions
48
been issued to rent officers to hold back determinations and registrations of fair rents until January 1, 1970, so that the provisions of this Bill, which has not yet passed through Parliament, may apply to them? I have a photostat copy of a letter from a rent officer referring to a list of applications before him, one of which applications was submitted as far back as last March, but the letter warns that he may not be in a position to determine and register the fair rents until this Bill, which we are now discussing in Parliament, has come into operation. Is it not the duty of rent officers to clear all long-standing applications as expeditiously as they possibly can, without having regard to any future changes that may be made by Bills which have not yet become law? Of course that is what this rent officer may be doing, but I am bound to say that his letter is capable of a different interpretation.
The Opposition fought this Bill in another place. I should like to be in a position to urge your Lordships to reject it here. But the Government would doubtless counter with a claim that the Bill was an essential instrument in their economic policy, an instrument of which, therefore, your Lordships should not deprive them. Well, so be it. But if this Bill is an essential part of the policy, the policy itself must be unjust, for this Bill is both unjust and contrary to a sound housing policy. The principles of a sound housing policy are, first, to get new houses built as fast as the country can build them; second, to enable owners of older houses to put and keep them in good repair, and modernise them; and third, to encourage people who can afford to move into more expensive types off houses to do so and vacate the cheaper or the subsidised types of houses so that these can become available to the families who cannot afford more.
It is well known that under the Governments economic policy the number of new houses being built is falling rapidly; it may be that the Government would care to explain how their policy in this Bill measures up to the second and third principles which I have outlined. Of course, the answer may be that their economic policy is such as to render a sound and constructive housing policy impossible.
4.45 p.m.
LORD HENLEY: My Lords, according to the United Nations figures we in this country spend less than any other Western European country on our housing. This may partly be due to the fact that, by and large, our housing is better than anywhere else in Western Europe. I am not sure whether that is wholly true, but at any rate it may be partly due to that. But in so far as we have areas of bad housing it seems to me that we are getting the housing we deserve. In other words, we get what we pay for. If the rents charged are kept below the cost of replacement and maintenance, we shall not get new houses built, and the old houses we have we shall not get repaired; because even if it is sought to make up the balance by subsidy in one way or another, there is bound to be resistance to the paying of that subsidy—whether the subsidy is found by the private landlord or by the ratepayer—and hence our stock of houses inevitably is going to diminish and deteriorate.
The Government recognise this, and in the 1965 and 1968 Acts, and again in the new Act we have just passed, the 1969 Act, have done something about it. But this latest housing Bill seems to me to go directly counter to all those three Acts; and apparently this has been done on the advice of the Prices and Incomes Board. I wish the Prices and Incomes Board well, and I should like to see it stronger and more effective in keeping prices down. But is its advice here good advice? Is it the right advice? —because what it amounts to is that we should put even less money into housing than we are already doing; and, as I have said, we are already putting less into it than any other country in Europe. Already, local authorities, whether they are Conservative or Labour controlled, are building less because they cannot finance the building, and their housing reserves are running out. What that means is that there will have to be very large increases when the provisions of this Bill run out. I hope that the Government will not deliberately leave those increases for a later Administration.
The Prices and Incomes Board tries to discourage excessive spending on consumer goods, cars, and so on—and it is a fact that we spend far more on hire-purchase, on consumer goods, and on
50
cars, than we do on houses; though of course it should be the other way round. We should encourage the putting of money into housing. If more money went into housing less would go into inessentials; and this is what we want. Has the Prices and Incomes Board got its priorities wrong here? If not, if this is a sensible thing to do, why is it not being done under the ordinary provisions of the prices and incomes policy? Why is it being made the subject of a separate Bill altogether? Does this mean that provisions of this sort are to be permanent? It looks to me very much like a victory for those who want to prevent the escape from the subsidy mess which the Acts of 1965, 1968, and 1969 had started.
In the private sector the Government recognised, as the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, said, that a fair rent must be paid if the stock of houses was not to sink into slums; and the Government, recognising that, devised a good means in the 1965 Act of fixing fair rents by rent officers and gradually converting the old controlled tenancies, controlled at rents that were nominal rather than real, into tenancies regulated at a fair rent. But when the rent officers really did fix fair rents the Government took fright and set about slowing down the process by not implementing the change from controlled to regulated tenancies. They went even further than that, and they spoilt the 1969 Act, which we thought was a good one, by slowing the process down by Statute instead of merely dragging their feet, as they had been doing before. Now, to cap it all, this Bill says that even if a fair rent has been fixed, regulated and registered by the rent officer, the landlord may not implement it, just as, in the public sector, they said to the local authorities, "You are in duty bound to review your rents and fix a reasonable one", and, when that had been done, "You may not collect it!" Is it surprising, in view of that sort of thing, that we spend less on housing than any other Western European country?
My Lords, I think this Bill shows up the whole idiotic situation into which the Housing Acts and the subsidies have got. The subsidy system is wholly arbitrary; and the first thing we must do—and this, I imagine, must be agreed to

51
by great sections of the Party opposite—is to abolish these across-the-board subsidies to all tenants whether or not they can afford to pay a fair rent. Secondly —an idea which I notice Mr. Crossman has been airing—the poorer tenants in the private sector should be subsidised. I wonder whether he will ever get anywhere there, or whether he will not be blocked by those people who feel that the private landlord is a rapacious character who must be restrained at all costs. If one restrains him too far, one will dissipate what small store of houses he supplies.
Until people are willing to spend on housing what they think nothing of spending on less urgent needs, we shall have bad housing; and this Bill does not help to move in that direction. It undoes the modest advances that the 1965, 1968 and 1969 Acts made out of the hopeless muddle of fifty years of Rent Acts. Those Acts, which may well have been designed to alleviate hardship, and which, indeed, have alleviated hardship, have also been responsible for our failure throughout the whole of those fifty years to put enough money into housing.
4.52 p.m.
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, I believe that both Parts of this Bill are, at the same time, socially unjust and economically unwise. The Government have paid lip-service to the idea of giving to local authorities the freest possible discretion in fixing, adjusting and changing rents. In another place the Minister of State said:
"The Minister does not concern himself in detail with that responsibility which the authority, with its local knowledge, is much better placed to discharge than he is ".— [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, 18/11/69, col. 1124.]
Despite that general principle, which has frequently been stated by this Government, the effect of Part I of this Bill is, in fact, to impose a very severe ceiling on any adjustment of rents which are being charged by local authorities. This afternoon the Parliamentary Secretary repeated what was said by his colleague in another place. It amounted, really, to this: that it is the intention of the Housing Ministers to allow local authorities to increase rents only where a rent increase has to be made in order to meet unavoidable increases in cost or to
52
meet the cost of introducing or of improving a rent rebate scheme.
That is, in fact, a virtual ban on what I thought most people, including the present Government, in theory, desired; that is, to get as near as possible to a system under which those people who can afford to do so pay an economic rent for their houses. The effect of this ban, if I understand it aright, is that except in the single case of adjustment of a rent rebate scheme it will be impossible for a local authority which has for a long time been subsidising rents out of rates to reduce that subsidisation. That is made even more clear when the Government go on to say that even where an increase in rents is unavoidable as a result of increased costs, they expect the local authority first to draw upon the housing equalisation fund if there is any substantial balance in that fund. The avowed purpose of this Bill, therefore, is that, instead of altering the rents to take account of present conditions, local authorities will be obliged to draw upon their reserves; in other words, they will be required to subsidise rents out of an accumulated balance, despite the fact that in these cases the increase in the cost of providing the housing will be an annual one. This is, in fact, a case of drawing upon reserves to pay an annual recurring increase in expenditure.
My Lords, the Parliamentary Secretary spoke of this as having been agreed to by the local authorities. My noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor has already drawn the attention of the House to the circumstances in which most of the local authorities agreed to this scheme. They never agreed to the principle. but, confronted with the alternative of this scheme or a more stringent control by the Government, they agreed to this as being the lesser of two evils. To the abiding credit of the Greater London Council, they have refused to be a party to it at all. It is, of course, one more instance of pandering to the tenants by keeping their rents down at the cost of the ratepapers. I have no doubt that the purpose is to win a certain number of votes for the Government on the next occasion. It may also be intended to help their friends who are proposing to stand at the next local elections. I cannot believe that in the long run that is going to be advantageous. There are

53
more ratepayers than rentpayers, and there is throughout the country an ever-increasing indignation at the fact that the ratepapers, many of whom are living in worse housing conditions than the tenants of the local authorities, are being compelled, through the rates, to subsidise the rents of people living in better conditions who in many cases are better off.
There was a remarkable case cited at the conference of housing managers at Eastbourne in the summer, when one of the housing managers referred to a family that had a combined weekly income of over £120 and owned four cars, and which not only lived in a council house but sought—in vain, I am glad to think—a rent rebate.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord could tell the House the rent which that family is in fact paying, and to what extent it is a subsidised rent.
LORD MOLSON: No, my Lords; and I cannot see that that is in any way relevant. An application was made under a rent rebate scheme, but the family were not successful in obtaining that rebate. However, the very fact that there are people with such large incomes living in council houses who claim a rebate in circumstances of that kind shows how unsatisfactory is the state of affairs when rents are so widely subsidised out of rates without, except in the case of these rent rebate schemes, any consideration being given to the income of the tenant.
The Government claim to justify this policy of restriction upon rents by their prices and incomes policy. That is a very one-sided policy. It has been used so far as possible, and is likely to be used successfully in this case; to keep down prices; but precious little has been done to keep down incomes and wages. Last year, for instance, a great increase was granted by the building trade employers to the workers in that industry, and during the last fortnight we have heard of a new agreement under which their wages are to be increased over the next eighteen months by no less than 25 per cent. That, of course, drives a coach-and-four through the Government's whole policy of prices and incomes control; and the productivity pro-
54
visions which are included in that agreement are obviously and plainly bogus. So, my Lords, the effect of the Government's policy is to hold rents down at a time when costs are going up. It is therefore, as my noble friend has said, no wonder that the number of houses being built has declined, and is still declining. It also explains the exhorbitant subsidies which are being paid and which have gone up from £24 to £144 a house.
I turn now to Part II of the Bill. I welcomed the Act of 1965 when it was introduced by Mr. Crossman. I felt in consistency that I could not do otherwise since it was so much on the lines of what I had myself recommended to Mr. Harold Macmillan in 1952, when he became Minister of Housing. I had then recommended to him that there should be a review of rents and that they should be fixed in accordance with the quality, quantity and location of accommodation. I welcomed the Act of 1965 which was introduced by this Government; I said that it was courageous and wise. And it has, on the whole, worked extremely well. It is therefore all the more regrettable that this Bill should be introduced now for the purpose of preventing the 1965 Act from continuing to operate as it was doing before the first of the restrictions was introduced.
As the Parliamentary Secretary knows (because he has kindly provided me with figures on this subject on more than one occasion), the majority of the determinations by rent officers has resulted in an increase in the rent. In a very large number of cases, when there has been an appeal from the rent officer to the assessment committee, there has again been an increase in the rent awarded by the assessment committee over that which had first been determined by the rent officer. All this makes perfectly plain what many of us had believed to be the case all along: that a very great number of rents in this country are less than fair rents. The purpose of Part II of this Bill is to phase the increases that are authorised. Since the purpose of those increases is to establish a fair rent, the effect of this Bill must obviously be for the time being to impose upon the landlord an unfair rent.
It was frankly recognised by Mr. Crossman, when he was Minister of

55
Housing, that the chance of a substantial improvement in the quality of privately provided housing in this country is dependent upon there being a fair and economic return upon those houses when they are let. It must therefore be a very serious setback to that policy to impose upon the working of that Act this arbitrary limit in phasing out the increases. How great the increases have to be in order to arrive at a fair rent was shown by the figures given by the Minister of State in another place. In 52 per cent. of cases the increase that was awarded was over £1, and in 17 per cent. the increase was over £2. He gave that as a justification for the Bill. It shows quite plainly that to phase out these increases means that a fair rent, or anything like a fair rent, will not be arrived at until this Bill, if it becomes an Act, comes to an end.
The first Part of the Bill is intended to subsidise the tenants of council houses at the expense of the ratepayers; the purpose of the second Part of this Bill is to subsidise the tenants of privately provided accommodation at the expense of the landlords—and as such it is arbitrary and unjust. With the great increase in wages that has taken place, a great number of these tenants can perfectly well afford to pay what the Rent Acts of 1955 and 1968 have laid down as being a fair rent.
It is particularly surprising that this Bill should be introduced at the present moment. I read with great interest the report of Mr. Crossman's "Herbert Morrison Lecture" to the Fabian Society. He there expressed the view that we ought to bring to an end this arbitrary, inefficient (I am not quoting his words; I am saying this myself) and indiscriminate way of subsidising houses whatever may be the means of the people who occupy them. What Mr. Crossman recommended—and I am sure it is the right principle—is that we should subsidise the tenants who are unable to afford an economic rent for the accommodation they occupy. When those great academic brains, formed on the Classics, Mr. Enoch Powell and Mr. Crossman, are in agreement on a policy of this kind, surely there must be much to commend it. Therefore I am very glad indeed that
56
the Government have set up the Francis Commtitee to go into the whole question of rent regulation. I should be glad of an assurance from the Parliamentary Secretary that to go into the proposals that have been made by Mr. Crossman will be within the terms of reference of that Committee.
My Lords, I regard this as an entirely deplorable Bill. I regard it as unjust; and I am quite sure that it will have a serious effect in preventing the improvement of the standard of our housing. I can regard it only as being a hand-to-mouth expedient adopted by the Government that, when half their prices and incomes policy has failed, this is all they are able to put through.
5.7 p.m.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I will take up as many as I can of the points that have been made in the debate this afternoon. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, setting the matter forth with his customary sense of drama, complained that if this Bill becomes law the Greater London Council will run into a deficit of £9 million. That does not follow at all. I must not at this moment be drawn into a discussion of G.L.C. finances. This is the wrong place to do so; and in any case they have not yet decided what to do with their rent policy for next year. But this is not a Bill to forbid increases above 7s. 6d. and 10s.; it is a Bill to require housing authorities to submit such proposed increases to the Minister for his approval. He may approve them, or he may not; he may approve half of them, or he may send them back for second thoughts. All this is being done under the 1968 Prices and Incomes Act; so that there is a closely analogous system at present in operation.
I think that it would have been possible to sit through this debate this afternoon —or at least through the last three speeches—and believe that the Government were proposing to introduce for the first time a system whereby the Ministers can, within certain limitations, control council rent increases. This is far from being the case. They have been doing so for the last year and a half. What it is proposed to do is to continue that control in a less onerous form than that in which it has previously existed.

57
That, I think, answers the point put by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, about what the Prime Minister said to the A.M.C. In certain respects this is a reduction of central Government control.
My Lords, on these occasions there is the danger of running into Party histrionics because the greatest local authority in the country is under the control of the Opposition Party in Parliament. It is sometimes a pity when that happens. I think that we have not gone too far this afternoon in that direction and I do not propose to go very much further. As to the £9 million deficit and the intolerable burden facing Ministerial control over 7s. 6d. a week, I should like to remind the House of where the G.L.C. matter now stands. It stands at no conclusive point, but last week the Greater London Council's Housing Committee announced that they had resolved to increase rents in March, 1970, by an average of 7s. 6d. and a maximum of 10s. per house. This resolution still has to be approved by the Finance Committee and the full Council, but is it not interesting that this local authority which, "to its undying credit" according to the noble Lord, Lord Molson, has alone resisted the unjust encroachment of central Government, should, when it comes to the point, be doing exactly what central Government says it may do, without asking central Government's permission. So much for the histrionics.
LORD BROOKE or CUMNOR: My Lords, the noble Lord says "histrionics". Is it not conceivably possible that the Housing Committee of the Greater London Council believed that the Government would manage to carry this Bill into law and therefore that it should take action at once in order to keen its deficit for 1970–71 as low as the Bill would permit?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, the Bill would permit the Greater London Council to come forward and suggest a rent increase of 32s. a week, as the Chairman of the Housing Committee once said that they would, I believe, in a letter to the Guardian. We have heard no more of that one. The Bill does not prevent them from suggesting any rent increase that they want.
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, are we to understand that the Parliamentary Secretary is suggesting that the Greater London Council should deliberately go out of its way to have a head-on collision with the Government?
LORD KENNET: Well, my Lords, the Greater London Council has already done that in standing out alone among all the 1,400 housing authorities in the country and refusing the voluntary scheme. I was struck by the noble Lord's words, "to its undying credit". I note that he puts it down, I must presume, as an eternal discredit to all the other housing authorities in the country that they accepted it.
The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cum-nor, said that they did not like it. It is perfectly true, they did not like it; they accepted it, as it were, under protest and because—rightly in my view—they had to admit that a prices and incomes policy was something for central Government; and if central Government wanted to pursue a prices and incomes policy of this nature then this was the way they would prefer the rent matter to be handled. This was not to say that they welcomed it being handled in that way; not to say that they welcomed the Bill—and I never said that they did—but only that they were prepared to go into this voluntary agreement with the one single great exception.
The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, said that private landlords would be subsidising tenants, when they got the registered increase, until 1972. Once again my Lords, you can put it that way. It is a very highly coloured way of putting it but, of course, a great many landlords are subsidising tenants and have been for decades under the old control legislation. If this is tenant subsidising landlord, then all I can say is that there is a very great deal of it going on, and we are not instituting any new principle by these phasings.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, the noble Lord made a slip of the tongue. I think he meant landlord subsidising tenant, not tenant subsidising landlord.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I am sorry; I was quoting what the noble Lord said. He pointed to the landlord

59
subsidising the tenant. My point was that if he is he has been doing it for a long time. The fact that a new phrase has been coined in the general debate on this matter should not disguise from us the fact that no new phenomenon is occurring; indeed a very familiar one is continuing. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, asked whether any instructions had been sent to rent officers to hold back their determinations until January 1. The answer is that no such instruction or notice has been sent.
The noble Lord, Lord Henley, said that according to United Nations figures we spent less than other countries on housing, and he immediately, in my view, supplied the answer to this. Despite the growth of our housing problem and the terrible backlog, we do not need to spend as much as they do. I was struck by a figure I happened to come across the other day, a French figure, in a comparison between France, on the one hand, and England and Wales on the other. They have about the same total housing stock of 15 million or 16 million houses. In our country nearly 3 million lack an indoor lavatory. In France 11½ million lack an indoor lavatory. So you see, my Lords, they have good reason to be spending more. I take this only as one illustration; no doubt one could find others.
Salt tears have been wept during this debate for the ratepayer who is called on to subsidise the council tenant. What we should not forget is that the ratepayer himself is now a beneficiary of the rebate scheme, and a very substantial one. Domestic rate relief was introduced by this Government. The value of this relief in this year was £82 million for Great Britain. Next year, when the reductions which apply to those who can claim them under the criteria will be increased, the total value will rise to £112 million. This is, as it were, straight from the Exchequer back to the ratepayer in the form of unpaid rates. The rate-rebate scheme is at the moment benefiting about 900,000 people and so, my Lords, it is not all on one side.
If I were to try to get the matter back into proportion, after the spirited attack from the Opposition, I think the fact on which I would lean most heavily is that most councils do not need rent increases
60
of more than an average of 7s. 6d. a week in a year in order to carry forward big housing programmes; to avoid denuding their other sources of money, or to avoid tapping other sources of money. If they do need this for any particular reason, they can come to the Minister and ask for it. If their case is well argued— "reasonable" is the word—they will get it. If not, the Minister may be able to help them to find some way of avoiding a rent increase which they may not have thought of themselves. This is often the case, and it is natural. What is being done is simply to take powers, which we hope will not be used because we hope the voluntary system will suffice, but which may be necessary in one or two cases. As we all know, one great authority has given overt notice that it is likely to be necessary to use the powers in its case; except that at the moment it does not seem to be acting in such a way as would cause the powers to be used. We must wait to see how that develops, and I want to say no more about it.
Of course, as the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, said, the answer is to build faster; to have a sound rehabilitation policy and to encourage the mobility of people out of council houses if they can buy their own, if they want to. I must remind the House of what I am sure noble Lords already know, or ought to know; that is, that this month the 2 millionth house to be built under the present Government will be finished. That has been done in a period considerably shorter than it took to achieve the building of 2 million houses under the Conservative Governments of the 1950s or early 1960s—I forget the exact period. The 2 million houses built so far in our six years is about equal to the size of London. It is a fairly striking fact. If you say to yourself, "How long would it take to build a London?", I think that six years is a fairly startlingly short period in which to do it.
The increase which, so far, has been an unbroken series of all-time records every year that we have been in power, is now stopping. It will not be a record this year for the first time. We all know the reason for that. It is partly a world phenomenon—we cannot entirely protect the construction industry against high interest rates which are international— and it is partly the fruit of the intense

61
campaign of Government for economy in expenditure, which had the backing of the Opposition, I think, as a general fact, although it is always tempting to knock one bit of it. The present situation will not last long. We hope that the figures will be up again, so as to achieve new records as soon as that is possible.
As to rehabilitation, it is only a few months since I had the pleasure of taking a major Bill through this House, largely with the support of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke; the Housing Act 1969. The noble Lord has not mentioned it to-day, but there it is. There is now getting under way the greatest campaign of improvement and area improvement that the country has ever seen. These are the things on which we must rest, and on which we do rest. This Bill is part of social policy.
I do not claim that the housing subsidy system is perfect; indeed, I freely admit that it is very imperfect and has been for a long time. That is why the Housing Ministers have instituted a major review of the whole of housing finances, public and private sectors alike. Mr. Crossman's suggestion about paying subsidy to people rather than on bricks and mortar has been mentioned by more than one speaker this afternoon. This is very much in the forefront of the study I have mentioned. The study is really a fundamental one. This is an enormously difficult subject. We are, within the Government, going at it "hell for leather" at this moment and we hope shortly to come out with proposals for the largest overhaul of housing finance since the present system was instituted.
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, may I, for elucidation, ask the noble Lord whether the Francis Committee is looking at only some particular aspects of housing finance, or are the Government going to wait until the Francis Committee have reported on what I think is called the regulation of rents?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, the Government study is much wider than the Francis Committee's and covers all housing finance whatever. The Francis Committee is looking into the operation of the rent registration system which, of course, only operates in the private sector, but the Government are also studying the
62
public sector, subsidies and so on, right across the board.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

ANIMALS BILL [H.L.]
5.22 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do again resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD AILWYN in the Chair.]
Clause 9 [Killing of or injury to dogs worrying livestock.]:
LORD AIREDALE LORD AIREDALE moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 6, line 12, leave out ("if, and")
The noble Lord said: Perhaps I may be allowed, in discussing this Amendment, to speak also to the next because the point it deals with is exactly the same. The question is whether the expression "if, and only if" really means any more than "only if". I should think that it is an expression borrowed from the field of oratory. At the hustings one might say, "You will get justice if, and only if, you vote for Snodgrass." All you are saying is "only if", and when the heckler answers, "Never, never, never" all he means is "Never".
So far, I think we have resisted the temptation to introduce into the Statute Book these rather disguised forms of emphasis. For instance, we do not put parts of the Statutes in capital letters or italics, or underline them. We let the draftsman use his skill in such a way as to get the emphasis the way he wants by using ordinary words without any surplusage. It seems to me that the words "if, and" here are mere surplusage. They do not add to the meaning of the subsection. All that is meant is, "only if". If I am right and if these words are surplus, then let us leave them out. I beg to move.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: I think that I must join issue with the noble Lord on this point. He advocated, reasonably and ably, leaving out "if, and" while ignoring the fact that he is also omitting a comma. That comma is perhaps of some significance because, if it is left out, the subsection will then read:
"For the purposes of this section a person is entitled to act for the protection of any livestock only if"—
and so on. I think that the words become ambiguous. It is a question whether the word "only" refers to the following words or to livestock, of whether a person is entitled to act for the protection of any livestock only. This will not do. I suspect that in thinking like this, I am thinking backwards along the same line followed by the draftsman who drafted this clause. Probably he started by saying "only", or perhaps simply "if"; and then, for some mysterious reason, he thought that he was excluding damage done to furniture or to any property other than livestock. He therefore felt that the word "only" was needed; and, furthermore, that a comma was needed after "livestock if", and that the only way of getting round the difficulty was to put "if, and only if". Therefore, I think that the words might stand.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I gave the noble Lord the head of the household, and I hope to be able to help him on a later Amendment; but on this point I think that the Bill is right. It is a serious thing to shoot a dog. We must make clear what alone the circumstances are. In strict logic the wording is correct. It indicates that the condition is both necessary and exclusive. I think that for those reasons the wording of the learned Parliamentary draftsman is correct.
LORD AIREDALE: If, as it appears possible, I might hit the target with two Amendments out of three, I am certainly not going to be so mean as not to withdraw this Amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 6, line 30, leave out ("or is making off").
The noble Earl said: Clause 9 deals with the circumstances in which dogs
64
may be shot. It does not refer to the civil liability for damage they might cause, but it is probably true to say that, for the first time, an attempt in some sort of detail has been made to lay out the conditions. I recognise that this is a very difficult question. Sheep get worried mostly at night. They are in outlying places, and it is not often that people are present at all. It happens from time to time that dogs become killers and there are dramatic stories in which sheepdogs themselves have sometimes fallen into this habit. It is a matter which raises considerable feelings on many different sides.
I believe that we all agree on what the right kind of action should be. What I call in question is whether we have translated it into words which cannot be given a different interpretation. We are dealing with the defences which are open to someone who is entitled to take action, either because he owns the livestock or is authorised by the landowner. There are two defences in Clause 9(3)(a) and (b). The first one is clear. If a dog is worrying sheep and there is no other way of stopping it, there is, to my mind, no doubt that the shepherd has a perfect right to shoot the dog. The second case, dealt with in paragraph (b), is quite different: it is not to stop a dog worrying, but merely to prevent its coming back later on to do it. It is purely a preventive measure for the future. The point to remember here is that worrying has a rather wide interpretation and includes chasing. In fairness, I should say that dogs do chase sheep and in many cases do not do a great deal of harm. I am taking only an extreme case.
In the second place, the words with which I am dealing are the words "or is making off", which I suggest should be omitted. The reason why I say that is because "or is making off" means that the dog is no longer in the vicinity. If it were in the vicinity, then those words would be redundant, and it would be "while the dog remains in the vicinity", which appears immediately before. The dog is no longer in the vicinity if the words "or is making off" have any meaning; it means somewhere else, and it can be on someone else's land, or anywhere. In other words, the dog which

65
has been chasing the sheep can be followed up and shot anywhere. Frankly, I think this goes too far. I do not think it is necessary, and it may lead to circumstances which would not be thought to be desirable: indeed, they are stated in the Law Commission's Report. I believe that the whole object could be achieved—and this is the considerable strength of the law already—by retaining the word "vicinity" and leaving out "or is making off". I beg to move.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: We have heard a good deal, though not too much, from the farmers' lobby, and I was wondering when the dogs' lobby was going to turn up. I have a good deal of sympathy with the very reasonable case which has been put forward by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk. It may well be said that the existing words "remains in the vicinity or is making off" are rather uncertain. It is certain that these words were never intended to allow a farmer to follow a dog for a couple of miles and then shoot it. Subject to what may be said by the farmers, which we do not know yet, I think the noble Earl has made out a case at least for some reconsideration of this point, though whether his solution is the right one I am not sure. It would be possible to get a greater degree of certainty than "in the vicinity".
I do not know whether the noble Earl has considered the Northern Ireland legislation which is referred to in paragraph 83 of the Report. that confines the right to shoot a dog after attack to the land on which the livestock are kept and any land contiguous thereto. I am entirely in the hands of the Committee, but, subject to any views that may be expressed, this seems to me to be much more certain than anything that we have at the moment, and to be not unreasonable. If the noble Earl will accept this as a reasonable solution, I shall be happy between now and the Report stage to arrive at an exact form of words with him.
LORD HAWKE: I should like to say something to the noble and learned Lord. The words "making off", to my mind, are not very precise English. They have a colloquial, slangy sound, because you can say colloquially that the dog that is making off is running away, and, on the other hand, a burglar also "makes off" with
66
swag. I think it is the wrong type of words to use.
LORD HENLEY: I hope that, even if the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor feels that he wants to find better words than "or is making off", he will not damage the clause as it stands. One does not want to weaken it in any way. The damage done by does to sheep farming is considerable, and there are some areas of land around certain towns where you cannot keep sheep at all because of dogs. Every protection that can be given to sheep should be given. I hope that in improving the words the noble and learned Lord will not weaken the clause.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not think it really weakens the clause, but it prevents what might have been an exaggerated construction from being given to them. The form of words that I have suggested from the Northern Ireland legislation is more precise, and might meet the noble Earl's case.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: I feel a good deal of sympathy with my noble friend's Amendment, and I think there is a point here. The practical difficulty in the clause as now drafted is the time element. Under subsection (3)(b), if the dog has been worrying the livestock, the sheep or cattle, and the farmer comes up when it is doing so and the dog is making off, then, fair enough, he shoots it. But if it happened hours before, and a dog is racing across the field, it may not be the same dog. There is an element of doubt here which could take the clause further than we should wish it to go. As I say, I sympathise with my noble friend, because the shooting of a dog is serious; it is a frightful blow to the owner, anyhow, and would cause a good deal of sorrow. But where we give a legal right to shoot it we must be absolutely sure that it is the right dog that is being shot, and as the clause is now drafted it might not be.
I should certainly like to look at the suggestion made by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor of the alternative from Northern Ireland, to make sure that we have the time element absolutely right, and that the dog that is making off is the dog that has been seen attacking the cattle or the sheep. In that sense, I

67
should be happy, if my noble friend would accept it, for the noble and learned Lord to proceed as he suggests.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: I think the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said that in Northern Ireland it was the land on which the livestock were or land contiguous to it. By "land", does that mean an enclosed field on which the livestock are, or the land belonging to that particular farmer? And the land contiguous to it presumably means land belonging to other farmers. What is the exact definition of "land" in this sense? It seems to me that in unfenced areas it could be a very large area. It could be said that the livestock were on certain land when they were four or five miles away, because there was no fence or barrier between the livestock and four or five miles away, which is where the dog might be shot.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My answer to that is that I do not know. It is one of the things that one will have to consider. What the Northern Ireland legislation says is that the shooting took place
"on land whereon the livestock were kept or depastured or on any land (including a highway or public path) contiguous thereto."
I am not sure whether there is a definition clause in the Act, or, if there is, in which way "land" is construed. I had taken it to be land in a particular ownership; but that may be wrong. That is one of the matters that we shall have to consider if the noble Earl feels inclined to accept the compromise.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I am grateful to the Lord Chancellor for what he has said. As my noble friend the Duke of Atholl has said, the problem is identifying the dog. If someone shoots the wrong dog it causes great bitterness. There is another point which does not conic in this clause, which is what I would call hunting down the killer". There are occasions when this is necessary. The killer has to be found and killed, removed or restrained. As I say, it is not covered by this clause. I am not greatly impressed by the, frankly, almost as vague term, as my noble friend the Duke of Atholl pointed out, of "land contiguous there to" It depends on the conditions of the land. However, I am very willing to accept what the noble and learned Lord
68
has said, and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clause 11 [General interpretation]:
5.39 p.m.
LORD AIREDALE LORD AIREDALE moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 7, leave out line 18, and insert ("horse, ass, mule, hinny, sheep, pig, goat and")
The noble Lord said: The Interpretation Clause, in its definition of the word "livestock", starts off in the singular by saying "any animal of the bovine species", and then it goes into the plural and all the other animals are described in the plural. I do not mind whether we have the singular or the plural, but I suggest that we ought to decide which, and for the sake of consistency stick to the singular or the plural and not mix them together. I beg to move.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think the noble Lord has a point here. There are really three alternatives, are there not? First, as the Bill now stands, "livestock" means any animal of the bovine species, including horses and so on. The second is what the noble Lord suggests; that is, "livestock" means any animal of the bovine species, horse, and so on. The third, I should have thought with respect, was the right one, having regard to the fact that you cannot escape the fact that "livestock" is a plural noun, and it should really be "livestock" means any animals of the bovine species, horses and so on. Then they would all be in the plural. The plural includes the singular, so that is all right. The difficulty is created by the fact that you start with a plural noun. If the noble Lord felt inclined to withdraw his Amendment and put down on Report stage a change from "animal" to "animals" I should be happy to accept it.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: Before the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, replies and possibly accepts the noble and learned Lord's invitation, a point struck me as I listened to the noble and learned Lord's suggestion. If the Bill makes the definition plural, referring to "animals", is there a danger that where there was a single animal, for instance

69
one cow or one sheep, it would not then be within the definition of the Bill for the purpose of an attacking dog, or some other reason? We should be in further trouble in that way.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I have asked about that, and I am told it is quite all right.
LORD HENLEY: It is not so much a plural but a collective noun, and can you not perfectly well have, "livestock, animal" and the singular after it?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think "livestock" is really a plural noun.
LORD CONESFORD: I greatly prefer the Amendment as drafted. It does not really matter what "livestock" is; we say what it means for the purposes of this Bill. It is much more natural to say that it means any animal, horse, ass and the rest, and it sounds much more natural in the singular than the plural. To say "livestock" means any animals —although no doubt the word will be correctly construed whatever we do—seems far less elegant than the clause would be if the Amendment now being moved were accepted.
LORD AIREDALE: I felt 99 per cent. certain that I was going to accept the invitation of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor until I heard the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, speak. I think I will still accept the invitation, although I am reinforced by what the noble Lord has just said. As for the word "livestock" being a collective noun, although it is of course a collective noun what has struck me is that throughout this Bill it is used in the singular. Thus in Clause 4 we have, "where livestock strays". It does not say, "where livestock stray". However that may be, I feel quite sure that we shall be able to resolve this matter at the next stage of the Bill. In the meantime, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.54 p.m.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 7, line 21, after ("guinea-fowls") insert ("pheasants, partridges").
The noble Lord said: This Amendment would seek to extend the definition
70
of poultry in the Bill by including the words, "pheasants" and "partridges". This is a considerable extension of the normal meaning of "poultry", although noble Lords will probably agree that to include pigeons is quite an extension of the normal meaning of "poultry", but it is necessary for practical reasons. I suggest that there is a case for including pheasants and partridges as well. Both these species are often artificially reared —particularly pheasants— and it seems more logical to include them within the scope of the Bill. Obviously, there is a special case to include them in regard to the powers in Clauses 2 and 9 in connection with damage by dogs, which make the owner of a dog responsible for the damage done to livestock, and in the ultimate instance gives the owner of the livestock the right to shoot the dog in order to defend the pheasants or partridges. Of course, it is mostly pheasants—although I suppose partridges to some extent—that are particularly vulnerable when they are in the rearing stage to an attack by a marauding dog. There should be the same right for the owner of the livestock to defend his stock against dogs in the same way as with other poultry.
On the other aspect of the Bill, the liabilities under Clause 8 for straying on the highway, with regard to pheasants or partridges that stray on the highway the consequences are perhaps more theoretical. The pheasant or partridge unwise enough to throw his weight about with motor cars on the road usually ends up with a broken neck in the boot of the motor car, and I doubt very much whether the owner of the motor car would bother to bring an action against the owner of the adjoining sporting right. I think there is a case on the first point for including pheasants and partridges in the definition of poultry. I beg to move.
LORD VIVIAN: Before the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor replies, may I draw his attention to an omission. I refer to quails. There are over twenty quail farms in this country in which a considerable sum of capital is invested. For that reason, I would ask the noble and learned Lord, and the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, whether they would agree to the inclusion of quails when the Bill is presented on Report stage.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: I wonder whether I may draw attention to something which might happen in the direction of ambiguity if this Amendment is accepted. The clause at present reads that "poultry" means domestic fowls, turkeys and so on. It is clear that fowls, turkeys, geese, ducks, guinea-fowls and possibly pigeons are domestic, but does the word "domestic" apply to all of them, or is it intended to apply only to "fowls"? If the word is intended to apply to all of them, we shall be stuck with "domestic" pheasants, which seems rather unusual. On the other hand, if it is meant to apply only to fowls, may it not be necessary to insert a word such as "also" after "fowl"? There is no ambiguity at present that I can see, but there might conceivably be ambiguity if this Amendment is accepted. I wonder what the noble and learned Lord thinks about that.
LORD BALERNO: I should like to support the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford. There is justification in including domestic pheasants or partridges, just as there is justification for including domestic quail. There are farms which raise these as domestic animals, as distinct from birds that remain completely feral. I wonder whether consideration might be given to the possibility of including not only quail, but also peacocks. They are domesticated as a rule. To my mind, they are rather horrible animals, but I think they should be protected in this way.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think the word "domestic" applies only to fowls. I cannot think there is any case at all for including pheasants or partridges or any of the others, so far as the cattle trespass clauses are concerned, or so far as straying on to highways is concerned. With regard to dogs worrying livestock, pheasants and partridges are not normally domestic birds; in fact until they are caught or killed they are not and cannot ordinarily be the subject of ownership. If such birds are killed or injured by a dog nobody suffers loss as owner of the birds and, therefore, no damages can be claimed. I concede that there is a perfectly fair point with regard to pheasants and partridges in pens. Once they are out and flying about they are
72
nobody's property; they are living in a wild state, and there is no need to apply this.
So far as Clauses 3 and 9 are concerned —dogs worrying poultry—I agree that there is a case for seeing whether those in pens should not be included. I am quite prepared to discuss with the Ministry of Agriculture whether it is possible to distinguish between those in pens and others—I do not see why not —and I should think that, if it can be done, there is a case for covering them. With regard to quails and peacocks, if I may I will consider them between this stage of the Bill and Report stage.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: May I thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for his accommodating reception of the Amendment, and for including the other birds that have been rustled up for inclusion as well. We look forward to seeing what he can produce on Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clause 13 [Short title, repeal, commencement and extent]:>
5.52 p.m.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 7, line 34, at end insert—
("( ) If the damages claimed under section 3 of this Act do not exceed £25, they may be recovered summarily as a civil debt.")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 24 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Henley, and myself. This is a small point which I think deserves attention. Clause 13 of this Bill repeals subsections (1) to (3) of Section 1 of the Dogs Act 1906. But subsection (3) of Section 1 of the 1906 Act provides a very useful remedy for the owner of livestock damaged by a dog. It reads as follows:
"If the damages claimed under this section do not exceed £5 they may be recovered under the Summary Jurisdiction Acts as a civil debt."
That means that they may be recovered by the aggrieved owner's taking action in a magistrates' court, which is very cheap and simple and involves no delay.

73
I believe that this has been a remedy that has been much appreciated. My Amendment seeks to restore this provision to the Bill now, and to make an upward revision of the limit of the amount recoverable from £5 to £25. As the amount of £5 was fixed as right in 1906, I think that a multiplication of five is probably about right to set it at the same level. At that level it would undoubtedly provide a simple remedy where unfortunate incidents of this kind occur. I beg to move.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, having been so accommodating throughout, it would have been nice if, on the last Amendment, I could have accepted what is proposed. But it would really break my heart to do so. For five years I have been trying, with the cooperation of successive Home Secretaries, to reduce chaos to order. Surely the most elementary factor about any system of justice is that one must be clear what is a criminal offence and what is a tort; and there are criminal courts and civil courts. In the haphazard way in which our law has grown up, a Minister has from time to time (I suppose when the Lord Chancellor was having influenza, or something of that kind) had a provision put through which put something to be dealt with in quite the wrong court. The Dogs Act did this in 1906. There is, of course, a liability to pay for the damage which the dog has done, but this is a purely civil claim. It is a claim by the owner of the livestock against the owner of the dog.
We were trying to deal with such matters only last Session. We started, for example, getting out of magistrates' courts the effects of the Small Tenants Recovery Act, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, may remember, provides that one can obtain possession of very small houses in what used to be called a police court. This was obviously wrong, and we are in process of getting that matter out of the magistrates' court and into the county court, where it obviously ought to be. So, too, should a claim for damages.
There are further sensible reasons for this. The claim may raise issues of law, such as questions of ownership. The tri-
74
bunal of magistrates, unless there happens to be a farmer sitting, is ill qualified to assess damages, whereas the county court registrar has expertise and facilities for the collection of judgment debts by the making of instalment orders, administration orders and so on, which are lacking in the magistrates' court. It may be that in 1906, when there was not the amount of crime that exists to-day, one could get a case heard very much sooner in a magistrates' court than in a county court. But to-day the magistrates in most districts are already overloaded with criminal work, which should be given priority, and the registrars of the county courts are not so heavily pressed.
For these reasons, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, will not press this Amendment. It is not a matter of mere administrative tidiness; it is really not right that a claim for damages should, in this year, be put into the criminal court. Also, as I have said, there are good practical reasons why a civil court is appropriate.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: I thank the noble and learned Lord for his reply to my Amendment. I am bound to recognise that it is cogent. I have in the past sat on a local magistrates' bench, and occasionally, not this particular type of action but one or two types of action of a civil kind have been brought before us; and as a rule such cases throw a magistrates' bench into considerable confusion. I must recognise that they are not particularly well qualified for dealing with matters of this kind. I recognise the principle that magistrates' courts are there to deal with petty crime, and that this is a civil action. I should be the last person to press the noble and learned Lord on something where I feel he is certainly right in principle. Although I felt that this was a useful little practical solution, I also agree that delays in the county court are not very serious nowadays, while there might well be a delay with a magistrates' court. Therefore I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 13 agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported, with the Amendments.

CLAPHAM TRANSPORT MUSEUM
5.58 p.m.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEUrose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will reconsider their decision to disperse the historic transport relics at present housed at Clapham and appoint a committee to investigate possible alternative sites in the London area. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. I make no apologies for raising here to-night the matter of the future of the Clapham Museum, particularly in view of the fact that discussions regarding not only its future but also the location and the contents of transport museums in this country as a whole were carried out by a Departmental Committee in secret, and that it is only recently that the papers relating to the decisions have been made available to Members. Furthermore, it was doubly unfortunate that, due to Her Majesty's Government's decision to use the "guillotine" procedure on the Transport Bill in another place, the clause of the Bill dealing with transport relics was not discussed. I am certain that the public at large are still ignorant of the fact that our best national transport collection is about to be dispersed.
Let me remind your Lordships that the museum at the Clapham site was established in, I believe, 1959, as an effort by the British Railways Board to carry out undertakings given at the time of nationalisation of the railways that they would be responsible for the various relics which had been collected over the years by the private companies. Admittedly, Clapham was not an ideal site, and in the 1950s a sum of, I think, £1 million was even allotted by the British Railways Board to set up a permanent museum. But, of course, owing to the increasing deficit position, such money was not forthcoming. Nevertheless, the Clapham Museum came into being, and I should imagine that, in addition to the £15,000 spent on moving the vehicles in, a considerable further sum—probably about £100,000—has been spent on making the building suitable for the public to view the exhibits and on carrying out other work.
76
Of course, before the war we had a railway museum established in York, and since the war another smaller one at Swindon. But since 1959 Clapham has established itself as a considerable tourist attraction, and in recent years it has been visited by nearly 200,000 people a year—in spite of the fact that virtually no money has been spent on publicity. When I compare the amount spent on publicity —and the last figure I saw was £500 in 1966–with the expenditure made by other successful transport museums, I feel that it is amazing that so many people have gone there. It has always been realised that Clapham was not an ideal long-term site. Moreover (and I am sure that this is what has prompted the Government to take the steps they have), it has always operated at a considerable deficit. But, having now, at last, had an opportunity of looking at the figures I cannot but confess to being shocked at the very unbusinesslike way that the Museum has been organised and run.
First of all, so far as income is concerned, the admission charge has always been absurdly low, especially when one takes into account the quality of the exhibits, and compares it to that of other similar institutions in Europe. Out of the total outgoings of approximately £100,000, no less than over £60,000 is spent on wages and administration. From my own experience I must say that this is a sum which is completely out of proportion to what should have been spent. I appreciate that few recent Chairmen of British Railways have taken much interest in Clapham, and it would be fair to accept the fact that it is not the job of any Railway Board to run museums. But, even so, the lack of museum expertise and the resulting deficit which has been accepted year after year without anyone taking any action about it, is little less than scandalous. I can say with complete confidence that had the Museum been run in a businesslike way, not only would there have been no deficit but there would probably have been a profit.
Be that as it may, the Government have now, in their wisdom, decided to close Clapham, having received advice from a Committee set up, without public knowledge, under the chairmanship of Mr. Barber, of the Ministry of Transport, and which included civil servants from other Ministries. Only six meetings

77
were held and I am not aware (although I may be wrong here) of any public consultations which took place. In fact it was only recently that the papers were placed in the Library of another place. After the Committee had examined and costed some sites in the London area and elsewhere, a railway building at York became available. And with very little further investigation the country was faced with a fait accompli decision to close Clapham and to move some, but not all the main railway relics to York.
I think the British public can be forgiven for getting the impression that all that was to happen was that the exhibits were going to be moved en bloc to a splendid new and more suitable building in the North Country. This, however, cannot be further from the truth—and here perhaps even York has been led up the garden path. The fact is, my Lords, that the Clapham Transport Museum, as it is known today, which many consider houses one of the finest collections of transport relics ever to be gathered under one roof in Europe, is in fact being destroyed and dispersed; and no equivalent museum is to be set up in its place. Only the railway relics—the vast majority of which have special Southern connections—are going to York, which already houses all the important railway relics which relate to the North country. The very line London Transport collection, which forms an important part of the Clapham collection, will be without a home and will be stored— goodness knows where!—in conditions that will inevitably lead to further deterioration of the exhibits. Nor will the national tramway exhibits have a home.
In addition, it has been decided that the records also should go to York—this against the advice of all the official bodies and the experts, and those who are interested in consulting the documents. This move was strongly attacked by the British Records Association in last year's annual report, and it is also opposed by the Royal Commission on Historical Manuscripts and by the Standing Committee on Museums. Only the Public Record Office has remained neutral, perhaps because it has to, being a Government institution, and because, in any case, it has no room for the papers.
78
One of the more unfortunate aspects of the whole affair has been the relegation of the discussion in this matter as one of regionalisation and a fight between London and the Provinces. It has been suggested by some noble Lords, in letters to The Times and other newspapers, that opposition to the move to York is from those of us who want everything in London and who resent the policy of giving the Provinces some share of the cake. Let me make it quite clear tonight that this is the last thing I mean to convey, and the last thing that I personally feel is relevant. It is unfortunate that certain persons in Yorkshire, and certain newspapers there, have shown an almost paranoic tendency whenever the subject is discussed. Those who are putting forward the point of view of retaining a transport museum in London are labelled as—a marvellous new term!—" Metropolitan maniacs". As one whose family and whose wife's family have close Yorkshire connections I deeply resent the charge, especially in the light of the fact that neither I nor, indeed, my own museum reside anywhere near London.
York is of course free to have what museums it wishes. It already has several, including a railway museum, which could easily be improved by having further exhibits added to it. Indeed, if those in York who are expressing concern have so much faith in an improved railway museum why do not the local authority take it over, as has been done at Swindon, and run it themselves? It is a great pity that they give the impression in Yorkshire that they want a railway museum only so long as no one else is allowed to have one. There is certainly no shortage of exhibits, and there are 30 locomotives already in store without a home. The fact is that to-day we have three railway museums—Clapham, York and Swindon—but in future we shall have only two: one in York and one in Swindon, and none in London.
Much as I personally approve the policy of the British Travel Association of trying to get tourists out of London, the facts of international life are that those who travel to-day spend much less time in each country, and I think it is not entirely realistic to expect tourists who are coming to England for a few days to travel all the way to York, or

79
indeed to any other provincial capital, to see museums there. Indeed, compared with the splendid attendance figures for the Castle Museum at York (nearly 600,000) I do not find the attendance figures for the Railway Museum there very impressive. Perhaps York has enough delights to show its visitors already, and certainly in the district of York we have the splendid Bowes Museum, the Tramway Museum at Crich and the museum development on the Tyneside. I have no doubt that if a good site were found in the London area any such transport museum would not only complement those of York and Swindon but would have a good chance of doubling and trebling any attendance figures that could be attained by York.
Let us assume for a moment that the Government do not change their mind and that the plans for the destruction of Clapham go ahead. It has been estimated that it will cost about £500,000 to set up the new museum at York. Of this sum I should imagine that no less than £150,000 will be needed just to move the exhibits from Clapham up North. I gather that the Treasury have said that the only money available for this new museum will be the money they obtain from the sale of the site at Clapham. So since the exhibits cannot be moved out of Clapham until the new museum is ready, the question arises, who is to provide the £500,000 bridging finance which will be needed? Secondly, if, owing to planning restrictions or any other reasons, the Clapham site does not reach its expected price, who is going to make up the deficit? Thirdly, when can the public see the design plans for the new museum at York? Fourthly, what is the programme for the move?
With regard to the exhibits themselves, can Her Majesty's Government tell me what plans are afoot for the safe storage of the London Transport exhibits, and where the precious National Tramway exhibits will be housed? Who will be paying for the removal of these exhibits from Clapham to the new storage area, and will London Transport have enough money each year to maintain them, pending a decision on their future?
Another question which I think the Government should answer is this. In view of the fact that one of the main
80
reasons for closing down Clapham is the annual burden of the deficit, which incidentally is not usually an argument used about national museums, what comment have they on the report by the present Director of the Science Museum that even after moving he expects a deficit of about £15,000 a year on the York Museum? Arising out of this, can Her Majesty's Government tell me what decision has been made with regard to the admission charges at the York, Swindon and Clapham Museums for 1970, and the years afterwards?
I now turn to the main point of my Question, and that is to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will at this late hour set up an immediate Inquiry which will be empowered to take public evidence in order to investigate the situation thoroughly. To-day we hear a lot about Skeffington, but in this matter there has been a conspicuous lack of public consultation. Since the original departmental inquiry several other sites have become available: for example, Nine Elms, a site at Lambeth, and, last but not least, the most exciting idea of St. Pancras Station.
I think Her Majesty's Government should realise that considerable suspicions have been raised by the sequence of events by which the British Railways Board announced that St. Pancras Station was closing down, but once certain people, such as His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh, began to take an interest in it as a museum of industrial archæology, which would also include a transport section, and bodies such as the Victorian Society and the Transport Society began to draw up plans, it was announced that St. Pancras was going to be kept as a station after all. I should warn the Government to-night that there is deep suspicion that the moment York Museum is opened, St. Pancras will be duly closed down. Perhaps the Government can give an assurance that the delaying decisions about St. Pancras have not been influenced by these considerations.
With regard to the future of any transport museum in this country, it is a pity that the Government cannot, perhaps at the same time as this inquiry, if they agree to set it up, consider a consortium between official bodies, the Department of Education, the Science Museum,

81
the Greater London Council or Lambeth County Council, and commercial interests which may care to participate with restaurants and other commercial activities to make a future site viable. As noble Lords know, I have some experience in this matter, and the fact remains that with the increasing free time for all nowadays, such visits to museums are an important part of the nation's leisure time activities. The most important thing to remember is that successful museums are run by people who realise that the public want a good day out, and this includes such facilities as restaurants, car parks, souvenir shops and so on. These are essential for attracting large numbers of people. Both St. Pancras and the sites at Lambeth and Nine Elms lend themselves excellently to such development. Whether York does or not I do not know, but I was not very impressed by the Minister for Arts' statement on July 17, on her visit to York, when she said that she saw a great expanse of land right down to a very decorative river side
"which satisfied me that we could have internal mobility at York".
She perhaps failed to notice that the main line through York ran between the proposed site and the river.
To sum up, the breaking up of the Clapham collection as it is now constituted would be a major disaster. It would rob London, without replacing it elsewhere, of one of the finest transport collections in the world. As I have pointed out, only the railway exhibits are going to York and the others will be virtually left homeless. To pretend that the excellent but small railway section of the Science Museum is sufficient alternative is clearly nonsense. Whereas at the moment the York Railway Museum contains all the railway relics which relate to the North, those which are going to be sent up there are those which, historically, have been owned and operated in the South.
Finally, tempting as it may be to house the records with the relics in York, this will cause considerable hardship to scholars and students researching the history of transport. How can you expect students in Wales or the West Country to go to York to study records? I know it is the opinion of many in this country that it would be a disastrous decision to break up what is a fine national collec-
82
tion of transport. After all, if anyone suggested that the National Gallery should be broken up because it was not paying and that three-quarters of the pictures should be sent to Bristol and the Van Dycks and El Grecos back to Windsor, there would be a national outcry. In the realms of transport, the development of which has affected the history of this country, and in which the British contribution has had such a great effect on the world, the decision to break up an important national collection like this cannot be passed over lightly.
It is the clear duty of the Government to hold a public inquiry so that all points of view can be considered, as once dispersed such a collection can never be put together again. Future generations must hold this Government to blame for a decision which is going to have a disastrous long-term effect on our national heritage. Failure to hold an inquiry in public will confirm the suspicion that the Government have something to hide, that they are unwilling to let the public know the facts, that they are not prepared to consult public opinion, which they are always urging others to do, and are willing to destroy one of our national collections on the altar of regionalisation, only to set up in its place a far less impressive museum.
6.17 p.m.
LORD ROBERTSON or OAKRIDGE: My Lords, I am afraid that I have gathered the impression from speeches made in Parliament by Government spokesmen on this subject, and particularly from speeches made in this House during the discussion on the report of the Steering Group which was attached to the Transport Bill, that the Government are entirely bored with this subject; I mean with the subject of museums and relics and records. I hope that the tabling of this Question by the noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, and the very powerful speech that he has just made on this subject will have awakened their interest, if indeed they were bored. They have listened to an expert on the running of museums; I do not think anybody would question that. I can claim some knowledge of railways, but I have no knowledge of running museums such as is possessed by the noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu. I hope that not

83
only the debate on this Question but also recent correspondence in The Times will have awakened some interest in this subject and will have impressed on the Government that there are many people who feel very strongly about it—and I am one of them.
I should like to add one thing to the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Montagu. He spoke of the attractions of museums to tourists, and certainly one agrees very much with that. There is another point. Our engineers originally led the world in the construction of railways; we built the railways all over the world in many countries other than our own. In past years we have been busy telling everybody what rotten railways we have. In view of the overworked railways during the war, and having starved them of capital for many years after the war, it is perhaps not surprising that we had bad railways. We have been very busy telling people so, and there are a certain number of people still saying so. I believe that a number of your Lordships have now come to the conclusion that the situation has altered a good deal. The electrification of much of the line, the excellent work coming out of the laboratory at Derby, have persuaded foreign railways that the British have, after all, something to look at and something to sell.
Your Lordships may ask what has that got to do with a museum. I think it has a good deal to do with it. The Joint Steering Group, whose report accompanied the Transport Bill and was presented in 1967, recommended that this museum should go to York. They justified that recommendation on one ground only, finance. They did not mention anything else.
Wherever it is, the new museum must be paid for out of money that is obtained by "selling" Clapham and York. Given such a limitation, it is not surprising that British Railways have found themselves unable to recommend any alternative. I have no prejudice against York any more than has the noble Lord, Lord Montagu; it is a wonderful city. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord James of Rusholme, who wrote a splendid letter about it to The Times. But neither the noble Lord, Lord James, nor anybody else is going to persuade me
84
that York is a suitable place for a great national museum, and I am quite sure that it is not a place for a national transport museum. As for records, I leave that matter to my noble friend Lord Hurcomb.
I support Lord Montagu in his request that there should be a fresh investigation into the possibility of a site in London. I support him, but as I have already said I am afraid that the Government have got thoroughly bored with this question. If that proves to be the case, and if they have made up their minds—it looks to me very much as if they have— then I must suggest to them, with all the deference which is due to our rulers, that they should ensure that the museum at York is a really first-class museum, because if it is not they will find that they have roused up a hornet's nest.
6.23 p.m.
LORD HURCOMB: My Lords, I will not detain you for more than a few moments, but I should like just to recall the course of the debates in this House on the Committee stage of the Transport Bill of a year or two ago. My main purpose then—and I had the support of the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, and of other Peers—was to object strongly to sending the archives of transport away from London. I hope that the noble Baroness who is going to reply this evening will at any rate agree that that matter should be looked at again.
Here in your Lordships' House are a mass of papers, running back a century and a half, relating to all the Parliamentary and statutory history of the railways and other transport undertakings, paralleled of course, a little way along the corridors, by similar documents in the other House. They deal with the statutory side, and with many other matters which require the authority of Parliament. In the Record Office there is the vast accumulation of the Board of Trade all through a century and a half, containing records relating to the great British activities and achievements in engineering. These will be in Fetter Lane or Chancery Lane. The Government have decided that any papers the railways have must go to York. Thus any scholar or economic historian who desires to look into the history of

85
the nineteenth century from the railway side, or who is interested in all the important papers relating to the settlements and arrangements between the railway companies and the Government in two world wars—documents of great interest in many respects—will have to go to York.
I have recently seen in the Press some argument suggesting that it would be an advantage to have all these documents housed close to the locomotives. There is nothing more ridiculous than that suggestion. The economic history of the railways, their charges and so on, are of no interest to the people who made the drawings and worked out the plans for the locomotives, which, as my noble friend Lord Robertson of Oakridge has said, are one of the great features of British achievement. That suggestion, at any rate, I hope will be looked at again, and looked at from the point of view of what really is going to be convenient to scholars, economic historians and economists, who will not want to have to go to three places to find out anything they want to know.
But as regards the Museum itself, and the relics, I have the greatest sympathy with the attitude taken by the noble Lord who has opened this short debate. Just as I took the view, when I was Chairman of the Transport Commission, that we needed a centralisation of archives in the charge of a competent archivist, I also took the view, with which my colleagues agreed, that we needed a proper collection of historical relics relating not only to railways but to all the other transport undertakings—road, canal and dock. We arranged a number of exhibitions in the Great Hall and Shareholders Room at Euston, buildings which alas! have now disappeared, but they were meant to be only a prelude to a much bigger and a truly national collection.
If I may read from a short brochure issued some time in the early 'fifties, called Transport Treasures we said:
"The British Transport Commission are anxious that all items of historical interest appertaining to public transport shall be preserved. What is ultimately envisaged is not merely another railway museum at large, but a comprehensive permanent collection which will cover the whole vast field of inland transportation, for the properties vested in British
86
Transport include docks, river navigations. canals, railways and road transport undertakings."
That was in days when we were viewing transport as a whole. We seem to have got back, more or less by general agreement or lethargy, or as my noble friend said boredom, to a sort of atmosphere of fragmentation.
I agree entirely with what the noble Lord, Lord Montague of Beaulieu, has said, that these things would be better looked at as a whole, and the collections kept as a whole. I agree that there are difficulties in finding a site when one is dealing with objects as large as locomotives. Models can do something, and some of the great epoch-making discoveries and inventions of British engineers ought to find their place—and, indeed to some extent do find their place—in the Science Museum at Kensington. But to preserve a large enough number of actual locomotives was always a problem, and the line I took was to say to the Institution of Mechanical Engineers and to the Newcomen Society, and to bodies of that sort of standing, "If you can point to some existing locomotive which really marks a stage forward in British mechanical science, then we will do our best to preserve it. We cannot preserve every engine which merely had some railway engineer adding a few gadgets to get it called after his name, and it does not matter what colour it was painted. But if it really is related to the development of British mechanical and engineering achievement, we will do our best to see it preserved". And that, I think, was done.
Then my noble friend Lord Robertson, who succeeded me, was faced with the problem of where to put these things. I hoped then (here again I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Montagu) that we might be able to find one of the major architectural or civil engineering achievements of the British Railways of a century or more ago in which to house these; and I still feel that that might have been done with enough imagination, and good will perhaps, on the part of the railways themselves. I suggested, in fact (and was extremely interested to heard the noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, mention it), the little building at Nine Elms, built, I believe, by Sir William Tite, which was severely damaged, if not destroyed, during the war, but kept

87
its façade—a very attractive little piece of 19th century architecture. Now something of that sort could be used.
I still hope that the Government will see whether they can think in terms of transport, and not merely in separate terms of railways, of London transport, of a canal or two, or a bus somewhere or other. Cannot they, even at this very late date, review the matter, as the noble Lord, Lord Montagu, has requested, in a wider spirit, and try to find somewhere in London, or near London; and, if possible, a building which has also some architectural merit?
Having said all that, I must say that I was bound to admit, during the debates on the Transport Bill, that if the main railway collection had to go to the Provinces, York was for many reasons a very good centre. But I asked for an assurance, which I got (I think it was from the noble Lord, Lord Hughes) and which I hope the noble Baroness will be able to repeat this evening. I said, "If these things must be moved away from Clapham, or wherever they are in London, will you undertake that there is maintained in London a sufficient collection of steam locomotives so that London children can go and see these things which have fascinated generations of young people?" And not only London children, but also, as my noble friend Lord Robertson of Oakridge has stressed, mechanical engineers of all grades and all stages in their profession, who ought to be able to go and look at some of these magnificent inventions and constructions without being told that if they want to see anything more than a model or a drawing they must go to Swindon or. probably, to York.
On general grounds, therefore, I think that there is a case, even at this very late stage, for reviewing these problems again. The archives may be past praying for—, I do not know; although I hope not. But as regards the Museum it is surely not too late to review the decisions. If the decision is that the major part of the railway collections must go to York, may we have an assurance, or a reiteration of the assurance given earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, that London children and London mechanical engineers will be able to see a proper series of
88
steam locomotives without having to go so far afield?
6.33 p.m.
LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY: My Lords, I had not put my name down to speak, but as, so to speak, an outsider, may I add my plea for this matter to be further investigated? As my noble friend Lord Montagu of Beaulieu has said, we in Britain really gave railways to the world, and it seems to me more than a pity if there is to be no transport museum left in London. When all is said and done, I suppose the bulk of tourists come to London, and far fewer go to York, for instance. When I was last visiting the Clapham Museum—I think it was some time during the summer—I was told there that the attendance at that Museum had gone up enormously during this last year.
I add my voice, as I say, as an outsider—the ex-Chairman of the British Transport Commission having spoken, and my noble friend Lord Montagu having spoken—in a strong plea that this matter be looked at again before London is entirely denuded of any Museum of one of the greatest things that we gave to the world.
6.35 p.m.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, first of all I should like to pay a tribute to the two noble Lords, Lord Hurcomb and Lord Robertson of Oakridge, because I feel I should be doing them less than justice if I did not say that were it not for their work in this connection we should not have a Clapham Museum to debate to-night. I should also like to pay a tribute to the interest which the noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu has shown from the start in the future of the transport relics in the Clapham Museum. I certainly do not think of him as a Metropolitan maniac; in fact, if that is the definition of a Londoner interested in retaining things in London, then I come into that category.
I would assure noble Lords that the Government are certainly not bored with this matter. I know that the Minister responsible for the Arts is not, and I can assure all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate that I am personally very interested in, and very fond of, the Clapham Museum. I have been a most ardent fan and have visited it frequently; so you have at least two

89
members of the Government who are not bored and who have the interests of this Museum very much at heart.
The noble Lord, Lord Montagu, was the first Member of this House to speak on the clause of the Transport Bill dealing with this subject during the Second Reading debate in June last year. He suggested then that St. Pancras would be a very suitable site for a transport museum if Clapham could not be made viable. The noble Lord, Lord Montagu, speaks in his Question of a decision to disperse the relics, and in a letter to The Times last week the Government were accused of taking a decision which would completely destroy the Clapham collection. Before I go on to the question of alternative sites and the other issues that have been posed this evening, I want to explain again what is in fact proposed and why, including the financial limitations that restrict the choice of site. Noble Lords can then judge for themselves whether these harsh descriptions a the Government's action are justified.
Clapham is on several accounts unsuitable to continue as a Transport Museum. First, it is not rail connected. On the occasion that a locomotive was moved in, it cost £1,800. Secondly, there is in the absence of a turntable no possibility of developing the collection by moving heavy objects around. Thirdly—and nobody can gainsay this—the Museum is full up and there is no space for expansion. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, would be the first to agree, following on the remarks that he has just made, that a museum should be a living organism with room to cover recent and future developments. That is how I took the noble Lord's point. The locomotives of Clapham are all steam, there are no electric ones, and offers of two diesels recently had to be turned down. The railway collection there belongs to a past that will become increasingly remote—though I take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, that children should be able to see a steam train. However, I think the noble Lord would also agree that the present situation could not be a good advertisement for a forward-looking railway system.
On the other hand, the fact that the Clapham Museum is not self-supporting was not regarded as a reason for closing
90
it. Personally, I am always puzzled when people talk about deficits and profits in relation to something so valuable to a nation's heritage as a museum. That was certainly not the reason why the closure of the Clapham Museum was considered necessary. It is difficult to see how anything approaching, the number of visitors to Lord Montagu's estate at Beaulieu, for example, which I understand is just over half-a-million, could possibly be expected at Clapham, however well it was managed. Nor could a much larger entrance fee be justified. The noble Lord asked about the future entrance charges at Clapham, York and Swindon. I understand there is no intention to increase the Clapham charges, though perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Montagu, would suggest otherwise. However, those at the present Museum at York and the one at Swindon may be increased slightly in the New Year.
At the time when a move to York was first mooted, the Government were by no means wedded to a site outside London. It was just that York satisfied one very simple condition, which has largely been lost sight of in all the subsequent controversy—and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, for reminding us of this to-night—which was met by no other site in or outside London; namely, that the money to provide a new museum was limited to the funds that would be realised by the sale of the Clapham site. The estimate of the proceeds, made two years ago, was £500,000. This basic fact was revealed at the start in the White Paper on Railway Policy, issued in November, 1967. It was stated in Appendix C that the proceeds would be sufficient for the conversion of an existing building but not for the construction of a new, purpose-built transport museum. This statement was not guesswork: it was based on an estimate for a new building at Harrow to accommodate most of the railway and road transport relics at Clapham; and that estimate came to about £750,000.
A widespread search by the Railways Board for an existing building suitable for conversion revealed only one—a redundant locomotive maintenance depot at York. This, of course, is rail-connected, and it contains two turntables, which will be of great use to a railway museum. This seems so obvious that I am sure

91
your Lordships will accept the point. A building at York can also accommodate the contents of the small railway museum which is already there; and the proceeds of selling the site can be added to the funds available for the new museum. Contrary to the letter in The Times already quoted, there will be room at York for all locomotives and railway stock at Clapham apart from two locomotives for which good homes can be found; and there will be room for all the smaller objects that are considered worthy of a national museum. And, my Lords, there will also be room for expansion. The site will be close to York station and will, appropriately enough, have railway lines on several sides, although I take the point that the noble Lord, Lord Montagu, felt that this was not, perhaps, an advantage. If plans materialise for the planting of trees and for the provision of a footbridge from the existing riverside walk, the museum could in fact provide a very attractive oasis.
The noble Lord asked what would happen if the sale of the Clapham site did not raise the sum expected. We expect that the sum will prove adequate, but if by any chance it is not we shall have to consider whether the deficit should be met by the Railways Board or whether modification should be made to the plans. On the question of bridging finance, the Railways Board have agreed to provide this.
When the York site was found, the London Transport Board somewhat naturally indicated that they would prefer to take their relics back into their own keeping rather than see them go to York. London Transport will have a duty to preserve these relics, including the trams, in suitable accommodation. The intention is that they will be available for viewing. Ultimately, it is hoped, they will take their place in a museum of transport for the London region; and I am sure that London Transport will do their best with the interests of Londoners at heart. The very few other road transport relics will be offered to appropriate museums and preservation societies.
Those are the facts, my Lords. It is patent that the Clapham collection is not going to be "completely destroyed". The London Transport relics constitute
92
about 15 per cent. of the collection, and other road transport items a tiny percentage of the total. The first definition of "disperse" in the Shorter Oxford Dictionary is, "To scatter in all directions". How can that description of the Government's proposals be justified when over 80 per cent. of the whole collection is being kept together and nearly all the remainder will be under the control of a single body? Further, the people who complain about the break-up of the collection ignore the fact that, originally, Clapham also contained material about waterways. When nearly all this was removed in 1963 to a separate Waterways Museum at Stoke Bruerne on the Grand Union Canal, this did not cause any outcry, and it has proved an eminently satisfactory arrangement. The field is so vast that it would be impossible to do justice to all forms of transport in a single museum; and I feel that even the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, with his plea, will see this point. One would feel that there is much to be said for specialist transport museums of national standing—motor cars at one spot, railways at York and so on.
I will now return to the question of alternative sites. Despite the financial condition which appeared to preclude a completely new building, the Government have shown that they are ready to consider other sites. With regard to St. Pancras, British Railways announced a year ago that the station would remain in service indefinitely. This was a decision for operational reasons, and has nothing to do with the possibility of using it for other purposes. When Miss Lee met a deputation from the London Boroughs Association in August, 1968, she offered to consider a firm, costed proposal for a site at Nine Elms, or elsewhere, if one was put forward.
Nothing more was heard of Nine Elms until the Clapham Society came to see Miss Lee on October 16, 1969; and shortly afterwards the secretary of the Society sent the Department of Education and Science some rough sketch plans prepared by the Borough of Lambeth for a museum on the Nine Elms site. No indication of cost has been given; but apart from this problem the space shown in the sketch plan would be inadequate for large exhibits. Its area is

93
only 35,000 square feet, whereas the area proposed for the main hall at York is 75,000 square feet. Finally, it would be necessary to lay down a spur line to make the site rail-connected. Another suggestion put forward by the Victorian Society was Woolwich Arsenal. This. however, is not rail-connected; and the same objection applies to one or two sites that have also been suggested. In addition, in all cases the cost of a completely new building is expected to be prohibitive.
I realise that Clapham does not want to lose it Museum, but I cannot really regard its inhabitants as being absolutely cut off from the National Gallery or the other national museums. The West End can be reached in 20 minutes on the Northern Line from Clapham Common Station; it is served by a number of buses, and trains run from Clapham Junction to Victoria and Waterloo every few minutes. In saying that I sound rather like a public relations officer for London Transport, but this is just one of the facts of life.
The noble Lord, Lord Montagu, also raised the question of railway records, as did the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb. Here, I would candidly admit that the case for moving the records to York, to an annex of the new Museum, is much less strong than that for the relics. For the bulk of researchers it would clearly be better to keep in London the records at present there. though too much must not be made of this. It might be possible to establish an information point at the Science Museum to deal with some of their inquiries; and the record office at York will have facilities for dealing with telephone and postal inquiries. On the other hand, York will attract a great many visitors who live nearer to it than to London. On two sample dates in 1967 it was found that nearly half the visitors to the Porchester Road record office in London came from the regions, many of them from places nearer York. There are, my Lords—and we must not forget this—seven universities within 50 miles of York. Further, one of the three sets of records involved—the mechanical drawings at Clapham—plainly ought to be in the same place as the locomotives and the other exhibits to which many of them relate.
94
The building at York is at present the only firm prospect of finding a permanent home for the records, and any other solution would cost considerably more money. It is not true, of course, that the decision to move the records was taken against the advice of all the advisory bodies concerned. The Standing Commission on Museums and Galleries was consulted before the publication of the White Paper and expressed itself broadly satisfied with the proposals for transferring the relics and records from London to York. The Chairman has recently written asking that the decision to move the records to York should not be irrevocable if it should later be found practicable to house them in London. I think this bears out the point which the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, made. The Chairman of the Science Museum Advisory Council wrote in 1969 expressing the misgivings of the Council as a whole at the prospect of the records leaving London, but I understand that the members are not now unanimous about this.
The noble Lord, Lord Montagu, also made the point that there had not been public consultation in connection with the moving of the relics. I would only remind him that after the Transport Act 1968 had been passed, Miss Lee held meetings with the London Boroughs Association, the Victorian Society, the Transport Trust, the Greater London Council, the Borough of Camden, the Standing Commission on Museums and Galleries and the Clapham Society. I am not sure whether the noble Lord would regard these as public consultations; but certainly the interested bodies were consulted. The noble Lord, Lord Montagu, sought information about the programme for the move. The new building should be ready in the second half of 1971. It will take a year to move the relics to York. The new museum is expected in 1972.
My Lords, I am sure that the Government's policy of trying to spread the good things around the whole country is right. This is not a question of pressing anything in the nature of a regional policy. The museum at York will in fact be linked with the Science Museum in London. Work is about to start on detailed plans. If sufficient people wish to

95
see them on completion, they will certainly be placed on display. The Government see no need for a public inquiry. The time has surely come for railway enthusiasts and others to stop arguing about the move and to concentrate on making the new building at York a museum of which the whole country will be proud.