Sitting of 29 June 1955

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  NORTH WALES HYDRO-ELECTRIC POWER BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  ROYAL AIR FORCE

    Personal Case
    Mr. Doddsasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air if he will give consideration to discharging 2726889 Leading Aircraftman D. L. Pearson on the grounds that the condition of his feet makes it undesirable that he should be retained; and if he is aware that this man has had operations to both feet at the Woodlands Hospital for Cripples and has never been fit enough to play games.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Mr. George Ward): This airman was assessed Grade I in May, 1954, by a Ministry of Labour and National Service medical board. He has twice been medically examined by Royal Air Force doctors and found fit for service in any part of the world. The medical authorities consider his disability to be slight and not likely to be aggravated by his remaining in the Service.
    It is true that Leading Aircraftman Pearson recently suffered from slight inflammation over the insteps. I understand however that this can result from wearing boots which rub or are too tightly laced and is quite common. I can see no justification for discharging Leading Aircraftman Pearson on medical grounds.
    Mr. Dodds: Does the Under-Secretary not appreciate the difficulty of the public in understanding why a man with all this
    370
    disability is kept in the forces and others who can perform tremendous feats of endurance are allowed out? Is he not aware that he will hear more of this case and of the other two to which I referred on Monday night, because it is about time that the public were shown that they were being hoodwinked about many of these matters?
    Mr. Ward: This man's medical category is A.4.G.2, which means that he is fit for duty anywhere in the world. He told the doctor only last week that he had had no difficulty with his feet in the Service and that he had no complaints and could not understand what all the fuss was about.
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. John Hall.
    Mr. Dodds: Is the Minister aware that I have correspondence from the father and from the airman——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. John Hall.

    Children (Educational Facilities)
    Mr. John Hallasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air if he is aware that the problem of educating the children of those serving in the Royal Air Force both at home and abroad is becoming a matter of increasing concern and often of heavy expense to the parents; and what proposals he has to deal with this problem.
    Mr. Ward: Yes, Sir. My noble Friend is discussing this problem with the other Ministers concerned, but I regret that it is not yet possible to make a statement.
    Mr. Hall: Is my hon. Friend aware that, in addition to the problem facing those serving overseas, the children of officers and men at home face a very considerable handicap by reason of the constant change of station when they are posted, and that very often they are additionally handicapped also by being absorbed into local village schools which are already overcrowded? Will he, with his colleagues, regard it as a matter of the greatest urgency?
    Mr. Ward: I well understand the problem, and I have the greatest sympathy with my hon. Friend, but I am afraid that I cannot say more at present. The matter concerns a number of Departments besides the Air Ministry and the Government will announce their decision as soon as possible.
    Mr. A. Henderson: Is it not a fact that the Select Committee on the Army and Air Force Act, which reported last year, drew attention to this very urgent problem? May we take it that the consideration which the Under-Secretary says is now being given has followed the recommendations of that Select Committee?
    Mr. Ward: Yes, Sir. We are giving it all the urgency that the Select Committee gave it.
    Brigadier Prior-Palmer: Is my hon. Friend aware that I raised this matter at great length two years ago on the Army Estimates and that an Inter-Departmental Committee was set up from the Ministry of Education and the War Office but that nothing whatever seems to have been done about it?
    Mr. Lewis: Will the Minister take special note of an article in last Sunday's issue of "The People," in page 15, which, I think, he will find of interest?
    Mr. Ward: I will look it up.

  CIVIL AVIATION

    Helicopter Services
    Mr. Doddsasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what consideration has been given in recent months to the provision of helicopter passenger stations on or near the River Thames in London; and what progress has been made in respect to short- and long-term plans for the development of this form of travel.
    The Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): I am discussing with the Port of London Authority and the London County Council the possibility of constructing a landing platform on the Thames for use by helicopters when the South Bank Air Station ceases to be available.
    During this summer, British European Airways expect to operate services between London Airport and the South Bank and also between Gatwick (where the helicopters are based) and London Airport. Silver City Airways Ltd. have been given conditional approval to operate helicopter services between Ferryfield and Ostend, Calais, Le Touquet, and Boulogne when this becomes commercially practicable in the company's judgment.
    Mr. Dodds: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that, with the progress being made in the development of helicopters, the information he has now given will give some impetus to others to look into this question?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am anxious that the helicopter should be developed as quickly as possible. As I think the hon. Gentleman, who knows a good deal about this matter, appreciates, we are dependent for large-scale future development on the development of a reliable twin-engined machine.
    Mr. Doddsasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation how many local authorities have sought advice from his Department concerning inter-city helicopter services; and what assistance is given to them in this connection.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: About 80 local authorities have sought advice, most of them about the reservation of suitable sites for future air stations. All the available information has been given about site requirements. Eight authorities have specially mentioned their interest in inter-city helicopter services, and as this is a matter for the airline operators, British European Airways and the British Independent Air Transport Association have been informed of these inquiries.

    Airports (Passenger Landing Charges)
    Mr. Hydeasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation the annual net revenue from charges levied on passengers departing from State airports in this country since the date of the original imposition of these charges.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Since the charge which is levied on the air lines was introduced on 1st May, 1952, it has produced in net revenue some £183,000 for the 11 months of the financial year ended 31st March, 1953; £239,000 for the year 1953 to 1954; and £267,000 for 1954 to 1955.
    Mr. H. Hynd: Is not this a very annoying charge, which should be abolished as soon as possible?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I think it is reasonable that when elaborate and necessary landing ground facilities are provided at the expense of the taxpayers, a charge should be made for at any rate part of the services so rendered.
    Mr. Ernest Davies: Why cannot the charge be made with the usual landing charges which are only for airline companies? Why should it be a special charge for passengers to pay?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: It is not, as I think the hon. Gentleman knows, specially made for the passengers to pay. As I said in my original answer, it is levied on the airlines, and the methods by which the airlines seek to recover it are, of course, their business.
    Mr. Nabarro: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the charge in Britain in this connection is the lowest in Europe?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am obliged to my hon. Friend, but, without reference, I would hesitate to agree even with him.
    Mr. Hydeasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he will now abolish the charges levied at State airports on passengers departing for destinations outside the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: No, Sir.
    Mr. Hyde: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, apart from the Iron Curtain countries, there is only one country in the world besides this country which imposes these charges, and that they are a constant source of irritation to tourists visiting this country and have been a particular source of complaint on the part of Americans?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: They need not be a source of irritation to the passengers if the arrangement which is now being widely adopted by airlines is followed and the collection of this charge is made at the same time as the fare is paid.
    Mr. Grimond: What is the cost to the taxpayers of the maintenance of, say, London Airport, and how much of it is met by this charge?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would put that question on the Order Paper.

  ROADS

    Traffic Congestion, Newcastle-under-Lyme
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what proposals he is at present considering for the relief of traffic congestion on the main road through Newcastle-under-Lyme.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The line of the proposed Preston-Birmingham motor road lies to the west of Newcastle-under-Lyme, and this road, when completed, will do much to relieve the traffic congestion in the town. I cannot at present add more to the statement I made on 2nd February last about the expanded road programme.
    Mr. Swingler: Is the Minister aware of the great urgency of pressing forward with this project, because it is now quite impossible to cope satisfactorily with the peak traffic of 700 vehicles an hour now passing through the ancient Borough of Newcastle-under-Lyme? Will he, therefore, press forward with the necessary diversion of traffic as quickly as possible?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I think the hon. Gentleman has in mind a particular project which is not referred to in his Question, but I agree that there is a serious traffic problem there, as in many other places, and I am anxious to tackle it and them as quickly as possible.

    Dual Carriageways, Staffordshire
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what mileage and proportion of trunk roads in Staffordshire have dual carriageways; and to what extent these will be increased when present schemes have been completed.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: 7·8 miles or 4·8 per cent., Sir. A further 5·3 miles of dual carriageways will be built or started this year, and a further 7·7 miles are at present proposed for the following three years, raising the percentage from 4·8 per cent. to 12·8 per cent. In addition, 43 miles of the Birmingham-Preston motor road, which, of course, will have dual carriageways, will be within the County of Stafford.
    Mr. Swingler: While we in Staffordshire welcome the schemes, is the Minister aware that even when they are completed Staffordshire will still be worse off than most other counties as far as dual carriageways are concerned? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Certainly. As Staffordshire is, of course, one of the most important counties, will the Minister therefore pay attention to the need for increasing the number of dual carriageways?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I think that both the comparisons which the hon. Gentleman made only illustrate how invidious comparisons proverbially are.

    Capital Expenditure
    Mr. Ellis Smithasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will make an up-to-date statement on his proposed capital expenditure on roads and bridges; and state the main proposals and areas.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: In my statement on 2nd February, I informed the House of the Government expenditure on road construction and improvement which I hope to authorise in the four years from 1955 to 1959, and I gave details of some of the larger schemes. I am unable to add to that statement at present.
    Mr. Woodburn: When grants are authorised but not spent during a given year, do they go back to the Treasury to be reissued in the next programme, or is every programme in addition to a previous or the original programme? It is not very clear from the figures.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I cannot answer on that somewhat detailed matter of accounting without notice, but it is very often the case that if I am in a position to authorise a grant and the promoting authority is not in a position to go ahead the grant passes to some other scheme, promoted, perhaps, by some other authority which is in a position to go ahead.

    Pedestrian Crossings
    Mr. Atkinsasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will take steps to have adequate street lighting placed in the vicinity of all zebra crossings.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I cannot compel lighting authorities to provide street lighting, but I hope they will do all they can to ensure that street lighting near zebra crossings is as good as possible.
    Mr. Atkins: Will my right hon. Friend draw the attention of the local authorities to the many zebra crossings where the street lighting is noticeable by its absence, which constitutes a great danger, as motorists approaching the zebra crossings are not able to see whether people are on the kerbs?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I will certainly do what I can, but, as I think my hon. Friend appreciates, except on trunk roads street lighting is the sole responsibility of the local authorities, and even on trunk roads my responsibility is confined to the making of a 50 per cent. grant. I can encourage but cannot give instructions.
    Major Anstruther-Grayasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether his attention has been drawn to a case where fatal consequences arose from misunderstanding on the part of a pedestrian as to the rights of a person stepping off an island half-way across a zebra crossing in front of an approaching vehicle; and whether he will take steps to make the effect of his regulations on this matter clear and free from all doubt.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Yes, Sir. I greatly regret the accident in question, but the regulations are quite clear. Where a zebra crossing is divided
    by a central refuge, the pedestrian has precedence on one section at a time only. Where there is no such refuge his precedence relates to the crossing as a whole. This is sound sense, and I am grateful to my hon. and gallant Friend for giving me this opportunity to make the point better known.
    Major Anstruther-Gray: May we take it from that that a pedestrian stepping off a pavement is under an obligation to look for traffic before he steps out in front of it?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I think that is broadly right, but it is put extremely clearly in the Highway Code.
    Mrs. Mann: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider making a broadcast on this subject as there is great confusion in the minds of the people?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: As I said in my main answer, I hope that my hon. and gallant Friend's Question and my answer may be noticed outside. The matter is also dealt with in the Highway Code, of which some millions, I am glad to say, have been circulated. Whilst I am anxious that the position should be improved as much as possible, I am not sure that a broadcast would necessarily help.

    Black Spots (Accidents)
    Captain Pilkingtonasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what proportion of accidents he estimates occur on recognised black spots in road layout.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Accident statistics compiled from police records indicate that about 2 per cent. of all road accidents are attributable to road defects, but I regard black spots as places where the incidence of road accidents, from whatever cause, is abnormally high. I am afraid I have no statistics relating to these.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: But is it not already known that an unduly high proportion of these accidents are accidents which take place on zebra crossings, which make zebra crossings black spots?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I regard all accidents as unduly high, but I do not share the hon. and gallant Gentleman's determined opposition to the zebra crossing. I believe that it has been extremely useful.

    Great Portland Street (One-Way Working)
    Mr. K. Robinsonasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation the reason for the continued delay in introducing the experimental one-way system in Great Portland Street; when a start may now be expected; and in which direction it is intended that traffic will flow.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: There was some difficulty about the alternative routes for buses, but I am glad to say that the Commissioner of Police has informed me that one-way working was introduced experimentally in Great Portland Street on Tuesday, 21st June, in a southbound direction from Devonshire Street to Margaret Street.
    Mr. Robinson: Is the Minister aware that I am glad that a start has been made at last since I first put this Question on the Order Paper? Will he consider extending this system over the whole length of Great Portland Street and, possibly, into the streets which cross it at right angles?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I will certainly consider that, but the hon. Member will
    378
    have gathered from my main answer that this system on the present length of street has been introduced experimentally. I should like to watch the experiment before deciding to extend it.

    Cross-Roads, Islington (Traffic Lights)
    Mr. E. Fletcherasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he is aware of the dangerous nature of the cross-roads between Balls Pond Road and Southgate Road and Mildmay Park, Islington; and whether he will take steps to deal with the matter.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am informed by the Islington Metropolitan Borough Council, which is the highway authority for these roads, that it has included a scheme for the provision of traffic signals at this junction in its estimates for the financial year 1955-56 and hopes that tenders will be obtained before the end of 1955. I have approved grant in respect of this installation.
    Mr. Fletcher: Is the Minister aware that that decision will be very greatly appreciated in view of the number of serious accidents which have occurred in the past at this spot?

    Kincardine-Milnathort Road
    Mr. Woodburnasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he is aware that the road from Kincardine Bridge to Milnathort is almost exclusively used by through traffic and is, in the absence of a nearer Forth crossing, the principal through road to the north; and whether he will assume responsibility for this part of the road as a trunk road.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am aware that this road carries a substantial amount of through traffic. That is why it is classified as a Class I road. A preliminary examination of the 1954 traffic census discloses that whilst traffic on the Kincardine Bridge—Kinross road A.977 has increased considerably, traffic on the parallel trunk road A.91 between Stirling and Milnathort ha3 decreased. A detailed examination of the census for this area is being made; until it has been completed I cannot say whether any alteration in the status of A.977 and A.91 would be justified.
    Mr. Woodburn: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when the congestion on the ferry takes place this road becomes immediately a direct road from the A.1 road to the North of Scotland and that there is very little domestic traffic on it? Is he aware that it is almost entirely used by through traffic and that if any road in the country should be a national road it should be this part of this road? Is he aware that industrialists in the area feel that the responsibility should be assumed by the right hon. Gentleman and that I hope that he will give early consideration to the matter?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I think I have explained that this is a matter of whether this road or another should be a trunk road, and I must reserve decision until the census figures, which give the facts, are examined.

  RAILWAYS

    Development and Modernisation
    Mr. Ellis Smithasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will make an up-to-date statement on his capital allocation for the development and modernisation of British Railways.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I do not make any allocation of capital for this purpose, but I would refer the hon. Member to the announcement made by the British Transport Commission on 5th May in regard to the main projects expected to begin during 1955 and 1956 under its plan for the modernisation and re-equipment of British Railways.
    Mr. Smith: Should not an announcement of this kind be made by the Minister in this House? Is it not public finance that is being used? Should it not therefore be a concern of the elected representatives of the people? Now that the railways are beginning to get over the difficulties, will the Minister not make a special appeal to all grades, so that we may attain not only modernised railways but the best results from those engaged in the service?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I think the Gentleman misunderstands the position. This capital is raised on the market with the assistance of a Treasury guarantee. Subject to the approval of the Chancellor and myself, it is the responsibility of the British Transport Commission to carry
    380
    out the development of its enterprise. I should very much hesitate to interfere more than the Statute compels me to do with its discharge of its responsibilities.

    Branch Lines (Battery Coaches)
    Sir R. Boothbyasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether his attention has been drawn to the suggestion in the current report of the Electricity Consultative Council for the North of Scotland that an experiment should be made with battery rail-cars on one or more of the branch lines in the North of Scotland where it has recently been decided to discontinue ordinary passenger trains; and whether he will give a general direction to the British Transport Commission to consider this proposal.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am informed by the British Transport Commission that this proposal has been considered very carefully in consultation with the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board, and a great deal of detailed investigation undertaken. The Scottish Area Board has decided that it would not be justified, in present circumstances, in going on with this experiment particularly as the potential running and maintenance costs of battery coaches would make little difference to the economics of branch lines.
    Sir. R. Boothby: Does my right hon. Friend really consider it an economic proposition to keep a number of branch lines open in the North of Scotland for goods traffic and to allow no passenger traffic upon them at all? Has my right hon. Friend's attention been drawn to recent experiments in Germany with battery rail-cars, which have been extremely successful and have competed economically with diesel engined cars? Will he reconsider the matter?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: It is impossible to generalise on the use of branch lines for goods only. There are clearly cases in which the line should be kept open for goods traffic only, but that depends upon the facts. As to the method of propulsion to be used on rails, that is primarily a matter for the British Transport Commission itself.
    Sir R. Boothby: In view of my right hon. Friend's extremely unsatisfactory reply, I propose to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

  TRANSPORT

    Vehicles (Increase)
    Captain Pilkingtonasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what increase of vehicles he estimates will be on the roads by 1965.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: It is impossible to state a precise figure so far ahead. I am working on the basis that the increase will be very large.
    Captain Pilkington: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the Government's present plans will be able to deal with the increased traffic on the roads, and will he not try to get a bigger and better scheme for road improvement?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Those are interesting questions, but I do not think they arise from the Question on the Order Paper.

    Road Haulage Assets (Disposal)
    Mr. Ernest Daviesasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation the number of transport units so far disposed of and the number of vehicles concerned under the Transport Act, 1953.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Fifteen thousand six hundred and sixty-eight vehicles have been sold, 15,266 in 5,410 units and 402 in three companies.
    Mr. Davies: Do not these figures confirm once again that the average number of vehicles in each unit is very small and that sales can only continue if units are sold in very small lots? Do not the results, showing a complete failure to dispose of vehicles in large units, confirm that if sales continue there will be a break-up of the organisation of British Road Services through the dislocation of trunk services?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I have already answered the first part of the hon. Member's supplementary question on the several previous occasions he has put it. The second part is hypothetical.
    Mr. Woodburn: In view of the fact that the situation has settled down, is the Minister not prepared to have an inquiry into the whole question and satisfy himself that on the ground of efficiency it will be much better to have an integrated service over the whole country and to keep that service intact?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I think that, for the moment, the right hon. Gentleman overlooks the fact that this matter was most closely and lengthily investigated by the House not long ago.
    Mr. Davies: Will the right hon. Gentleman give a straight answer whether or not it is the fact that if he continues to sell these vehicles he can only sell by allowing them to go in ones, twos and threes, and that that results in a complete break-up of trunk services which "The Times" this morning said have been a great contribution by the British Transport Commission to the transport of the country?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. Member cannot put a hypothetical question by describing a hypothesis as a fact.

    Transport Levy
    Mr. Ernest Daviesasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation the total amount raised to date by the Transport Levy; and when, in accordance with the procedure provided in Section 15 of the Transport Act, 1953, he proposes to terminate this charge.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: £7,830,747 up to the end of May, 1955. I am not yet in a position to determine the date of cessation of the Levy.
    Mr. Davies: Will the Minister confirm that the amount raised by the Levy is adequate to meet the loss so far incurred by the sales of the vehicles? What is the sense, therefore, of having this tax on industry which is only resulting in a further capital loss to the British Transport Commission if the sales continue and which, at the same time, is incurring the Commission in a loss of revenue?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I have given the hon. Member the facts for which he asked. The inferences to be drawn from them are not a matter suitable for argument at Question Time.
    Mr. Callaghan: On a matter of fact, is the right hon. Gentleman going to the Conservative Transport Committee tonight to explain his failure to sell these lorries? If so, can we have an assurance that what he tells his own colleagues in secrecy upstairs will be communicated to the whole House later?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The first part of the hon. Member's question sounded hypothetical, and the second like a request for an invitation.

    Driving and Traffic Examiners
    Mr. Ernest Daviesasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation how many driving and traffic examiners are employed by his Department; and how many are engaged full-time on enforcement of Part I of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Six hundred and twenty-nine and 76, Sir.
    Mr. Davies: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that this is an inadequate number of enforcement officers in view of the increasing breaches of the law which are taking place at present, with excessively long hours worked and inadequate rest periods?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I cannot accept the general imputations which, not for the first time, the hon. Member seeks to make against this industry. I have arranged for some increase in enforcement staff and I am more satisfied than I was.

    Road Safety (Windscreens)
    Mr. Summersasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will alter his regulations to provide for a stricter standard of windscreen design in order to eliminate the danger to road safety inherent in the modern windscreens which shatter and become opaque when struck by stones, with a view to effecting a remedy.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The problem of the shattering of toughened glass windscreens, which is not always caused by stones, was considered a year or two ago by a Committee of the British Standards Institution, on whose behalf experiments were made by the Road Research Laboratory. As a result, in May last year the Institution amended their specifications of "Safety Glass for Land Transport," to which the manufacturers of toughened glass in this country work, and glass made to the new specification provides a great degree of visibility when shattered.
    Mr. Summers: Are we to take it from that answer that cars manufactured from
    384
    a certain date are not subject to the risk to which those about which the Question is asked are subjected? Consequently, may buyers feel safe in buying cars which have been made after a certain date?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: As I think my hon. Friend knows, on the whole windscreen glass is made either of laminated glass or toughened glass. Both have certain disadvantages, but I can assure my hon. Friend that the majority of the cars which are now being built and coming on to the market are fitted with the better type of toughened glass to which I referred in my main answer.

    Schoolchildren (Fares)
    Mr. E. Fletcherasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will raise the age limit so that all children attending school can travel at half-fare.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: No, Sir. This is a matter for the appropriate fare-fixing body in each case, except that Parliament recently enacted that in the case of municipal transport undertakings such concessions would only be granted to children under 15, or to full-time scholars up to 18 only when travelling to and from school.
    Mr. Fletcher: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether it is the policy of the Government to encourage the extension of these cheap facilities to all schoolchildren?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I do not think it is the business of the Government to seek to dictate to a fairly elaborate system of fare-fixing organisations, which this House has itself set up both for rail and road. They are perfectly competent to deal with the applications which come before them, and I do not think I should interfere.

    Driving Tests, London (Waiting Lists)
    Lieut.-Colonel Liptonasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation how many applicants now await driving tests in the London area; and what the corresponding figure was last year.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The figures are, 39,851 and 27,744, Sir. Over the same period the number of examiners in the area increased from 105 to 142.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is it not a lamentable state of affairs that the number of people awaiting tests appears to have increased by 50 per cent.? What is the Minister doing to reduce the additional traffic jam which he has created. Will he consider appointing part-time examiners to help reduce this growing list?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: What I am doing is revealed in the last part of my original answer, increasing the number of examiners.
    Captain Pilkington: In view of the congestion on our roads, would it not be a good thing to slow down these tests?

    Motor Lorries (Accidents)
    Mr. Allaunasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation the quarterly number of accidents involving motor lorries before May, 1953, and since that date.

    NUMBER OF GOODS VEHICLES INVOLVED IN ROAD ACCIDENTS CAUSING PERSONAL INJURY

    1951

    1953

    2nd quarter

    …

    …

    …

    11, 685

    2nd quarter

    …

    …

    …

    11, 989

    3rd quarter

    …

    …

    …

    12, 522

    3rd quarter

    …

    …

    …

    12, 759

    4th quarter

    …

    …

    …

    13, 450

    4th quarter

    …

    …

    …

    13, 103

    1952

    1954

    1st quarter

    …

    …

    …

    10, 761

    1st quarter

    …

    …

    …

    10, 801

    2nd quarter

    …

    …

    …

    11, 045

    2nd quarter

    …

    …

    …

    11, 810

    3rd quarter

    …

    …

    …

    11, 605

    3rd quarter

    …

    …

    …

    14, 042

    4th quarter

    …

    …

    …

    12, 543

    4th quarter

    …

    …

    …

    15, 372

    1953

    1955

    1st quarter

    …

    …

    …

    11, 023

    1st quarter

    …

    …

    …

    12, 745

    Total

    …

    …

    …

    94, 634

    Total

    …

    …

    …

    102, 621

    Railway Strike (Road Traffic)
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation to what extent street accidents increased in the Metropolitan area during the recent period when road traffic substantially increased owing to the railway strike; what was the approximate increase in the volume of this traffic; what information has been gathered from experience in that period which could further increase road safety measures; and, in particular, what variation in traffic and in accidents were registered in High Road, Leytonstone, and Lea Bridge Road, Leyton, during the same period.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I have only statistics in respect of such of these accidents as involved personal injury. As these figures are long and complicated, I will, with permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the quarterly figures from March, 1951, to March, 1955.
    Mr. Allaun: Is the Minister aware that certain private road haulage firms are employing drivers conditional on their being prepared to work regular 86 hours per week, that there are other private firms which are paying their drivers on a mileage basis, and what is the Minister's view about the obvious dangers involved?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: In so far as any breach of the law is, in the hon. Gentleman's view, being committed, if he furnishes particulars the matter can be investigated. I do not think that the wider general question which he raises arises out of the accident figures that I have given.
    Following are the figures:
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis and my Department are studying the lessons to be drawn from conditions existing during the railway strike, including the effect upon accidents, but it will be some little time before conclusions can be drawn from the information collected. There was some increase in accidents, and this was most marked among pedal cyclists. A number of traffic counts was taken at peak periods during the strike and showed increases which varied from 7 to 70 per cent. in the inner area to as much as 170 per cent. on some of the radial routes outside the central area. I am sending the hon. Member some information about traffic and accidents in

    387
    High Road, Leytonstone, and Lea Bridge Road, Leyton.
    Mr. Sorensen: When does the Minister estimate that he will be in a position to publish this report in view of the very great significance and importance of the investigation?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I did not say a report in the formal sense was being prepared, but if, after my investigation of this with my right hon. and gallant Friend the Home Secretary, the hon. Gentleman has a question on any particular aspect to put, we will do our best to answer it.
    Mr. Lewis: In view of the Minister's statement that there has been a great increase in accidents to cyclists outside the Central London area, will he recommend cyclists to use the cycling tracks which are provided on most of these roads, because it is very difficult for motorists to avoid them when it is dark?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I think the hon. Gentleman misunderstood my original answer. I fully agree, none the less, with the general inference which he drew from it.

    Public Boards (Appointments)
    Mr. Osborneasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he will give a list of positions to which he makes direct appointments in the transport industry which carry a salary of £2,000 and over, giving the salaries in each case.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Particulars of these appointments, including the salaries attaching to them, were given in the annual White Paper "Public Boards" issued in December last.
    Mr. H. Hynd: Does that return refer only to the British Transport Commission, and, if so, and as the Question asks about the transport industry, can the Minister give some particulars of salaries in private industry?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The Question, of course, relates to appointments made by me.
    Mr. Osborne: Can my hon. Friend say how many appointments carry this salary and how many were made when right
    388
    hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite were in power?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: If my hon. Friend will count the figures in the White Paper he will get the figure. The dates appear about particular appointments, but this is a continuing process.

  CANALS

    Kennett and Avon Canal
    Mr. Hurdasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation when his inspectors of inland waterways last reported on the condition of the Kennett and Avon Canal; and if he will place a copy of this report in the Library of the House.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I have no inspectors of inland waterways.
    Mr. Hurd: As my right hon. Friend's Department cannot, unfortunately and surprisingly, provide Parliament with expert information on the sad state of affairs in the Kennett and Avon Canal, will my right hon. Friend please arrange for an impartial inquiry to establish the reason why the canal is in a bad state and whether the British Transport Commission is fulfilling its obligation?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The question whether the Commission is fulfilling its legal obligation is one on which, in the circumstances of which my hon. Friend is aware, perhaps I ought not to express an opinion. As to Parliament obtaining further information, I have already informed my hon. Friend that a project relating to this canal may be in the next British Transport Commission Bill.
    Mr. Nicholson: But is it not a fact that the way in which the Transport Commission deals with this canal by no means adds to its reputation?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: That is largely a matter of opinion. I can well understand that people living in the neighbourhood of a very attractive canal of this sort can feel strongly about it, but the Commission is, after all, a transport undertaking, and its main duty is to assess the value of this canal and other canals as a means of transport.

    Disused Canals (Use)
    Mr. Holtasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation the total canal mileage in Lancashire; and how much of this the British Transport Commission has recommended to him should be closed down.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: A total of 293 miles, of which 196 miles are under the control of the British Transport Commission. Forty-six and a half miles, including 111 miles controlled by the Commission, are already closed to navigation and the Commission's Bill now before Parliament proposes to close a further 7¼ miles. The Commission has made no recommendation to me for any further closures.
    Mr. Holtasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will introduce legislation to promote or encourage the setting up of public or private corporations composed of interested parties to take over canals which the British Transport Commission are prepared to offer for purchase.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: No, Sir.
    Mr. Holt: If the Transport Commission goes to the Minister with a request to be relieved of several hundreds of miles of uneconomic canals, has he given careful consideration as to how these canals should be looked after by some other body?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: That is, of course, a hypothetical question, but the general question of the possibility of the purchase of such canals as are not required for transport purposes was dealt with by me in a reply which I gave last week to my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), to which I would refer the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. J. Amery: Before any further canals are closed, particularly in Lancashire—this refers more to the previous Question—could my right hon. Friend give an assurance that he will be prepared to receive representations from angling interests, which are very much concerned about all this?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am always ready to receive representations from anybody who is interested in anything.
    Mr. J. Harrison: Will the Minister recognise that the British Transport Com-
    390
    mission is not completely and wholly responsible for the position of canals in this country, and that a considerable added expenditure could be placed upon it if it were required to do some of the things that are suggested in this House?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I think the hon. Gentleman will have heard me say in replying to a previous Question that the Transport Commission was necessarily concerned with the transport importance of these canals. In answer to the first part of his supplementary question, he will see from my main answer to this Question that a considerable mileage of canals in Lancashire is not the property of the Commission.

  MINISTRY OF DEFENCE

    Travel Warrants (Bus Fares)
    Mr. Thornton-Kemsleyasked the Minister of Defence whether, since many branch railway lines are being closed, thereby involving long and expensive journeys by bus, he will give instructions that travel warrants to members of the forces should in future include bus as well as train fares.
    The Minister of Defence (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd): Service men who have to pay bus fares in the circumstances set out in the Question already have these refunded to them, and I am not aware that this system gives rise to hardship.

    Nuclear Warfare (Defence Organisation)
    Mr. Bellengerasked the Minister of Defence what progress has been made in the Government's study of defence organisation occasioned by the strategical and tactical implications of the use of nuclear weapons in warfare.
    Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: These matters are under continuous study. I do not think that a further statement can usefully be made at present.
    Mr. Bellenger: Was not the House promised during the Service Estimates debates that there would be some indication from the Government in May as to their policy, and has the right hon. and learned Gentleman taken notice of the exercise "Carte Blanche" which has just been completed in Germany, which dis-

    391
    closes that very serious and almost revolutionary changes will be necessary in tactics? When are we likely to hear from the Government about changes in Service strategy and tactics?
    Mr. Lloyd: I can only promise the right hon. Gentleman that I am aware of the very weighty matters involved, and as soon as I think a statement can usefully be made, I will make it.
    Mr. de Freitas: Will that statement include reference to the Civil Defence side, or must we have another statement from the Government on that aspect through the Home Secretary?
    Mr. Lloyd: I am not saying that a statement will be made. I am saying that if a statement can usefully be made, it will be, and if it is one on the whole question of the defence organisation, as affected by the implications set out in the Question, obviously it must include the matter to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred.
    Mr. Shinwell: May I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman if he is aware that Field Marshal Montgomery made a recent public speech—[An HON. MEMBER: "He is always making speeches."] Why not, if he wants to? He is as much entitled to make a speech as anybody here. That is my opinion, anyhow. Did not Field Marshal Montgomery make a speech in the course of which he indicated that many changes are required in the defence system of the West? May I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether any submissions of that kind have been made to N.A.T.O.? If so, could the public be informed? Is it not time that we were enlightened about these matters?
    Mr. Lloyd: I do not think that that supplementary question arises out of this Question. If the right hon. Gentleman will put a Question on the Order Paper, I will try to answer it.
    Mr. Strachey: Would the Minister of Defence take into account not only the defence exercises in Europe but also the civil defence exercises which have just taken place in the United States, and the negative conclusions which have been reached as to the possibility of civil defence?
    Mr. Lloyd: I certainly think that those matters have to be taken into account.

    Overseas Service (Germany)
    Mr. Ian Harveyasked the Minister of Defence whether, in the light of the acquisition of sovereign status by Western Germany, he will examine the rôle of Her Majesty's Forces in that country, with a view to recategorising their service as overseas service as opposed to home service.
    Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Service with the Second Tactical Air Force in Germany is already treated as overseas service by the R.A.F. With regard to the other Services, the balance of advantage from their point of view lies with maintaining the present position.
    Mr. Harvey——
    Mr. Shinwell: May I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether, in view of the changed status of Germany recently announced, it is not time that the troops in Germany were regarded as part of an overseas force? What is the reason for retaining them in the Home Command except for the purposes of economy?
    Mr. Harvey: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As I have asked the next Question, is it in order for the right hon. Gentleman to put a supplementary question on Question No. 37?
    Mr. Speaker: The Minister can answer the question if the right hon. Gentleman wishes to do so.
    Mr. Lloyd: I will answer the right hon. Gentleman, Sir. I adhere to what I have said. I think that the present position is of benefit to the forces and that should be the primary consideration.

    Children (Educational Facilities)
    Mr. Ian Harveyasked the Minister of Defence what arrangements have now been made, in conjunction with the Minister of Education, to improve the facilities provided for the education of children of serving members of Her Majesty's Forces, both at home and overseas.
    Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: The facilities for primary education provided by local educational authorities in the United Kingdom are available to Service parents. I understand that the education provided by Service primary schools overseas is generally regarded as satisfactory but a

    393
    definite improvement has recently been effected in the ratio of teachers to pupils at Service schools abroad. The problem of facilities for secondary education for Service children is one which my Service colleagues and I are closely studying with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education.
    Mr. Harvey: May I ask my right hon. and learned Friend whether it will be possible to reach a conclusion in this matter, which has been under consideration for a considerable time and is causing grave concern to all members of the forces and to those who take an interest in them?
    Mr. Lloyd: I am aware that this is an important matter which is causing serious concern. I am also aware that it has been under consideration for a long time.
    I can assure my hon. Friend that I will do everything I can to see that a conclusion is reached.
    Mr. Ede: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman bear in mind that this causes anxiety particularly among the wives of Service men, and that unless he can keep the wives contented he is not likely to have contented Armed Forces?
    Mr. Lloyd: I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Alport: May I ask my right hon. and learned Friend whether, in considering this problem, he will bear in mind the fact that a large number of Army families have to undertake additional expense in order to send their children to boarding schools, which would not normally be the case were they not serving in the forces? Could that be considered in connection with any allowance that is made?
    Mr. Lloyd: I agree with my hon. Friend that it is a very relevant factor.
    Mr. M. Stewart: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman remember that some time ago the Minister of Education was asked whether he would introduce legislation to deal with this matter and that he said he hoped there would be found a quicker method of dealing with it than by legislation? Is it not rather distressing, therefore, to find that still nothing seems to come out of this consideration?
    Mr. Lloyd: I think the hon. Gentleman will know that there are certain difficulties involved. These have been the reason for the delay.

  AUSTRIAN STATE TREATY
  Mr. Langford-Holtasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why Her Majesty's Government have not yet ratified the Austrian State Treaty; and when it is proposed so to do.
  The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. R. H. Turton)——
  Mr. Langford-Holt: Before my right hon. Friend replies, may I say, in view of the business before the House today, that I would not seek to press him for an answer to the second part of my Question.
  Mr. Turton: Before a Treaty is submitted to Her Majesty for ratification it is essential to ensure that Her Majesty has the necessary powers to give effect to all the provisions of the Treaty. Certain provisions of the Austrian Treaty call for enabling legislation designed to ensure this, and the Second Reading of a Bill for this purpose is to be moved this afternoon. The Austrian State Treaty will be submitted to Her Majesty for ratification as soon as this Bill has received the Royal Assent.
  Mr. Langford-Holt: May I take it from my right hon. Friend, therefore, that this delay has been occasioned by the advent of a General Election and the working of the administrative machine rather than by any change in policy?
  Mr. Turton: There has been no delay in this case. We have proceeded as fast as we could to get the enabling Bill through.

  CHINA-INDONESIA TREATY (DUAL NATIONALITY)
  Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that a Treaty between China and Indonesia was signed in April last dealing with the question of dual nationality; if he has considered the official pronouncements of Mr. Chou En-lai respecting this Treaty; and if Her Majesty's Government will now propose a similar treaty between this country and China.
  Mr. Turton: My right hon. Friend has seen the text of the Treaty and of the subsequent exchange of Notes between the Chinese and Indonesian Prime Ministers which was published on 15th June. He has also considered the statements made by Mr. Chou En-lai respecting this Treaty. This Treaty has not yet come into force. Before considering whether similar provisions would be appropriate to the complex and quite different circumstances of this country and those of its dependent territories most likely to be affected, it would be wise to observe how the Treaty works out in practice.
  Mr. Sorensen: Meanwhile, is the Minister not aware that this problem of dual nationality is already exercising the minds of a number of people in the Colonies, causing considerable embarrassment, and, if there is a solution of this problem arrived at between China and Indonesia, cannot we at least investigate the possibility of the same kind of solution being applied at least to our Colonies?
  Mr. Turton: I am aware of the problem, but it is important not only to recognise the principle but to see that the practice agreed upon is the correct one. The hon. Gentleman probably knows the history of this matter, that after the Treaty was published there were certain doubts about the imprecise nature of some of its provisions; hence the Notes between the Indonesian Prime Minister and Mr. Chou En-lai. Let us wait to see how this works out in practice.

  SOUTHERN EUROPE (ECONOMIC AID)
  Mr. de Freitasasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the attention of Her Majesty's Government has been drawn to the European plan to aid the depressed areas of Southern Europe, recently published by the European League for Economic Co-operation, which was recently referred to the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation: and if he will state the Government's policy in relation to this proposal.
  Mr. Turton: Yes, Sir. The Plan published by the European League for Economic Co-operation proposes substantial financial aid in the form of gifts and loans to Southern Europe from the more
  396
  developed countries of Western and Northern Europe. Her Majesty's Government are not unmindful of the needs of Southern Europe and are actively cooperating with the countries concerned, in the appropriate international organisations of which they are members, to facilitate this development. Her Majesty's Government's resources are, however, limited, and we already have to bear a heavy burden of existing commitments, including those of development in the United Kingdom itself and in the other countries of the Commonwealth.
  Mr. de Freitas: Is the Minister aware that, apart from the political and moral case for helping our fellow Europeans, there is a good economic case, in that the supply of goods and services envisaged in this "Marshall Plan," as it were, may well help the unemployment situation in Northern Ireland; and also build up a reservoir of orders behind our engineering industry which, admittedly, is extended in these days?
  Mr. Turton: It is a fact that this matter is at present under consideration by the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe. It is to make recommendations on this matter to the next plenary session which will be held, I think, in March, 1956.
  Mr. Smithers: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Economic Committee of the Council of Europe is also carrying out a detailed investigation of this problem, and will he hear its recommendations in mind when they come to hand?
  Mr. Turton: Yes. Sir, most certainly.

  BRITISH SHIPS, FAR EAST (INTERCEPTION)
  Mr. A. Hendersonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement on the interception of British ships by Chinese Nationalist warships on 21st June.
  Mr. Turton: The British ships "Inchjura" and "Helikon" were intercepted south-west of White Dog Island by a Chinese Nationalist warship in the early hours of 21st June and warned not to enter Foochow. The "Inchjura" proceeded out to sea. The "Helikon" tried again the next day to enter Foochow.

  397
  On this occasion she was fired upon by a Nationalist warship and escorted to White Dog Island; she was released after some seven hours, having sustained no damage or injury to her crew. Both ships entered Foochow without further incident on 23rd June. Her Majesty's Consul at Tamsue has protested to the provincial authorities in Formosa over these incidents.
  Mr. Henderson: Does the form of the protest indicate to the authorities in Formosa that Her Majesty's Government intend to ensure that all British ships on their lawful occasions will be protected when they are carrying out trade with ports in Communist China?
  Mr. Turton: That is so. Her Majesty's ships in the Far East have instructions to afford protection to British ships on their lawful occasions on the high seas.

  GOLD COAST

    Co-operative Wholesale Establishment
    Mr. Coldrickasked the Secetary of State for the Colonies the reasons for the cancelling of the registration of the Co-operative Wholesale Establishment on the Gold Coast; and whether he is aware of the effects this cancellation has had on consumer societies over a wide area.
    The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd): I am informed by the Government of the Gold Coast that the registration of the co-operative wholesale establishment was cancelled in 1953 with the intention of reconstituting it on different lines in a way that would quicken the development of consumer societies. The establishment was at the same time put into liquidation following an inquiry. Since then the heavy trading losses and weakness of most consumer societies have made it necessary to postpone its reconstitution indefinitely. The weakness of consumer societies is due to general causes, notably the extent of petty trading.
    Mr. Coldrick: Is the Colonial Secretary aware that the wholesale establishment was set up for the purpose of facilitating the development of consumer societies by providing them with supplies and skill? Is it not obvious that if this establishment is not quickly set going again there will
    398
    be dislocation among the consumer societies?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: This, of course, is a matter for which the full responsibility lies with the Gold Coast Government, but I will draw their attention to the observations of the hon. Gentleman.

    Cocoa Purchasing Company
    Mr. Coldrickasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what has been the effect on the Gold Coast Co-operative Marketing Association of the setting up of the Cocoa Purchasing Company by the Gold Coast Cocoa Marketing Board; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am informed by the Gold Coast Government that it is too early yet to determine what effect, if any, the setting up of the Cocoa Purchasing Company has had on the Gold Coast Cooperative Marketing Association. The company has been in operation for two years, during which the association rose from second to first place and the company from fifth to third place among the licensed buying agents of the Cocoa Marketing Board as regards the tonnage of cocoa purchased.
    Mr. Coldrick: Is not there something ironical in a situation in which the Colonial Office, together with other agencies, is doing everything possible to develop co-operative movements on the Gold Coast, and the Gold Coast itself is deliberately setting up subsidiaries of this marketing board in order to frustrate co-operative development? Could not the Minister take some action to get a co-ordinated policy?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. Gentleman is a much valued member of my advisory committee on co-operation in the Colonies, and I think that he knows very well the limits of the United Kingdom Minister's powers in matters of this kind. Both the Cocoa Purchasing Company and the Co-operative Marketing Association are approved agents of the Cocoa Marketing Board. The observations of the hon. Gentleman suggesting that one body has been set up with the deliberate intention of sabotaging the other will, no doubt, he noted by the Government of the Gold Coast.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: While recognising that this is a matter which falls under the

    399
    jurisdiction of the Gold Coast Government, may I ask whether the Secretary of State can indicate to them that, from our general experience in other Colonies, it is very desirable that they should give every possible encouragement to the growth of the co-operative movement in all its aspects?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am always ready to do that in general terms.

    Political Situation
    Mr. John Hallasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what answer he has given to the request of the National Liberation Movement and the Ashanti Youth Association for the appointment of a commission of inquiry into the political situation in Ashanti.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: These requests were sent to me direct instead of through the Governor as they should have been. In accordance with normal practice as laid down by regulations they were referred to the Acting Governor, who has drawn the attention of the signatories to the proper channels of communication. If they are re-submitted in the proper way, I will consider them in the light of the Acting Governor's recommendations.
    Mr. Hall: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the growing unrest throughout this Territory, and also of the acts of violence between the supporters of the Government and the National Liberation Movement and others. Would he, therefore, do his best to place his good offices at the disposal of the parties concerned so as to try to bring to an end this unfortunate dispute?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The question relates to a request made to me, and I have said that I will give full consideration to that request if it is put forward again in the proper way. I know that the whole House would agree about the necessity for observing the regulations in this matter. I must, of course, join with all those who note with regret the increasing tendency to resort to violence on the Gold Coast. I am deeply anxious, as I know are all hon. Members, that those difficulties should be resolved by a sensible approach in the Gold Coast itself, to which we are always ready to lend all the help we can.
    Mr. Fenner Brockway: If it be the case that the Gold Coast Government have made an appeal to their supporters to
    400
    refrain from any acts of violence in connection with this incident may I ask the Minister whether he will give his utmost support to that appeal?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I very much hope that the appeal will be listened to by those to whom it has been addressed.
    Mr. Tilney: Would my right hon. Friend consider whether the difficulties about the Ashanti would ever have occurred had the Constitution been a bicameral one, and would he consider that when other constitutions elsewhere come before him?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I think it would be unwise at this stage to enter into discussions about all the considerations which are very much in the minds of those responsible on this spot.

  NYASALAND (EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES)
  Mr. J. Johnsonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps he is taking to develop advanced work in Nyasaland secondary schools in view of the fact that at present African students are forced to leave the Protectorate to take their Higher School Certificate course in Southern Rhodesia.
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The Nyasaland Government intend to extend the secondary school at Dedza over the next three years so that the school may cater for a total of about 290 pupils, including a sixth form of about 50 pupils taking a two-year course leading to higher school certificate or advanced level general certificate of education. Assistance from colonial development and welfare funds towards the cost of the extensions has already been approved in principle.
  Mr. Johnson: Will the Minister approve this as quickly as possible? He may know as well as I do that at the moment the Nyasalanders feel keenly that what is good enough for Northern Rhodesia and Southern Rhodesia should be good enough for them, and the quicker they get their sixth forms and higher education the better.
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: As I think the hon. Gentleman will be aware, I am anxious to establish and maintain in the minds of the people of Nyasaland recognition of their equal importance as full partners in the Federation. It is not only planned

  401
  to increase the enrollment at Dedza, but to build a new secondary school, accommodating 120 pupils, in the Northern Province; and we are about to give approval in principle to the spending of colonial development and welfare money on this sensible project.

  NORTHERN RHODESIA (HOUSING SUBSIDY)
  Mr. J. Johnsonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why the Northern Rhodesian Government are withdrawing the subsidy from African housing; and what proportion this new economic rent will form of average African wages.
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The objects are: to reduce the financial burden, using the savings for new housing; to relieve the housing shortage by encouraging employers and Africans to build their own houses; and to impress upon employers the true cost of housing their African employees. Since the African wage
  earners who comprise 97 per cent. of those housed in urban areas have their rent paid in full by their employers, the increase in the rent will not deprive them of any part of their wages.

  SOMALILAND (TRIBAL CLASHES)
  Mr. John Hallasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps are being taken by the Somaliland Government to deal with the increasing number of tribal killings in Somaliland; and what increase in tribal clashes has taken place since the implementation of the Anglo-Ethiopian Agreement.
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: There has been no increase in the number of tribal clashes in Somaliland recently, and the Anglo-Ethiopian Agreement of 1954 has not led to any increase in the number of deaths in tribal feuds. The Protectorate Government has been endeavouring for some time to stop tribal fighting. It prefers, wherever possible, to punish individuals who are responsible rather than to resort to collective punishment. But, in the absence of support for its efforts to fix individual responsibility, it has been obliged to make it clear that it will take action against leaders of tribes responsible and will, if necessary, use its powers to impose collective fines.

  HONOURABLE MEMBER FOR POLLOK (SELECT COMMITTEE)
  The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Harry Crookshank): I have to inform the House that it has come to notice that the hon. Member for Pollok (Mr. George) may be disqualified from membership of this House by reason of his being a director of Scottish Slate Industries Limited, an office to which he was appointed by the Minister of Works some years ago. The hon. Member has not, in fact, received any remuneration, but I am advised that in law the directorship may be an office of profit under the Crown and, consequently, the hon. Member may have been incapable of election to this House.
  Hon. Members will appreciate that this is a matter entirely within the jurisdiction of the House. In these circumstances, and in accordance with the precedents, I will as soon as possible move for the appointment of a Select Committee to consider the position of the hon. Member.
  I do not think it would be right for me to say anything further at this stage. It will be for the Select Committee to examine the matter in detail and to report in due course to the House.
  Mr. Attlee: I think that that is the right course. May I ask whether the hon. Member is taking part in the proceedings of the House at the present time?
  Mr. Crookshank: Oh, no. He is not taking any part at all. As soon as this came to light he was informed of the risk he might be running. He has resigned the directorship in question.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. Crookshank]
Ordered,
That if the Austrian State Treaty Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House, further Proceeding on the Bill shall stand postponed; that any Resolution come to by the Committee on Austrian State Treaty [Money] may be reported and considered forthwith notwithstanding anything in Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees); and that as soon as the Proceedings on the Report have been concluded this House will immediately resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill.—[Mr. Crookshank.]

AUSTRIAN STATE TREATY BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
3.34 p.m.
The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Harold Macmillan): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
As the House knows, the Austrian State Treaty was signed in Vienna on 15th May. During the debate on the Address on 15th June, Members on both sides of the House gave their general approval to the proposal that the Treaty be submitted
for ratification by Her Majesty. This Bill follows from that as a formal, but necessary consequence and will, I hope, prove to be non-controversial. The Austrian State Treaty will not come into force until the instruments of ratification have been deposited by each of the signatory Powers.
It is important that before the Treaty comes into force Her Majesty's Government should be able to carry out their obligations under the Treaty and to make use of any rights which the Treaty confers upon them. It is possible to inform the House only in a general way of the kind of subjects connected with the Treaty which require legislative provision. It is not yet possible to state precisely what provisions will be necessary. Perhaps hon. Members who were in the House at those times will recall that the same situation arose when the Treaties of Peace (Italy, Roumania, Bulgaria, Hungary and Finland) Bill and the Japanese Treaty of Peace Bill to implement the Peace Treaties with those countries were considered and approved in the years 1947 and 1951 respectively.
The present Bill follows the precedent of these Bills and is specifically modelled on the Japanese Treaty of Peace Act, 1951. It is an enabling Measure which, in the words of Clause 1, confers upon Her Majesty the power to
"… make such appointments, establish such offices, make such Orders in Council and do such things as appear to Her to be necessary for carrying out the said Treaty, and for giving effect to any of the provisions thereof."
The Austrian State Treaty contains some, but not all, of the provisions which, in the case of the Italian and Japanese
404
Peace Treaties, required legislation. These include Article 24 on the renunciation by Austria of claims against the Allies, Article 25 on United Nations property in Austria and Article 28 on debts. There are other Articles in the Austrian State Treaty which may also require legislation, for example, Article 22. Under a paragraph of that Article, which refers to the former German assets in Austria, there is an obligation to return those free from charges and claims. Article 27 relates to the return of Austrian property in the territory of the allied and associated Powers and Article 30 relates to the settlement of disputes. Article 25 of the Austrian Treaty provides for the restoration and return of British property situated in Austria.
It may be necessary to set up appropriate machinery to take advantage of this right and this might necessitate action of one or other of the kinds contemplated in Clause 1, from which I have already quoted. The House will be aware that the date by which the occupation forces must be withdrawn depends upon the date on which the Treaty enters into force and we are all eager to see the Treaty enter into force as soon as possible. The Government of Austria have already ratified the Treaty. The Soviet Union has ratified the Treaty, the United States are expected to ratify the Treaty very shortly —perhaps in the next few days—and the French Government, we understand, some time during July.
Therefore, we do not want in any way to be responsible for any delay. We want the Treaty to enter into force as soon as possible and we shall, therefore, as soon as possible submit the instrument of ratification to Her Majesty; but we prefer not to do so until this enabling Measure has passed through the House. That is the reason we are asking the House to take it as rapidly as possible, so we shall not be in any way laggards, or responsible for the occupation of Austria lasting a day longer than is necessary.
That is all I need say about the content of the Treaty. These are really formalities, hardly more than formalities, but it has been found necessary on this occasion, as on the occasion of the other Peace Treaties which I quoted, to make provision by legislation so that some of

405
the Articles may be able to be carried out in a proper way.
I do not think I need add anything except to say that the Bill, like the Treaty, ends one period and is the beginning of another. As the House knows, for many years past Governments of both sides of the House have worked with the good will of all parties, and we, with our American and French friends, have done all we could to satisfy Austria's just aspirations. Now, at last, with the cooperation of the Soviet Government, this aim has been achieved. I am confident that the Austrian people have not forgotten the support which they received from Great Britain and from her Allies during these difficult post-war years. I am equally confident that good and friendly relations between our two countries will continue in the future, we hope for very many years to come.
Mr. Frank Bowles: In the Treaty with Egypt there were some waivers by the British Government of claims against the Egyptian Government in respect of people killed in the Canal Zone, and, therefore, there is no liability by the Egyptian Government to parents or widows of men killed in the Zone. Is there any waiver of claims in this Treaty against the Austrian Government for British personnel killed there?
Mr. Macmillan: I hope that I shall be forgiven if I cannot immediately find the place, because the Treaty is a long one. I think that in Article 24, in page 20, a similar provision is made.
3.43 p.m.
Mr. Kenneth Younger: My right hon. and hon. Friends on this side of the House are as anxious as is the right hon. Gentleman that nothing should stand in the way of this long-expected Treaty coming into force. I agree with what the Secretary of State has said, that this is mainly a technical matter. I am grateful to him, up to a point, for his explanation but, as he himself said in his opening sentences, it was not possible for him to be very precise about the exact use which he thinks he will have to make, or may have to make, of the powers in the Bill.
I gather from him that the Bill is only, as one might put it, marginally necessary. It is problematical whether it is required at all. I am slightly relieved
406
to find that that is his view, because when I looked through the Treaty with a view to spotting the provisions which would require legislation I found it exceedingly difficult to see where the necessity arose. I do not think that it is any part of the function of the Opposition, in matters of this kind, to suggest to the Government that they ought to take a chance. It is far better, from the point of view of this House and of Parliament generally, that if there is the slightest doubt the Government should ask for powers and that they should lay, as they will have to do, any Order in Council there may be before the House and give the House the opportunity to express its approval or disapproval. Therefore, it would be wrong for us to object to the Bill even though its purposes are, quite frankly, a bit vague.
I was hoping that when the Secretary of State referred to previous similar Measures in respect of the Italian and Japanese Treaties he might have been able to indicate whether, in fact, that legislation had proved necessary. Perhaps that relates most particularly to the penal provision, the second part of Clause I, because there we are, apparently, creating penalties, and I wonder whether, in the fairly long time that has elapsed since the first of those earlier Measures, and even in the three years or so since the Measure relating to Japan, it has proved necessary to have provisions of that kind.
However, I am not really worried about this, because the powers for making Orders are restricted by the words in Clause I,
that Orders made by Her Majesty must
"… do such things as appear to Her to be necessary for carrying out the said Treaty, and for giving effect to any of the provisions thereof."
Since we on this side of the House do not wish to object to that, and since that is a limited exercise of powers, I do not want to make heavy weather of it. I do not anticipate that there will be a danger, but I should be interested to know whether similar legislation has been used and, in particular, whether there have ever been any prosecutions.
It seems a very long time now since Western statesmen first started saying that if the Soviet Union were in earnest about peace making anywhere in the world she might well start by letting us have

407
an Austrian Treaty. We have discussed the substance of possible Treaties ad nauseam, for four or five years, or longer. Now we have a Treaty which,
broadly, is on the lines which most of us think could have been agreed a very long time ago. So far as there are any changes in it, I think that we can say—and I am glad to be able to say so—that the changes are favourable to Austria. They are better provisions than we might at one time have thought it necessary to accept.
I do not propose to deal with the substance of the Treaty. I am not quite sure whether you, Mr. Speaker, would consider it in order to do so, but it is perhaps important to say on this occasion to our Austrian friends that if we do not engage in lengthy discussions on this rather technical Bill, if we do not greet very fulsomely what is a considerable event in European politics, it is not because we underestimate this Treaty. It is a sign of what we hope will be a new climate in European and world affairs, and it means the real liberation of Austria.
I should like to take the opportunity to express to the Austrians our deep sense of the fortitude, the common sense and the dignity with which they have met the frustrations of recent years and, not least, I should like to thank them for the attitude which they have shown to our troops who have spent these years in Austria. In turn, our troops might well be commended for the record which they have put up in the occupation of Austria.
I notice that the Preamble to the Bill says that the purpose of the Treaty is to make Austria independent and democratic. I think we can say that in recent years Austria has been democratic so far as it lay in the power of Austrians to make it so. It is very remarkable, in the difficult circumstances they have had to face, how they have operated their democratic institutions. The only limitation there has been has been a limitation imposed from outside. Now that independence is to be given to them, we have the fullest confidence in the future development, of Austria's institutions and in the part which she will play in world affairs. We are very glad to give our support to the Bill in the hope that the Treaty will come into force at the earliest possible date.
3.48 p.m.
Mr. Raymond Gower: If, as I hope, the House gives a Second Reading to this Bill today, I suppose that we will merely be signifying our approval of a Treaty which has already gained the approval of the majority of people in this and in many other countries. It is proper that in carrying out this legislation we should collectively, as a House of Commons, express our appreciation of the contribution which has been made by successive Foreign Secretaries—both my right hon. Friend and his predecessors from both sides of the House—towards the completion of this Treaty.
It was probably easier for the great nations to achieve a measure of agreement on this issue than on many of the other controversial issues which separate us, but in the minds of all of us today is the hope and the prayer that, even though this may not itself be a proof that a new era has dawned, it may at least be a token of rather better things to come.
3.50 p.m.
Mr. Clement Davies: I would just add a few words of welcome to the Bill. I am sure it has been the devout wish of all free peoples for many a long year that the people of Austria should be in a position to guide their own affairs and be free from the control of outside countries.
I would emphasise what has just been said by the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower), that that has been the wish of countries other than our own. I was fortunate last year in being present with other hon. Members at the conference held at Vienna by the Inter-Parliamentary Union, at which about forty Parliaments were represented. A resolution was passed unanimously by the conference wishing well to the Austrian people and hoping the day would quickly come when they would achieve their freedom.
Like everyone else, we admire the courage which the Austrian people have shown. At present, they are better off economically than they have been for a very long time, and we certainly wish them success in looking after their own affairs.
3.51 p.m.
Mr. John Hynd: I want to raise a point which was mentioned by the Minister in reply to the question put to him by my hon. Friend

409
the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles). The Minister either misunderstood the question or was not very clear about the contents of the White Paper. Article 24, in page 20 of the Treaty, refers to renunciation by Austria of claims against the Allies. The point raised by my hon. Friend was that of claims by British soldiers, their relatives or British authorities on their behalf against Austria. Although I have read the White Paper fairly thoroughly, I have seen nothing to cover that point. I hope the Minister will look into this and let my hon. Friend and others who are interested have a reply to the point later.
I realise that the Bill is a restricted Measure. Discussion of the implications of the Treaty could open up vast horizons, but that is outside the scope of the debate. It has already been argued whether or not the Bill is necessary, but, whether or not it is technically or legally necessary, it serves an excellent purpose even if it is only that of carrying the earlier part of the Bill, which says
"…that Her Majesty should have power to do all such things as may be proper and expedient for giving effect to the said Treaty…"
such as making Orders in Council.
I trust that the House will unanimously agree that it is expedient that Her Majesty should have power to bring the Treaty into operation at the earliest possible moment. We have waited a long time for the Treaty, and so has Austria. Ten years have gone by. In the Potsdam Agreement, Austria was recognised as the first victim of Nazism. She was not regarded as an enemy country. As a liberated country, she was promised her independence and liberation from foreign occupation.
As one who has been particularly closely associated with Austria's problems during that period, I should like to pay my tribute to the patience and toleration of the Austrian authorities and the Government, of all parties, during those difficult years, and also to the assistance given by both British Governments during that time and by the American Government, which has perhaps been even more than ours because the United States disposed of more resources. The assistance given to Austria during that period has been fully understood and appreciated in Austria.
410
The purpose of the Treaty, as mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Younger), is, according to Article 1, to re-establish Austria as a sovereign, independent and democratic State. I must confess that I found it a little difficult to read those terms into some of the provisions of the White Paper. It is difficult to understand how it is possible for a country to be sovereign and independent and, at the same time, debarred from having the right to make economic or political agreements which involve some form of federation or anything of that kind with another country.
It is also difficult to understand how a country can be free, independent and democratic when it is bound under the terms of the Treaty to ban from existence any organisations expressing a particular form of political opinion. Incidentally, they are not very clearly defined. It is particularly difficult when Article 9 says that Austria shall dissolve any organisations carrying on activities hostile to any member of the United Nations. I can visualise some curious situations arising if the Austrian Government tries to enforce the Article literally. I should be interested to know what would happen to the Communist Party when it started attacking the United States of America. So one could go on through the Treaty.
There is another point that I should like to mention, although we may not be directly interested in it. Article 18 deals with prisoners of war. The Minister will probably assure us that no Austrian prisoners of war are left in the hands of this country and that there have been not any for a considerable time. I hope we can also be assured that there are no Austrian prisoners of war in the hands of the American or French authorities.
However, there are many thousands of Austrian prisoners of war still in the hands of one of the signatory Powers. It is a little disturbing to find in such a Treaty prepared by the four Powers with the Austrian Government that any decisions regarding the repatriation of prisoners of war at this late date are to be left entirely to bilateral agreement between the Power holding the prisoners and the Austrian Government, and that the other parties to the Treaty are not included. I wonder whether the Minister can say anything about that. Have we

411
been told when the prisoners will be returned, that no difficulties will be placed in the way of their return and that they will be returned as soon as possible?
The Minister made special reference to paragraph 11 of Article 22, which says:
"The United Kingdom, the United States of America and France hereby transfer to Austria all property, rights and interests held or claimed by or on behalf of any of them in Austria as former German assets or war booty."
That is to be done without any charges or claims. This is implementation of something which has already been done, although there are probably some overhanging charges and claims which we are writing off. However, we can claim credit for the fact that both we and the United States have long since written off claims and charges against Austria, and have never at any time claimed any form of reparations from her.
It is an interesting commentary of the Treaty that, in spite of Article 21, which says:
"No reparations shall be exacted from Austria …"
the whole of Article 22 is concerned with reparations claimed under the description of "German assets" by one party only to the Treaty. That is an extremely significant factor, and illustrates the whole history of the unfortunate occupation of Austria over the last ten years.
I should like to pay a special tribute to the manner in which the Austrian Government have been able to obtain the removal of most of the provisions of Article 22. This surprised all of us who had anything to do with the earlier negotiations about a draft treaty for Austria, which went on for nearly nine years. The provisions in Article 22 were the provisions of the original draft treaty. I was rather surprised when reading the White Paper for the first time to find that tic provisions were still in the Treaty. It was not until I reached the last page that I found Annex II, which cancels them cut. It is a curious method of drawing up a treaty; all the conditions are elaborated in a very extensive Article, and then right on the back page, after a lot of appendices and explanatory notes, there is an annex which says that the provisions mean nothing at all.
The provisions mean nothing at all because the Austrian Government, as a
412
result of the negotiations which they undertook with the Russian authorities direct, have been able to recover their interests in the Danube Shipping Company, their own oil wells and their own distributing agencies for oils and all the other things which were previously being taken by the Russians as German assets.
It is true that there are certain payments still to be made. The Austrians are still paying reparations to Russia. I believe that they are paying 2 million dollars for the previous German assets so-called which are now being surrendered by the Russians. I refer to the factories, going under curious initials, which were taken under Russian control. They have to pay 150 million dollars in reparations, but not in cash. I understand that the provision under which they were supposed to pay in American dollars at a specified rate, as provided in the original Article, has now gone, and that they are now able to pay in goods, which is a much better proposition for them.
These things have been achieved, as I say, as a result of the patience and determination of the Austrian Government to recover these properties for themselves. That is a remarkable achievement, but it is interesting to note that it was only possible immediately after the ratification of the Paris Agreements, which, again, is something of which we ought to be reminded.
I merely wished to say these few words because of my long association with the Austrian problem and because of an association which I still have with Austrian matters. I hope that there will be no dissent in any part of the House from this Bill, which I think will be taken as a complete endorsement of the Treaty that has now been agreed by all the parties, and that we can have an early ratification by the other two Governments for whom we are waiting along with ourselves.
That ratification, of course, will close a very vital chapter in post-war history. It is a chapter of ten years of occupation of an allied country—not an enemy country—which was not of our seeking, but which we were forced to accept because of the failure to get agreement with our other ally in regard to Austria.
That period of occupation will, I think, go down in British and European history as something of which the occupying

413
countries have no need to be ashamed at all, but, on the contrary, of which they can be extremely proud both as to the manner in which that occupation was carried out by our troops and other representatives in Austria and for the results which we have achieved. I think that we can claim some part in this achievement, in collaboration with the Austrian Government, after this long, difficult and tragic period. Therefore, I give the Bill my support.
4.3 p.m.
Mr. William Teeling: The right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Younger) has, I think, rightly pointed out that the reason for such a short debate today is that there are only certain technical problems to be dealt with in this Bill and that it in no way means that we are not interested in the very great event which has taken place, that of Austria once again becoming independent.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs also pointed out that there was a debate in June in which the subject was mostly dealt with. But there were then various Clauses about which no one was certain what would happen when negotiations took place in Vienna. The hon. Member for Attercliffe (Mr. J. Hynd) commented on the fact that it is rather strange to refer to the Treaty as the giving back to Austria of her sovereignty when so many ties are attached to it.
I do not want to say anything against the Treaty as a whole, but I feel that we should not pass from it today without somebody referring to at least one other matter, and that is the fact that the Hapsburg family is forbidden by this Treaty ever to return to Austria, and that all its goods and properties are confiscated. It will be remembered that in the 1930s all the regulations made against members of the family as the result of the First World War were removed, and that they were allowed to return to Austria. Then the Nazis moved in and some members of the family had to escape, while others were put into concentration camps. Regulations, which are still embodied in this Treaty, were afterwards forced upon Austria to the effect that no member of the Hapsburg family was to be allowed to return to that country.
It is felt by many people in this
country and in America, and also, I believe,
414
throughout the world, that it is a little unfair that all their goods and property should be confiscated and that none of them should be allowed back. Such restrictions do not operate in other countries. In France, for instance, the Comte de Paris and other Pretenders to the throne are now allowed to return to France and even all the minor members of the French Royal Family have been allowed back. The only persons forbidden to return were the actual claimants to the throne. But, in this case, the whole family is forbidden to return, and every single bit of property is confiscated.
When we consider what the members of the Hapsburg family have done wrong, all we can remember is that the present Pretender's father, the Emperor Carl, did his best to stop the 1914–18 war, and probably because of that suffered so considerably. He was forced off the throne before the war was quite over, and I think it is well known to Europe and to most of the world that his sons, his widow and the other members of the family have lived a very hard and tragic life up to the present time. All that they claim as a family is that they should be given back their properties, which is, after all, what is given back to other people. The Convention on Human Rights provides for that in most parts of the world.
We were told that this was entirely an internal matter, but, in view of the fact that the only reason why it was ever in the Constitution of Austria is because it was forced on Austria from outside, that can hardly be used as an argument. At present, the two or three parties concerned internally have not felt that they could come to an agreement on the question. Many other points were proposed from outside when the ambassadors discussed these matters and Russia gave way on them. What a pity this was left out!
It seems rather sad that we were not able to take any part in trying to get this unjust ban on the family as a whole removed. I know that nothing can be done about it at present, but, as the hon. Member for Attercliffe said, it is rather ironic that we should be approving a Treaty which is to give Austria sovereign independence when she is tied down in this way, and when it may well be that she might be more than willing to let many members of the Hapsburg family return

415
to Austria, people who, as far as we know, are, very definitely, friends of the West.
4.8 p.m.
Mr. H. A. Marquand: I do not propose to comment on the speech of the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Teeling). I rise only to add a few words to what has already been said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Younger) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Attercliffe (Mr. J. Hynd).
This afternoon, my mind went back to the time I visited Austria, nearly nine years ago. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Attercliffe was the first British Minister to go there after the war and that I was the second. I went there in consequence of a decision by the then Government that we should try, though at that time our resources were very limited, to do all in our power to restore the Austrian economy.
There followed from that visit the mission of the Federation of British Industries and the establishment of the Anglo-Austrian Chamber of Commerce in London, which is still flourishing. When I was there in 1946, men walked about the streets of Vienna almost like ghosts. The calorie intake of the average Austrian was barely enough to keep body and soul together. The rubble lay in the streets of Vienna, the people being unable to shift it because they lacked the physical energy to do so.
Last year, when I was there again, Austria looked so prosperous that one could hardly believe the change which had taken place in the interval. It had become more prosperous than one had ever dared to hope that it might. Much of that, I know, is due to the help afforded by the United States of America, but some, I take pride in thinking, is due to the action of successive British Governments. One rejoices today to think that Austria is now not only independent, but prosperous and living an economic life which, between the wars, was denied to her.
I am glad to say how pleased I am that this Treaty should be brought forward, and I wish to say how much praise I think is due to the politicians on both sides in Austria. We sometimes take pride in speeches made in this country
416
about our political genius and our ability to run a two-party Government. We also take pride in our ability to come together from time to time when any national emergency makes that necessary.
The Austrians have shown an equal political skill during this period. The way in which the Coalition Government have been sustained during these years of emergency; the forbearance, patience and courage with which they have confronted extraordinary difficulties and, from time to time, grave human insults, in part of their country, deserve our praise. I want to say how gallantly I think the Social Democratic Party has behaved, considering all the tribulations which it has suffered. In particular, I should like to pay a tribute to the work of Dr. Schaerf, who has done a remarkable job of work. He is the Vice-Chancellor, and the party to which he belongs is the smaller party in the Coalition. I welcome the fact that the Austrian Treaty is to be ratified, and I am glad that I am able to be here to say so.
4.10 p.m.
Mr. Sydney Silverman: Since 1918, and the break-up of the old Austro-Hungarian Empire, Austria has been a small country whose fortunes have been watched with sympathetic interest by all forward-looking people in Europe and the world. All liberal-minded and progressive-minded people have had a specially affectionate sympathy for the struggles of the Austrian democracy between 1918 and 1938. It is a matter for common rejoicing—and I suppose that it is one of the few matters about which that can be said—that a Peace Treaty should now have been made in which all the late belligerents have concurred.
The Bill which is before the House this afternoon is not for the purpose of ratifying the Austrian Treaty; it is a Bill giving the Government powers which they think they might need in order to give effect to the ratification of that Treaty when the instruments of ratification have been deposited and the Treaty actually comes into force. I suppose that is why the Foreign Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Younger) had very little to say about the merits or the details of the Treaty itself, and one quite sympathises with them in their outlook.

417
I do not want to extend the scope of the debate, but I should not like the House to feel that if it wanted to debate the whole subject of the Austrian Treaty—its merits and demerits; what it contains, what it does not contain and what it might have contained—it would not be perfectly in order to do so. I hope that I am right in saying that, because this is a Bill, as its Short Title says, to
"Provide for carrying into effect the Treaty for the re-establishment of an independent and democratic Austria."
If any hon. Member thought that it was a bad Treaty I suppose that he would be entitled to say so and offer that as a reason why the House of Commons should not give the Government the powers which they seek in order to carry out its terms.
In fact, most speeches—except those from the two Front Benches and one other—have been not about the Bill or the machinery contemplated under it, but about the merits of the Treaty itself. Until he neared the end of his speech I wondered whether my hon. Friend the Member for Attercliffe (Mr. J. Hynd) was in favour of the Treaty at all. However, he came down upon the right side in the end.
Mr. J. Hynd Mr. J. Hynd rose——
Mr. Silverman: Perhaps I am going too far. I was thinking of that part of my hon. Friend's speech in which he said that the Treaty was not really a Treaty to re-establish an independent and democratic Austria, because it did not leave Austria independent enough.
Mr. Hynd: What I was saying was that while the Treaty is to be welcomed—even the terms of the Treaty in its original draft were acceptable to us, and they were very much worse than these—nevertheless. I do not regard it as a perfect one. Indeed, in the present state of the world, it would be very difficult for the four main Powers concerned to come to an understanding that would be regarded as perfect by everybody.
Mr. Silverman: I quite understand that that is my hon. Friend's view. What I thought I was doing was commending his right to say so, in view of the more restricted character of the previous part of the debate.
In other circumstances, the House might have welcomed an opportunity of
418
discussing the Treaty in all its details, but I think I understand why nobody wants to do so now. At the end of ten years after the cessation of hostilities, this is the first occasion upon which all the Allied belligerents on our side have concurred in making a Peace Treaty with what was, technically, our common enemy in the late war. When we find agreement upon such a question for the first time among Allies we are a little anxious and chary about going behind the fact of the agreement to see how it was achieved, or what one side or the other had to give up to achieve it.
The fact that the Treaty has been made is far more important than any point
which a Member of this House might think could have been dealt with better in the Treaty. I suppose that we should all regard the Treaty as being very important in so far as it closes the door upon disagreement upon this subject, but it is very much more important having regard to the door which it opens to future negotiations and agreements upon other matters.
Substantial agreement upon this Treaty was achieved long ago. In so far as the
Treaty which is now to be
ratified differs from the draft treaty upon which agreement had been previously sought, it differs to the advantage of Austria, and nobody complains about that. I suppose that the reason why effect had not been given to the agreement which had been achieved in substance so long ago was that the Soviet Union, rightly or wrongly, regarded the matter as being indissolubly bound up with other questions in Central Europe—notably that of a possible German settlement. Whether they were right or wrong no longer matters. I think that we are all glad that they have now been able to divorce the two problems and take a long step forward towards peace by giving effect to the agreement which has been achieved.
The main characteristics of the Treaty on which agreement has been achieved—the principles were long ago agreed to—are the withdrawal of all foreign troops from Austrian territory and Austria's undertaking, which is quite consistent with her independence and her sovereignty, that she will not enter into military offensive or defensive alliances. She has entered voluntarily into a Treaty which restricts that right, by agreement and not by

419
abdication of her right. There are many people who believe that those principles could have been applied, and that it still may be possible to apply them, to the German problem, with which we are not concerned this afternoon.
But for the positions that people have taken up on this matter over past years, due to the progress—or lack of it—towards general agreement, it is very difficult to see why these principles, which have produced full agreement and a Treaty of peace with Austria, could not be applied with the same good will to produce agreement in the case of Germany. The importance of the Treaty is the example it gives of how agreement could be achieved in much more difficult problems than the Austrian problem, although the nature of those problems is obviously exactly the same.
Mr. S. N. Evans: On a point of order. Are we not getting a bit wide? An assertion has just been made which I do not accept. I do not know whether we are going on to a wide debate, but it would not be wise for a one-sided declaration and assertion on this matter to be taken as the unanimous view of all of us on these benches.
Mr. Silverman: I have never claimed for myself, or been accorded by anyone else, the right to express the opinions of anyone but myself. Nevertheless, I humbly hope that if there is any intelligent principle to be read into what I have said, and if its reasonableness, logic, rationality or common sense commend themselves to anybody, to that extent it may be supported by those other people. I am not seeking to speak for my hon. Friend at any time on this subject, although I assure him that the opinion I have expressed happens to be that of many millions of his colleagues in the country.
I have dealt with the narrower constitutional issues and would like to devote a few minutes to the Bill which is, in some way, a penal Bill. It amends, or gives executive power by delegated legislation to amend, the criminal law. I appreciate what the right hon. Gentleman said when he moved the Second Reading, that it was not penal reform, and that similar powers were contained in a previous Act in 1947 and in the
420
Japanese Treaty Bill in 1951. I would like to repeat the question which my right hon. Friend asked about this matter.
Were Orders in Council made at all on either of the previous Acts? How many were there, and was it found that they were really necessary? Looking backwards, could it now be said that the Acts could have been operated without them? How many contained penal provisions, and was it necessary to make use of them? Although the Government are entitled to rely to some extent on precedent when they are putting these powers again into a Bill, it is not necessary to go on taking powers unless, in practice and experience, they were needed.
The criminal law of this country ought not to be amended by delegated legislation. Although I am absolutely persuaded that much of our delegated legislation is essential and that we could not carry on the business of the country without it, we should not use that power where we can avoid it, or in criminal matters unless we are bound to do it and there is no other way open to us.
We should not in any case use delegated legislation to alter the criminal law except by affirmative Resolution, if we need to use delegated legislation at all. I gather from the Bill in Clause 1 (3) that
"any statutory instrument containing an Order in Council made under this section shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament."
That is the negative procedure of praying for annulment. There is another form of delegated legislation which requires the Government to put a Motion on the Order Paper and get Parliamentary approval for it. For the criminal law the affirmative procedure should be used. We should not alter it by Order in Council and leave the alteration to have the force of law unless the House of Commons negatives it.
The offences in the Bill are completely undefined, while the penalties are substantial. In one case the maximum fine is £500 or two years' imprisonment, or both. No one can say that the penalty is trivial. The offences are in no way defined. A person contravening or not complying with an Order in Council made under the Bill commits an offence. The Foreign Secretary had only the

421
vaguest idea of what the Orders in Council would be, and obviously, therefore, only the vaguest notion of what offences they may create.
The House of Commons ought not to view this matter lightly. We ought to limit delegated legislation as far as we can and ought to look very jealously on any attempt by the Executive to increase those powers, especially in criminal matters.
4.30 p.m.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: I believe that this is the first occasion in the post-war years that I have been able to support a Government Bill which is introduced for the purpose of carrying into effect a treaty. I was an opponent of the North Atlantic Treaty, of the Paris Treaty and of the Japanese Treaty. I certainly have no regrets for this opposition, although for a while it temporarily embarrassed me with the Labour Party.
I am very pleased indeed to congratulate the Foreign Secretary in starting on his diplomatic career by introducing a Bill which shows that he has not only been co-existing but partly collaborating with Mr. Molotov. I hope that this collaboration with Mr. Molotov will continue until we have similar Bills and similar treaties, especially one to solve the problem of Germany. I am very glad indeed that this Bill provides for carrying into effect the Treaty for the re-establishment of an independent and democratic, and, I am glad to say, a neutral Austria.
The word "neutral" is very important, because it will occupy the minds of more and more people in the years to come. Austria, as a result of this Treaty, is to be as neutral as Switzerland, Sweden and Ireland.
Mr. S. Silverman: Much more neutral.
Mr. Hughes: My hon. Friend says, "Much more neutral," but certainly, for the purpose of this debate it can be said, without going into any technicalities, that there is established, at least in the negotiations leading to this Treaty, the fact that Austria is outside the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and outside the so-called Russian scheme of defence. The establishment of the principle of neutrality is recognised in a way of
422
which I cordially approve. The more neutral nations that there are in the world, which completely abolish from their minds the possibility that war can be anything but a destructive and futile way of solving international problems in our time, the nearer we shall move towards a better civilisation.
Clause 1 of the Bill says:
"Her Majesty may make such appointments, establish such offices, make such Orders in Council and do such things as appear to Her to be necessary for carrying out the said Treaty, and for giving effect to any of the provisions thereof."
What are "the provisions thereof"? I turn to Article 15 of the Treaty, of which I cordially approve, and which is headed:
"Prevention of German Rearmament."
It is rather curious that in the Paris Treaty the Government set out the policy of the rearmament of Germany, and Article 15 of this Treaty declares for the prevention of German rearmament which is, again, a step forward towards a more enlightened international policy.
It is laid down in Article 15 that
"Austria shall co-operate fully with the Allied and Associated Powers in order to ensure that Germany is unable to take steps outside German territory towards rearmament."
I hope that the Foreign Secretary will carry this idea to some of its more obvious logical conclusions.
In paragraph 2 of Article 15, we are told:
"Austria shall not employ or train in military or civil aviation or in the experimentation, design, production or maintenance of war material:
persons who are, or were at any time previous to 13th March, 1938, nationals of Germany;
or Austrian nations precluded from serving in the Armed Forces under Article 12;
or persons who are not Austrian nationals."
I understand that this Treaty has not come about as a result of the formula of which we hear a great deal these days—negotiation from strength. When the Foreign Secretary spoke in the debate on the Address, he produced a series of platitudes which seemed to me to cancel each other out. He said that the policy of Her Majesty's Government was not force, but negotiation. He also said, in the same paragraph, that our policy was negotiation from strength.

423
This Bill is not the result of negotiation from strength. It is doubtful, indeed, whether, at present, we are able to negotiate at any European conference from a position of strength. The sooner we abandon these catch words and proceed to negotiate not from strength—because it is extremely doubtful whether we have it or not—but from common sense, the better it will be.
I especially approve of Article 13 of the Treaty, because it comes out for the
"Prohibition of Special Weapons."
It states:
"Austria shall not possess, construct or experiment with—(a) Any atomic weapon,…
So Austria is not to embark on any futile, nuclear experimentation and the possession of atomic weapons. This is an advance towards civilisation of which, I am sure, the people of Austria, if they have due regard for their own security, will heartily approve.
Article 13 also says:
"Austria shall not possess,… (b) any other major weapons adaptable now or in the future to mass destruction and defined as such by the appropriate organ of the United Nations …"
Nor shall Austria possess:
"(c) any self-propelled or guided missile or torpedoes, or apparatus connected with their discharge or control, (d) sea mines, (e) torpedoes capable of being manned, (f) submarines or other submersible craft, (g) motor torpedo boats. (h) specialised types of assault craft, (i) guns with a range of more than 30 kilometres,…"
Austria is advancing towards intelligent civilisation, and the Foreign Secretary has collaborated with Mr. Molotov in bringing this about. I therefore prophesy that if the Foreign Secretary continues to embark upon this kind of foreign policy he will be far more popular in this House, in diplomatic circles and among the people of this country, than he has been hitherto.
We are also told in Article 13:
"Austria shall not possess … asphyxiating, vesicant or poisonous materials or biological substances in quantities greater than, or of types other than, are required for legitimate civil purposes, or any apparatus designed to produce, project or spread such materials or substances for war purposes."
I am sure that the Secretary of State for War will recognise this as almost an extract from one of the speeches which I
424
have been delivering in this House for many years.
I think that I have said enough to show that we are advancing towards an intelligent, international policy in European affairs. As my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) indicated, all that is necessary is to apply these ideas to Germany. I welcome this step forward, I hope that my commendation will not embarrass the Government, that we shall have many more treaties as a result of this collaboration with Mr. Molotov, and that this will lead to the permanent peace of Europe and of the world.
4.40 p.m.
Mr. Michael Stewart: This Treaty is described as one for the reestablishment of a free and democratic Austria. That is to claim for it more than any Treaty can really accomplish. Treaties can establish the independence of the State so that it may be democratic, but democracy can only be established by the will and choice of the people. However, we can rejoice that the conditions of this Treaty are at least such as to give the Austrian people the opportunity once again to be a democratic community.
Many of us have watched with admiration their efforts to achieve that in the extremely difficult circumstances of the last few years, because it is of very great importance, not only to Austria but to the peace of Europe, that Austria should be a democratic State. Situated where she is, so near to the frontiers of the undemocratic part of Europe, it is every much to be desired that Austria should be able to show to Europe and the world by her example that even when a nation is small, even when it is inevitably, by its position, drawn into the whirlpool of great power politics it can, none the less, provide for its people a civilised and reasonable way of life.
My answer to the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Teeling), who raised
the question of the Hapsburg family is this. Whether we like it or not, it is the historic fact that the name of the Hapsburgs is inevitably associated in the minds of a great many people in Austria and elsewhere with the conception of tyrannical rule in that country itself and imperial ambitions beyond its borders. I am not arguing whether that

425
view is necessarily justified but that, emphatically, it is there.
I cannot believe that any useful purpose would be served by trying to reopen that question now. We would merely raise again the whole problem of the possibility of maintaining in Austria a form of Government by consent and by good will. Surely, to the Hapsburg family we must say that it has not been historically an exclusively home-keeping family; that the world is wide and that there are other places and other capacities in which it can serve mankind even if this particular corner of the world is, for very good public reasons, ruled out for it.
In the past, Austria has set to Europe and the world a shining example of what a progressive democratic Government could be and what it could do for its people. The name Austria connotes many different things to different people; to some the splendours of the Imperial Court, to others music and gaiety, but to many it brings to mind the splendid progressive Government which was to be found in Vienna and other Austrian cities, in the years from the end of the First World War up to the tragedy of 1934. What happened in 1934, when Austria lost her democracy illustrates how important it is to Europe that she should be a democratic country.
After the destruction of Austrian democracy—one of the most gratuitous and mean acts in the whole record of any form of Fascism—it was made clear to Europe as a whole that nothing stood in the way of any ambitious tyrant except the limit of his own power. The way was thrown open to the aggressor, the example of murdered Austrian democracy encouraged every other enemy of the peace there was in Europe, and Europe learned in time how much it had lost when, partly by its own supineness, it allowed Austrian democracy to go down.
Many of us who can remember with intense bitterness those days in February, 1934, when we read of the destruction of Austrian democracy, have waited in hope for a long time for this day when once again the people of Austria have the opportunity to be not only an independent State but a State that will set an example of freedom and
426
progressive Government which we may hope in time may radiate outwards from there into darker corners of Europe.
4.45 p.m.
The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. R. H. Turton): On behalf of my right hon. Friend, I should, first, like to thank all those right hon. and hon. Gentlemen who have extended such a warm welcome to the Austrian State Treaty and to this Bill. It has been a very great experience to find how many hon. Members of many different views have, on this occasion, co-operated in giving this welcome and in assisting the passage of the Bill. Even the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) made every endeavour to make an emollient speech; though it was at times rather difficult for hon. Members to recognise that and there were some interjections.
My duty is merely to deal with some of the technical points that have been raised, but may I, in passing, remind the House and the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne in particular, that, in fact, this is not a Peace Treaty? It is important to remember that. Austria was not at war with this country as Austria, but as an integral part of Germany. The State of Austria was never at war with this country. That is why this is the Austrian State Treaty.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Younger) and the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne asked about the penalty provisions contained in the Bill. These provisions are similar in character to those which were asked for in the Treaties of Peace (Italy, Roumania, Bulgaria, Hungary and Finland) Bill and the Japanese Treaty of Peace Bill. The first answer to the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne is that in all those cases the powers were taken in the respective Orders in Council. I think I can say that, in all the Orders, certainly in the Japanese Treaty of Peace Orders, though the powers were taken there is no record of prosecutions having followed. That does not show that the powers taken were unnecessary but rather the reverse.
It is necessary to take these penalty powers in order to prevent persons wrongfully disposing of Austrian property or providing false information in connection with it.
Mr. S. Silverman: In this country?
Mr. Turton: As in the case of the Japanese Peace Treaty. That will depend upon the nature of the penalty powers that are required. If those powers had not been taken it might well have been that false information might have been given or there might have been wrongful seizure. That is why the power should be given and why the penalty should, of necessity, be heavy.
Mr. Silverman: Must the offence be committed in this country, or committed in regard to property in this country? I am interested in the machinery of it. Where is the offence committed, in what court would an offence be tried if committed and what kind of offence could be committed?
Mr. Turton: Dealing, first, as to where the wrongful information would be given, it would be given to the offices that it may be necessary to set up under Article 25, which deals with property in Austria. It is possible that it will be necessary to set up offices to deal with claims for property in Austria. Equally, under Article 30, it may be necessary to make appointments to a conciliation commission to which disputes in connection with British property in Austria may be referred. It is wrongful information to those bodies that would be made subject to that penalty.
Mr. Silverman: But where could one prosecute?
Mr. Turton: If the offices were in this country then the venue would, no doubt, be in this country. If the commission were in Austria it would be necessary to see how, by Order in Council, the jurisdiction of the British courts could be extended.
Mr. Silverman: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me. It is a small point but one, perhaps, of some importance. If the court is being held in this country then no doubt the evidence taken before it would be evidence on oath; false information given to the court would be an offence against the Perjury Act and no Order in Council would be needed, nor would any special powers of any kind.
If, on the other hand, the false statements were made before a mixed international court of the kind referred to—
428
but in Austria—then it is extremely difficult to see how any sanction, or any criminal sanction, could be applied under these Orders in Council, but it would seem to be clear that, in Austria, an offence would be committed against Austrian law. As the explanation is given, it becomes very difficult to understand why it is necessary to have these amendments by delegation to our own criminal law at all.
Mr. Turton: I believe I was incorrect when I referred to the Article. The main Article was Article 27, which deals, in particular, with Austrian property in the United Kingdom. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne has made the assumption that when I talked about a commission or tribunal there should be a court. That would not necessarily be so. This would be a body to determine claims, for the evidence need not necessarily be given on oath. Therefore, it is necessary to have these penal provisions, as it was necessary in the Japanese Peace Treaty.
The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne then asked why it is necessary to make these Orders subject to the negative Resolution procedure instead of the affirmative procedure. Again, we are following the precedent set under the Japanese reaty of Peace Act, 1951. I submit it is a proper procedure, because the Orders in Council are limited to the provisions of the Treaty which have been laid before Parliament, and it is necessary that the Orders in Council should become operative at the first possible moment. For those reasons, as in the Japanese Peace Treaty and other peace treaties, the Orders are made subject to the negative and not the affirmative procedure.
The hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles) and the hon. Member for Attercliffe (Mr. J. Hynd) raised the question of waiver of British claims. It is a fact that there is no provision in these agreements for any waiver of claims similar to those contained in the Egyptian Agreement. There is, of course, the other provision to which my right hon. Friend referred, but it is the other way round. In fact, there is no waiver of claims.
The hon. Member for Attercliffe also raised the question of prisoners of war. That matter does not really come within the terms of this Bill. That is really a matter between the Austrians and the Russians.
We and our Allies have long

429
ago done our duty about Austrian prisoners of war in our countries. Article 18 deals with the long delay that has taken place in restoring Austrian prisoners of war from Russia, and I am happy to learn that in recent days a large number of prisoners of war have been duly returned from Russia to Austria.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Teeling) referred to Article 10, dealing with the Hapsburg law. That, I submit, is a matter for the Austrian people. I have great sympathy with what was said on this matter by the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart). It is not a matter in which we should interfere. The Austrian State is a democratic State. If they wish the 1919 Act to remain, it is not for Her Majesty's Government to intervene.
The hon. Member for Attercliffe, I thought wisely, said that we would not have had this Treaty and this agreement if it had not been for the Paris Agreements. This State Treaty is the result of a long process of patient diplomacy. Sometimes the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) has been irked by our patience in diplomacy and has opposed it. Here he can see the first fruits of the policy of patient diplomacy which has meant peace for Austria and also co-operation among all Members of this House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. R. Allan.]
Further proceeding postponed pursuant to the Order of the House this day.

AUSTRIAN STATE TREATY [MONEY]
Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).—[Queen's Recommendation signified.]
[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]
Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for carrying into effect the Treaty for the re-establishment of an independent and democratic Austria, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys pro-
430
vided by Parliament of the expenses of any Minister incurred in carrying out the said Treaty.—[Mr. Turton.]
Resolution reported forthwith, and agreed to.

AUSTRIAN STATE TREATY BILL
Considered in Committee, pursuant to the Order of the House this day.
[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Clause 1.—(POWER OF HER MAJESTY TO GIVE EFFECT TO AUSTRIAN STATE TREATY.)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.
4.58 p.m.
Mr. Sydney Silverman: I wish to say a word or two on the matter of these criminal orders. I do not want to debate the matter at any length or to go into any of the matters that we have already discussed, except to say this. I know that it has been said already in the debate that the Government themselves were at one time in some doubt as to whether this Bill was at all necessary for the purpose of giving effect to the Treaty. I should have thought that among the matters that were doubtful, these criminal provisions are probably the most doubtful.
I hope that between now and when the Bill is discussed in another place—I know there is not much time—the Government will have another look at the matter and consider whether, as a matter of principle, it would not be more suitable to remove altogether the criminal provisions from the Bill. It is quite clear that no substantial harm will be done. For my part, I take rather a strong view about tampering with criminal provisions and imposing criminal penalties without the House knowing exactly what it is doing.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Preamble agreed to.
Bill reported, without Amendment.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
5.0 p.m.
Mr. Barnett Janner: I hope the House will forgive me for intervening, but I feel that, before this Bill passes from this House, a word or two should be said on a matter in which I have been deeply concerned for a considerable time.
We are being asked to give the approval of the House to the Austrian State Treaty. The Preamble to the Treaty says that it is the purpose of the Treaty
"to settle in accordance with the principles of justice all questions which are still outstanding in connexion with the events referred to above, including the annexation of Austria by Hitlerite Germany and participation of Austria in the war as an integral part of Germany;"
One question which is of very great importance in my view is that the victims of Nazi persecution in and from Austria should be adequately compensated for the suffering to which they were subjected.
I venture to state that it would be in the interests of Austria herself that a generous solution should be found to satisfy the claims of these victims. This should have been done before the final conclusion of the Treaty, which is now, I am afraid, practically impossible. At least it should be effected simultaneously with or soon after the ratification of the Treaty. It is to be regretted that very long delays have been caused by the Austrian Government themselves in concluding an agreement with the Committee for Jewish Claims on Austria, who represent many thousands of such victims, now scattered all over the world, including our own country. Negotiations on this question, which have been going on for a very considerable time, recommenced on 22nd June. More than a week has now passed since these negotiations, after endless delays and interruptions—all, I am sorry to say, caused by the Austrians themselves—began again on the basis of a very moderate memorandum which recapitulated the modest claims at much below the damage estimated by experts, and still the replies from Vienna do not seem at all promising.
On every occasion during the negotiations begun hitherto, the British directors of the Committee for Jewish Claims on Austria, of which I have the privilege of being a member, invoked the good offices of our own Government. I am pleased
432
to say that Her Majesty's Government did what they could in order to induce a proper and satisfactory settlement being arrived at, and I should like to pay my tribute to our diplomatic representatives in Vienna for using their influence with the Austrian authorities in the right direction. I hope that what I am saying will evoke some kind of positive action on the part of the Austrians themselves, and that it may have a useful effect.
The Treaty in Article 26, deals with certain aspects of this problem. By that Article, Austria is committed to maintain and fully implement legislation at present in force which is intended to give some measure of satisfaction to the victims of persecution. This legislation, however, is deficient, in so far as it fails to provide even a minimum of compensation for loss and damage. I hope that when the Treaty is ratified, Austria will implement it in spirit as well as letter, and as indicated in the Preamble, will amend its present legislation on these matters in an adequate way.
It is notorious that every facility is given in Austria to those who participated in Nazi barbarities and helped to increase the number of victims of persecution and ruin by scores of thousands, while the crying needs and miseries of the victims themselves are frequently treated with cruel indifference and negligence. There are other Articles in the Treaty which deal with the safeguarding of equality before the law of all Austrian nationals without discrimination of race, religion or ethnic origin, and the prevention of a revival of Nazism and Fascism.
There are signs showing that this eradication of Nazism is being delayed, and is carried out with some reluctance. I hope that the other provisions of the Treaty will be used by the Powers supporting Austrian independence in the direction of compelling Austria to comply with the principles of justice and fairness in the spirit of the Charter of the United Nations, of which Austria herself aspires to become a member.
I think it proper at this stage to mention the points to which I have referred. I hope that the Austrian Government will realise that this Treaty is a big concession to them, and that they themselves should act in the spirit underlying the Treaty towards those who were persecuted. It cannot be denied that, at the

433
time of the Anschluss, many innocent people were persecuted very seriously by the Austrians themselves. I hope the Austrian Government will realise that this Treaty is a generous gesture to them by the free nations of the world, and that they themselves will see to it that any damage which was done in consequence of the type of action to which I have referred will be properly and effectively repaired.
5.6 p.m.
The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Harold Macmillan): I am sure the House feels that the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner) has acted very properly in calling our attention to this point, which is already a matter of concern to the Government and to all those who remember the hardships and the tribulations of those terrible times.
The Treaty itself, of course, provides in Article 26 what I think is a very good principle and adequate machinery to deal with the problem. It is true that during a fairly long period there have been negotiations between the organisation represented by the hon. Gentleman and the Austrian Government—all of a somewhat prolonged character. I think the hon. Gentleman will recognise that, during this long period, and until the Treaty became a little more of a reality, these negotiations were probably bound to be protracted.
Now, a really new start is being made. The Treaty has been signed, and will be ratified and brought into effect. I can only say, like the hon. Gentleman, that I hope that every Austrian and the Austrian Government will carry out these provisions in a fair and honourable manner. I have every hope and, indeed, confidence that they will do so.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

EUROPEAN COAL AND STEEL COMMUNITY BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
5.8 p.m.
The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Lord John Hope): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
On 21st February, the House approved the Agreement concerning the relations between the United Kingdom and the European Coal and Steel Community, and agreed in principle to support legislation on the lines of the present Bill. In the course of the debate on that occasion, both sides of the House recognised the need to avoid undue extension of diplomatic immunity and privilege. That need. I should like to assure hon. Members, has not been forgotten in the Bill now before the House.
The necessity for legislation arises in the following way. The Agreement concerning the relations between the United Kingdom and the Community provides, in Article 5 that, unless the Council of Association agrees otherwise, it shall meet alternately at the seat of the High Authority and in London. In order to keep contact in the intervals between the meetings, it will be necessary for us to maintain a small permanent delegation in Luxembourg and for the High Authority similarly to have a small delegation in London. In the course of our negotiations with the High Authority in connection with the conclusion of this Agreement, we acceded to the very reasonable request that the High Authority's delegation in London and ours in Luxembourg should be treated alike.
Neither the European Coal and Steel Community nor the High Authority are international organisations of which Her Majesty's Government are a member. In consequence, it is not possible for provision to be made in respect of their delegations under the International Organisations (Immunities and Privileges) Act, 1950, nor is there any other legislation in force covering their case. New legislation is, therefore, necessary. In any case, the functions of the High Authority delegation in London will be in no way comparable with those of the secretariat of an international organisation. The delegation will have to

435
conduct vis-à-vis Her Majesty's Government the same sort of business as is conducted by the diplomatic mission of a foreign sovereign Power.
I turn to the Bill itself. The following are salient points to which I would draw the attention of the House. First, generally the Bill provides a scale of immunities and privileges lower than that accorded to foreign diplomats of comparable rank. For example, it provides general juridical immunity only for the head of the delegation and his family. It is generally recognised, I think, that the head of a delegation must be given particular consideration.
Next, no immunities or privileges of
any sort are accorded by the Bill to any family other than that of the head of the delegation. The head of the delegation is specifically not exempted from the payment of the non-beneficial element of the rates on his official residence. In that he is worse off than the envoy of a foreign sovereign Power.
Mr. Alfred Robens: What does that mean?
Lord John Hope: Beneficial rates are things like water rates and rates which go for other social services, and he is liable for his share of those.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: Does he pay rent?
Lord John Hope: Does he pay rent for his building? Rent is paid in the ordinary way.
No taxation privileges are accorded to citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies, and no immunities or privileges are granted to the domestic staff of the delegation.
I will give to the House the numbers to whom the Bill will apply. It is a provisional estimate, but it is near enough. Of official staff of a rank equivalent to that of attaché or above, there will be two or three, and official staff below the equivalent of the rank of attaché, six or seven. It may be that there will be a few others from time to time who will perhaps come for a few days in connection with a specific mission.
I have given the House the reasons for the Bill, I have outlined its contents, and I have referred to the likely number of
436
people concerned. I hope that the House will think it a reasonable Measure and will give it a Second Reading.
5.14 p.m.
Mr. Alfred Robens: I rise, not to oppose the Bill, which, I understand, provides the reciprocal treatment to that which the British delegation at Luxembourg receive. I take it that it is neither more nor less than that.
Nevertheless, it would be wrong for us to give the Bill a Second Reading without voicing the general anxiety in many people's minds about the growing army of civilians receiving diplomatic immunity. It is natural, with the growth of international organisations, that that should be the case, but it is also a very good reason for which we should now make a serious inquiry into the need for a good deal of the diplomatic immunity which covers so many people.
The Joint Under-Secretary of State has indicated that few people are affected
by the Bill and that only the chief representative has immunity somewhat similar to, although not as great as, that given to an envoy from another country. The Bill says that he will have
"exemption or relief from rates on official premises…"
I understood the hon. Gentleman to say that he would not have relief from rates on his premises; the hon. Member spoke about the water rate, for example.
Lord John Hope: I was referring to his residence, not his official premises. That is his private residence, as opposed to his official premises.
Mr. Robens: Then the private residence of the chief representative is not exempted from rates, and Clause 1 (1, c) refers only to his official residence.
Subsection (2) makes a division of the staff of the chief representative, unless I am reading the Bill wrongly. It appears that any one above the rank of attaché is entitled to exemption from Income Tax in respect of his official emoluments and also
"other exemption or relief from taxes as is accorded to members of the official staff of such an envoy holding equivalent rank."
Other members of the staff, presumably below the rank of attaché, get exemption from Income Tax but not this
"exemption or relief from taxes as is accorded to members of the official staff of such an envoy holding equivalent rank."

437
Would the hon. Gentleman tell us what this means? Does it mean that the secretaries, typists and others may not have anything tax free but if a man holds a post equivalent to that of attaché upwards then the receipt of tax-free goods is permissible?
I should like to ask some questions about tax-free goods. Does the Bill give those who come within its provisions the right to buy goods in shops without paying British taxation on them—without paying Purchase Tax, tobacco duty, petrol duty and a whole host of other taxes? That is an important question, and on the answer to it will depend how I shall proceed. On the assumption that they have some relief—I gather the Joint Under-Secretary says that they have no relief. In that case, what does this mean? The Bill says that they shall have relief from taxes. Is it not the case that petrol coupons are issued, for example, by embassies? What does the subsection mean?
I recognise that there has to be reciprocity, but I am sure that all agree that the large and mounting number of people receiving diplomatic immunity is a point which must be mentioned when we are dealing with Bills such as this. Some day there must be an inquiry to see whether there is a need for this kind of diplomatic immunity.
In London, and indeed in Paris and other capitals of the world, we see motor cars being driven around each with a "C.D." plate on the back. My information is that the mere tacking of a "C.D." plate on to the back of a car means nothing at all and that anybody can do it, whether he is a diplomat or not.
Mr. W. M. F. Vane: Put "M.P." on.
Mr. Robens: I am referring to the letters "C.D."
Large numbers of people are not aware of the fact that "C.D." confers no privilege at all on a man riding in a motor car. A great many people in this country are under the impression that when they see a car with "C.D." on it and a very important diplomatic personage in it, he may do what he likes, break the speed limit and commit other offences. If I have done nothing more than draw the attention of the House to that important fact, I have not been wasting time.
438
One understands that if we have diplomats here they must have immunity from seizure of documents, and that their premises are part of the soil of their country in a foreign land. I wonder, however, how long we, with other countries, are to go on, in international organisations, for example the European Coal and Steel Community, organisations like U.N.E.S.C.O. and various agencies of the United Nations, paying taxpayers' money and then saying that the recipient of that money, unlike any other person in any other State in the world, shall not pay any Income Tax on it. They enjoy the amenities of whatever capital the central organisation may be in and also the privileges and services for which taxation makes provision, but pay no taxation to anyone on the grounds that we cannot collect money from nations to keep an organisation going and then return some of that money to the Government of a country where, for the time being, the head office of that organisation is.
In those circumstances, it may be difficult to have a collection of taxes. Nevertheless, there ought to be a contribution and there ought to be no one who escapes some responsibility for making his contribution to the national pool of money which provides all sorts of facilities by which we live. I wonder whether it is possible for some arrangement to be made between Governments for a reasonable taxation deduction which would compare with an average of what is deducted in other countries, and for that amount of money to be returned to the organisation. At least, Governments would be saved that amount.
I think it wrong in principle that there should be this ever-growing army of people steadily getting diplomatic immunity; and, in my view, a great deal of the immunity is unnecessary. They need immunity for what they are doing in their jobs; that is right, but I cannot see that it should also mean that they are entitled to immunity in all sorts of other ways, including their private life outside the job they are doing. In a way an analogy can be drawn with Members of Parliament. At this Box and in this House we can say what we like and we are free from arrest and free from libel. To that extent we enjoy some immunity.
Mr. Ede: Free from uttering a libel, but not free from having it uttered against us.
Mr. Robens: My right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) very properly says that we are free from uttering a libel, but not free from having it uttered against us. Nevertheless, we have some immunity in the House because we are doing a duty for which we have been elected. Immediately we set forth outside the boundaries of the Palace of Westminster we are treated—as we should be treated—like any other ordinary citizen.
I am asking whether the time has not arrived, in dealing with these international organisations, when the immunities concerned should be devoted entirely to the function for which members of those organisations are here, and that immediately they are outside that function they should be treated just like the nationals of whatever nation to which they belong. I think there is general resentment at this horde of people claiming immunity and getting it.
I should like some detailed information on the question of taxation. It seems to me that outside the scope of the actual work which the individual is doing on behalf of an international authority he should be treated like any other individual who happens to be living in another country than his own and is working there.
Mr. Peter Smithers: Does the right hon. Member think it is really justifiable to treat these people on the same footing as, for example, many business people in their private lives? Surely there is a distinction in this case, and Membership of Parliament is no analogy. These people come to this country by invitation of this Government. Would it not be a little strange then to tax them?
Mr. Robens: The hon. Member is quite wrong; it is not the case that they come here by invitation of this Government. In the Bill we are discussing that is certainly not the case. We have an Agreement with the European Coal and Steel Community which says that delegations shall be set up in Luxembourg and in London, one in Luxembourg for the British Government and the one in London for the High Authority. The selection of the individuals is done in the one case by the British Government and in the other by the Luxembourg Government.
Mr. Smithers: If that is not an invitation I do not know what is.
Mr. Robens: That is a technicality. The British Government do not select the representatives of Luxembourg. The fact that they are approved is a technicality. It is not usually the case that when names are put forward they are disapproved. If so it is only for certain reasons which certainly do not
arise in the argument we are having. Therefore, it is not a question of invitation. They are here to do a job in the same way as a British Member of Parliament goes on a delegation to any part of the world doing a job, which he does without requiring diplomatic immunity to do it.
There are far too many people with immunity, far too many civil servants enjoying immunity, and in my opinion that should not be the case. One cannot travel round the countries of the world without seeing many cases in which the sort of facilities offered ought not to be offered and would not be offered to any businessman who, very often is doing a job ten times as important as many privileged individuals whom I have met abroad.
5.28 p.m.
Mr. J. R. H. Hutchison: I do not think I can altogether dissociate myself from the wonder—I will not put it higher than that—which many people express at the extent to which this granting of diplomatic immunity has grown. On a number of occasions we have heard the explanation that we cannot do less than is done for us. It is true that no one likes to lag in courtesy and consideration in favour of those who have already shown that courtesy and consideration to us, but I should like to know from my right hon. Friend, when he replies to the debate, who sets the pace for all this?
It seems that this essentially is a question for international study and that there should be talks on it. It may well be that what is going on is desirable and, indeed, may be necessary, but I should have thought that this essentially was a case of one of the many international organisations in which my right hon. Friend should have the matter looked into with a view to considering whether there could be evolved a common factor of privilege which would apply to all the countries with whom we deal.
5.30 p.m.
Mr. S. N. Evans: I think we are all worried about this spread of diplomatic immunity and privilege, sometimes to people who have very slender claims for it, but I agree with the hon. Member for Scotstoun (Mr. J. R. H. Hutchison) that this would have to be dealt with at international level. It would not do for Great Britain to be less hospitable or less considerate to visitors to this country engaged on official business than any other country.
I do not want to delay the proceedings—although it does not look as though we shall be unduly burdened by our labours today—except to say that I think we ought to consent to anything which helps the High Authority of the European Iron and Steel Community. This is a very important body, and if anything that is in the Bill helps we ought to pass it unanimously.
We have heard a great deal of nonsense talked in the House about a German contribution to Western defence. Many of the arguments were as "phony" as a "crummy" pound note, but the most significant event in Europe of the last ten years has been this handing of the German iron, coal and steel industry, the three basic essentials of modern war, to an international commission, the president of which is a Frenchman. This is the most significant event in the last ten years of European history, for when we come to think that three times in the lifetime of many living people France has been invaded by Germany, the importance of this new co-operation is of immense significance.
We ought to encourage not only the Schuman Plan, as it is known, but all those other moves towards European unity which it might not be improper to mention. The European Payments Union, the Council of Europe, the European Committee for European Cooperation, the nine-Power Agreement and the Schuman Plan—all these things are a move towards restoration of that economic, military and political unity in Europe without which Europe cannot hope to improve her living standards or play her part in international affairs which her traditions and experience make desirable. Therefore, to the extent that the Bill helps this developing trend, I am very happy to give it my support.
5.33 p.m.
Mr. H. Hynd: I am in a difficulty in that I am an enthusiastic supporter of the Coal and Steel Community and I regret that the principle of the extension of diplomatic and other immunities should be associated with such a desirable object as the promotion of the Coal and Steel Community. I have been worried for some time about this extention of diplomatic immunity and as recently as the 23rd of this month I asked a Question, to which I got a very interesting Answer.
In that Answer, I was told that there are now 2,522 persons in this country enjoying those privileges, of whom 688 are servants employed in their households. In addition, the wives and families of all those people also enjoy these privileges. These figures must be alarming to every hon. Member of the House. While the original conception was that any person of ambassadorial status should get those privileges, the Answer to which I have referred showed that there are five United Nations organisations now getting them, plus the International Labour Organisation, the International Sugar Council and two bodies connected with N.A.T.O. That, obviously, is getting us on to a very dangerous slippery slope and I do not know where it will finish. There are many other quasi-Governmental international organisations with representatives in London, and it seems to me that we have established some rather dangerous precedents.
Here, we come up against what should be done in the case of the European Coal and Steel Community, and the argument in favour of the Bill is that it is a matter of reciprocity. I beg to question that. After all, our representative in Luxembourg is a gentleman with the status of Ambassador, and I think that there is a good basis for any privileges that he might have; but the representatives of the Community in London do not have the status of ambassador, and it is stretching it a little bit far, I suggest, to say that this is merely a question of reciprocity.
The hon. Member for Scotstoun (Mr. J. R. H. Hutchison) asked, very pertinently, why some of these privileges have been extended to international organisations. Sometimes, I think, they

443
have been extended by certain countries to tempt an organisation to establish its headquarters in a particular capital. I do not think there is any doubt about it. That is all very well, but again, a dangerous precedent is established. If countries try to outbid each other by granting privileges to get people to go to their capitals, as certain of our towns do to attract conferences, we shall get into serious trouble. I support the suggestions, from both sides of the House, that the Government should look seriously at the whole question. It has got to the state now where it is due for overhaul and reconsideration.
The Bill brings in something entirely new in that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) pointed out, we now have a different status of diplomatic immunity, a kind of Mark II variety of diplomatic immunity as it were. We are told that only the head of a mission, and not the other members, will get it extended to his family. That is something. We are told that such a person will only get some of the privileges that an ambassador or a clerk in the office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees would get. That, too, is something. Perhaps this new kind of status might be a pattern for what is given in future to some of these organisations.
In considering the Bill, we cannot close our mind to the fact that before the end of this week we will be faced with four more measures in which immunities and privileges are to be extended. One relates to the Commission for Technical Co-operation in Africa South of the Sahara, one is in connection with the International Maritime Consultative Organisation, another is the Western European Union and the fourth is the World Health Organisation. We have four more in one week. Where will it finish? The Minister must be realising himself that he cannot get many more Orders or Bills of this kind through the House without serious protests being raised from both sides.
5.38 p.m.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: This is a small and innocuous looking Bill, but it is already being shown that it bristles with anomalies. I certainly discovered an anomaly when I asked the
444
Minister whether the exemption from rates and taxes applied to rent. Apparently, a person who enjoys diplomatic immunity is not to pay his water rate or his rates for roads or electricity or anything of that kind, but if he is a tenant of the Duke of Portland, the Duke of Portland expresses the hospitality of this country by charging a very substantial rent.
It is a rather curious state of affairs. Imagine the position of these representatives of the High Authority of the European Coal and Steel Community. They will come to London and will presumably live in quarters like Portland Place and in most expensive houses in the West End of London. This nation generously says, "You need not pay for your water; you need not pay for your gas or electricity." Then the landlord comes along and says, "You are living in this country now. In Rome, you must do what Rome does. In London, the custom of the local inhabitants is that they pay very large sums in rent." It does not seem a very great advantage to anyone who is given diplomatic immunity—it does not seem a very real diplomatic immunity—to be let off about £20 a year for water rate but required to pay £200 a year in rent.
Mr. Cyril Osborne: The meaning of what the hon. Member is saying is that the Duke of Portland will further support the Welfare State, since 18s. in every £ he gets will go to it through the Exchequer.
Mr. H. Hynd: These people get the benefit of the Welfare State.
Mr. Hughes: I have too much regard for the Chair to wander from the subject, as the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) invites me to do by such digressions.
I fail to see why anybody given diplomatic immunity should not obey the ordinary laws of the land. Why should a diplomat who, say, exceeds the speed limit when driving through London not be brought before a magistrate, as anybody else would be who did such a thing? I fail to see why he should not be. I live in a part of the country where there is a large number of foreign representatives from the United States of America, all of whom are under the impression that the motoring laws do not apply to them.
Mr. C. R. Hobson: Is my hon. Friend aware that a constituent of mine had parked his car in front of a rather large hotel in London when a grand piano was thrown out of a window and smashed down on his car, and that as it was thrown out by a diplomat my constituent could not recover damages?
Mr. Hughes: That was carrying the respect we pay to international music rather far.
These diplomatic immunities bristle with anomalies, and grow out of the bed of ancient tradition of the Foreign Office. The sooner we rationalise them the better. I hope that the Joint Under-Secretary of State will turn his attention to the question why people who are given diplomatic immunity from rates should be charged rents.
5.43 p.m.
The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. R. H. Turton): The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) asked me to give details of the tax exemptions which are afforded by the Bill. For those of the rank of attaché and above, who, my hon. Friend said, number two or three, the privileges are exemption from Income Tax on their official salaries, exemption from Income Tax on their income arising abroad, exemption on income from certain British Government securities, and exemption from Schedule A tax on the premises owned and occupied for diplomatic purposes. Those who are not of that rank, who, my hon. Friend said, numbered either six or seven, will have only the exemption from Income Tax on their official emoluments.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned Customs and Excise duties. The Bill does not give any concession for Customs and Excise duties. It is a fact that there are certain Customs privileges granted extra-statutorily to those who enjoy diplomatic status, but that has nothing to do with the Bill, and the passing of the Bill will not affect the granting of those Customs privileges. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned Purchase Tax. No Purchase Tax concessions are granted either statutorily or extra-statutorily to any diplomat.
I was glad that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned the question of the curious letters CD on plates on motor
446
cars. Let me say again that they are of absolutely no consequence at all.
Mr. Hobson: Has the right hon. Gentleman one?
Mr. Turton: I have not one on my car. I believe that people know that they are an adornment and nothing more. Heads of missions have identification plaques which are carried to enable them to proceed on their duties once the plaques have been shown to the police. That is normal in all countries, to enable diplomatic business in emergencies to be transacted quickly.
Mr. H. Hynd: Does that mean that there is still another badge that the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) can put on the front of his car?
Mr. Turton: I have always been surprised at the curious decorations and embellishments put on cars, but I think Members of Parliament, or certain Members of Parliament, should be a little cautious about that, because I have seen a grill which is displayed on cars and which, I believe, some people think gives them power to proceed more quickly about the streets. Personally, I have not had that decoration on any car I have owned. I feel that putting it on is little different from putting on a CD plate.
Mr. Hobson: There is a point concerning CD plates which is worrying many hon. Members not only on this side of the House but on the other side, too, I am sure. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether the letters CD stand for Corps Diplomatique or Chauffeur Dangereux?
Mr. Turton: I leave that to the imagination of the hon. Member, which is very strong, as strong as the man who could throw a grand piano out of a window.
Let me proceed to some of the other questions I have been asked. The burden of the speeches of my hon. Friend the Member for Scotstoun (Mr. J. R. H. Hutchison) and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. S. N. Evans) was that the House was worried about the number of diplomatic immunities and privileges which are being given. There has been no increase in the scale of privilege. What has happened since the war is that there have been much larger missions than before. As I said to the House on

447
another occasion—I think it was two weeks ago—we are very much aware of that fact, and we have been looking into it. This Bill is the best evidence of the Government's desire to restrict the amount of immunity and privilege.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Accrington (Mr. H. Hynd) said that our representative in Luxembourg had the status of an ambassador, and asked why the representatives of the High Authority should not have that status. In fact, the Bill cuts down the status of our representative in Luxembourg, who, up to now, has had full diplomatic status. Now, however, because the immunity and privilege mentioned in the Bill are to be reciprocal, our representative in Luxembourg will suffer a reciprocal curtailment.
I hope that the House will recognise that fact. We have cut down the privileges that are being accorded here, knowing that our representative in Luxembourg will suffer that curtailment. Before we took this action we consulted our representative in Luxembourg, and he expressed the view that we were being wise.
I will give the assurance that we are constantly considering this question in order to see that the numbers and the scale of privileges and immunities do not become excessive. I believe that it is extremely important that what is conferred in this country should be only what is conferred overseas on this country.
I believe that the reciprocal nature of diplomatic immunities and privileges is important. They have gone on since at least the time of Queen Anne. I do not remember myself what happened before that time. I understand that Queen Anne is dead, though I never know for certain, because the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) has written such amusing passages about old age and senility that I never know what monarch or what leader, on either side of the House, is dead or merely senile.
The hon. Member for Accrington said that there were 109 representatives who were having the lower scale of privileges under the Diplomatic Privileges (Extension) Act, 1950. That is quite true. The number is great, but the hon. Member
448
must remember that that Act was passed—in my opinion, rightly—by the Government which he supported to accord a lower level of immunities and privileges to those representing international organisations. The number is large because, for the good of the countries of the world, these international organisations are increasing in their labours. I am sure that the hon. Member will not deny the value of the work done by the Technical Aid Programme and other programmes. If that valuable work is done it is only right that the representatives of those organisations should have their work facilitated. I hope that with these undertakings the House will agree to give the Bill a Second Reading.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Redmayne.]
Committee upon Monday next.

GERMAN CONVENTIONS BILL
Considered in Committee.
[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Clause 1.—(ARBITRATION TRIBUNAL, SUPREME RESTITUTION COURT AND ARBITRAL COMMISSION (IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES, ETC.).)
5.56 p.m.
Sir Lynn Ungoed-Thomas: I beg to move, in page 2, line 19, to leave out subsection (2).
I move the Amendment less with a view to dividing the Committee on it than to bringing before the Committee and the Government some of the considerations which have been exercising the House of Commons in our earlier debate on the European Coal and Steel Community Bill. The Amendment will provide that immunity should be given in the Bill itself instead of that being done by order under the Diplomatic Privileges (Extension) Act, 1950. It is obviously advantageous when we have a Bill brought before the House of Commons dealing with immunities to deal with those immunities in detail in the Bill instead of dealing with them by order by reference to the 1950 Act.
It is very much clearer to have them laid down in the Bill. It means that we can deal with the whole matter at one time instead of taking two bites at the

449
cherry. It means that the immunities can be considered in detail and that amendments can be made, instead of having the matter dealt with by Order on another occasion on a "take it or leave it" basis.
The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs will recognise that the Amendment is based to a considerable extent on the European Coal and Steel Community Bill which the House has just discussed. That is because I recognise, as the right hon. Gentleman stated, that the Bill which we have just discussed has given more limited immunity than has been the custom hitherto. I hope that in dealing with cases of conferring immunity, the Government will consider the immunity by reference to the need for it for the purpose of carrying out the work which has to be performed. The immunity is conferred because it is necessary for the purpose, and it should follow logically and as a matter of common sense that the immunity should be limited to what is necessary for that purpose.
In every case, the Government should be in a position to justify to the House of Commons the immunities conferred, solely on the ground that they are necessary for the work which is to be performed. It is no answer at all to say, as the right hon. Gentleman the Joint Under-Secretary indicated in his speech on Second Reading of the European Coal and Steel Community Bill, that we have to confer immunities because they are reciprocal and that we are merely conferring immunities which other people confer on our representatives abroad. In each case the test should be whether the immunities are necessary, and it should be the sole test. It is no advantage to this country, when we find that immunities are being lavishly distributed among foreign diplomats and representatives, to answer that our representatives abroad have similar immunities and privileges.
The right hon. Gentleman will see that in the proposed new Clause which I have placed on the Order Paper, members of the Arbitration Tribunal or Arbitral Commission are given, in the first place, immunities
"…from suit and legal process in respect of things done or omitted to be done in the course of the performance of their official duties;…"
450
The immunity from suit and legal process should be limited to what is done in the course of performance of official duties. That is the intention of the Agreements in accordance with which the Bill is brought forward and I hope that there will be no difficulty about that.
Secondly, members of the Arbitration Tribunal or Arbitral Commission shall be entitled, under my proposed new Clause,
"to the like inviolability of official residence, official premises and official archives;£x2026;"
Thirdly, they are to be entitled
"to the like exemption from income tax in respect of their official emoluments, as are accorded to the envoy of a foreign sovereign power accredited to Her Majesty."
I can see some reason for each of these three privileges and immunities. I cannot see any reason for any immunity or any privilege going beyond those three. If the Government have it in mind to confer any further immunity or privilege, I should be glad if they would indicate what they are and why they are necessary.
I should like to say a few words about Income Tax. I can understand Income Tax exemption being given in the case of a foreign diplomat in this country in respect of his official emoluments. I was interested to hear the Joint Under-Secretary say earlier that apparently a distinction is made between persons of the rank of attaché and above as contrasted with those below the rank of attaché, and that in the case of the rank of attaché and above, immunity from Income Tax is given over an appreciably wider collection of sources of income than in the case of those of lower rank.
I cannot see what justification there can be for that distinction, and when the right hon. Gentleman deals with the Amendment he might perhaps consider it convenient to indicate the reason for dealing differently with the levying of Income Tax according to the rank which a person holds. I cannot see at all any validity in a distinction of that kind.
Subsection (2) of my proposed new Clause provides that these immunities
"…shall not apply to any person being a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies;…"
except so much of subsection (1) as provides for immunity from suit and legal process. The importance which I attach to that subsection

451
is not that it limits immunity but that it expands and extends immunity to persons who are citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies.
6.0 p.m.
Let us consider that aspect for a moment. If the justification for granting immunity is that it is essential for an official to have it to enable him to carry out his duties, surely it does not make the slightest difference whether that person happens to be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or is a foreigner. In each case he ought to have sufficient immunity to enable him to perform the duties which are imposed upon him, for which purpose only the immunities are conferred.
If a person is carrying out duties which would entitle him to immunity from suit and legal process in the course of the performance of those duties, I cannot see what justification there is for saying that in the case of a foreigner he should have immunity but if he happens to be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies he is not to have it. We have immunity provided here for the purpose of enabling these people to carry out their duties in these circumstances, and a person who does so ought not to have the immunity taken from him merely because he happens to be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies.
Then the new Clause goes on to prevent the immunity being extended to members of the family. I myself cannot see why it is necessary to extend any immunity to members of the family. Lastly there is the provision in this new Clause to enable a member of the Arbitration Tribunal or Arbitral Commission to waive any immunity granted to him.
The right hon. Gentleman, on Second Reading, said:
"…no question of waiver arises."—[OFFICIAL. REPORT, 20th June, 1955; Vol. 542, c. 1060.]
I completely fail to appreciate that. After all, the Government, in the European Coal and Steel Community Bill, have provided, in Clause 4, that
"The Chief Representative may waive any immunity, privilege, exemption or relief conferred by this section on himself or on any other person."
I should have thought it might very well be the case that the person who enjoyed
452
any such immunity would certainly prefer to waive immunity in any case like a running down case or something of that sort, and have the matter tried by the ordinary courts of this country rather than be put in the invidious position of having an immunity that he cannot waive, which, I understand, is the Government's intention.
Speaking for myself, I should have thought that such a person might very well be entitled to waive immunity if nothing at all was said in the Bill about it, and I merely insert this provision in the proposed new Clause because of the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman that no question of waiver arises and because of the express provision made in the European Coal and Steel Community Bill providing for a waiver by the Chief Representative of the privileges conferred upon him. I hope, for this reason, that this new Clause will commend itself to the House rather than that these matters should be left to be dealt with by Order in Council.
The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. R. H. Turton): The hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas) suggests the conferring in this new Clause of diplomatic privileges on members of the Arbitration Tribunal and Arbitral Commission which we propose to confer by Order in Council. I can see how, having discussed this matter on the European Coal and Steel Community Bill, he finds it difficult to understand why we are adopting a different method here.
The answer is that in these Bills there is a major difference between the High Authority of the European Coal and Steel Community and the members of the Arbitration Tribunal or Arbitral Commission. It is that the High Authority has already decided to establish its delegation in London and, therefore, it is known that the powers will be exercised; but in the case of the Arbitration Tribunal or the Arbitral Commission only experience will show whether it will be necessary for a member to come to the United Kingdom on his official business. Therefore, it would, in my submission, be unwise for the House of Commons to grant, in this Bill, immunities and privileges, the need for which may never arise.
I should like to call in aid some of the arguments that were used only a few

453
minutes ago on the preceding Bill. We want to be careful about spreading diplomatic immunities and privileges which may never be exercised. I would, therefore, rather have the power conferred under the International Organisations (Immunities and Privileges) Act, 1950, which was passed by the Government of which the hon. and learned Gentleman was a member, to bring in Orders in Council, if that is found to be necessary, rather than to insert the privileges in a Bill.
There are also other general observations I will put before the Committee. One is that it must be remembered that under the method which we are proposing in the Bill there will be, as hon. Members will shortly find, opportunities for full discussion of any Orders in Council we may have to introduce, because they will all be subject to the affirmative Resolution procedure. That gives the House of Commons a good safeguard if we find it necessary to give this form of diplomatic immunity as defined under Clause 1 (2) of the Bill.
There is another additional advantage in the Act passed in 1950 by the Labour Government, that the names of all those persons who are receiving diplomatic immunities and privileges have to be published in the London, Edinburgh and Belfast Gazettes. If we adopt the suggestion made in this new Clause we would lose all the advantage of publication. That, I think, is a consideration.
Turning from those general observations, I would suggest that the right way of doing this is by using the 1950 Act rather than by inserting in the Bill the terms of this new Clause. I am afraid that a strict imitation of the European Coal and Steel Community Bill does not make sense in this connection. First of all, subsection (1) of the new Clause would be insufficient. What we have to remember when we deal with this particular problem is that this Tribunal and Commission, if either comes to this country and settles, are entitled, by the terms of the Convenion, to the same immunities and privileges as are accorded the chief representative or members of diplomatic missions respectively.
That is an important fact because, having signed those Conventions and agreed them with the other Powers, I am certain that the Committee would wish
454
Her Majesty's Government to honour
their words. Other Powers are giving those same immunities and privileges on that scale in their own territories and we must abide by the word we have given.
I did not agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Leicester, North-East when he said that he could not understand how reciprocity came into it. Of course, reciprocity must come in because a Convention is the agreement of certain Powers to do a certain thing. Once we have signed our name to it, we have to keep our part of the bargain just as much as the other Powers concerned.
There is also the other question of reciprocity, on which I think the hon. and learned Gentleman misunderstood me when I said how important reciprocity was. It was not merely that we should keep on increasing the scale above what we need give, but that we must see to it that we were never giving a scale that was higher than that accorded by other countries. In other words, there might well be a justification for reducing our scale of immunities and privileges if other countries did not accord the same scale. Although it is not very pertinent to this Bill, I hope he will accept that as the explanation he wanted me to give on the remarks I made a few minutes ago on a previous Measure.
Let me point out next that the differences between the treatment accorded to the chief of a diplomatic mission and that accorded to a member of a mission are not very great and we will take them into account in drafting the Order in Council. What is contained in the proposed new Clause, however, does not take into account all the differences between the treatment accorded to the head of a mission and that accorded to the member of a mission.
Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: But are we not dealing here only with the members of the Tribunal, so that that definition does not arise in this case?
Mr. Turton: Yes, the members of the Tribunal are to be treated on the scale of immunities as the head of a mission—that is, full diplomatic immunity—which the terms of the Convention prescribe. What the hon. and learned Gentleman is giving by his proposed new Clause is a scale that is not that of the head of a

455
mission. It is, as I explained on the previous Bill—I am sorry to keep referring to it—the betwixt and between stage. The hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. H. Hynd) talked about a Mark II scale. That is why, on the broad principle, this Clause will not fit our undertaking under the Convention.
Taking it paragraph by paragraph, paragraph (a) is insufficient. In fact, it confers no greater immunity than is already conferred by Clause 1 (1) of this Bill. If the hon. and learned Gentleman will refer to Article 2, paragraph 4 (b) of the Charter of the Arbitration Tribunal in page 8 of the Blue Book, and to Article 4, paragraph 3 (b) of the Charter of the Arbitral Commission on Property Rights and Interests in Germany, which is in page 106 of the Blue Book, he will see that we have already undertaken to give full immunity from suit to members of the Tribunal and to members of the Commission respectively who are not of our nationality when the Tribunal or Commission sits in this country, and all members of the Tribunal or Commission who are not of German nationality are accorded similar immunity while they are in the Federal Republic.
6.15 p.m.
My answer to the hon. and learned Gentleman's question why our own nationals should not have this immunity from suit is that they have got the limited immunity from suit under Clause 1 (1) but, as they are themselves nationals in this country, it is not necessary or right for them to have the wider immunity that would be conferred under Clause 1 (2).
Paragraph (b) of the proposed new Clause is not very different from the immunities and privileges in respect of residence which are normally granted diplomatically. I do not really take issue with that paragraph: it is very like the normal diplomatic privileges. Paragraph (c), is, again, insufficient since it confers exemption from Income Tax only in respect of emoluments, whereas, under the Conventions, we have promised to give relief from all taxation for the payment of which the individual judge is responsible. In passing, I should say that I would not have thought there was much Income Tax payable by the judge who spent a few days sitting on a Tribunal or Commission here, but that is by the
456
way. We have given this undertaking in the Convention and I know that the Committee will want us to respect it.
That part of subsection (2) of the proposed new Clause which exempts members of the family from privileges is again in conflict with the engagement we have given in the Conventions, and this, I hope, the Committee will recognise as specially important since it must be remembered that the families of the British members of the tribunal will also have been granted, and will be enjoying, such privileges in Germany. Therefore, the effect of the proposed new Clause would be that those families would immediately have their privileges taken from them.
Mr. James Harrison: The right hon. Gentleman is coming back now to the question of reciprocity. I understood that the chief theme of my hon. and learned Friend's submission was that of need. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would address himself to that argument. In doing so, the Committee should recognise that need must essentially vary from place to place. The question of reciprocity seems to cut right across the argument of need in these matters.
Mr. Turton: Perhaps I used the word "reciprocity" wrongly there. On other questions it may be a question of reciprocity, but here it is a question of the bonds and engagements of Britain under Conventions. We have engaged with the other Powers to take certain action and to give certain immunities and privileges. They are giving those immunities to British nationals under those Conventions in, shall we say, the Federal Republic of Germany. That is why I claim that we must act similarly to the families here. The word "reciprocity" slipped out; reciprocity does not arise here. It is a question of honouring our pledged word and, therefore, the question of need, once the Conventions have been agreed and signed, is not so material.
On the question of subsection (3) of
the proposed new Clause, dealing with waiver. I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman misunderstood me. What I meant to imply in the Second Reading debate was that waiver is more difficult as regards a member of a Tribunal than it is where a member of a Mission is involved. Normally, it is not the person affected who

457
applies the waiver, but the Government which he represents.
I can tell him that in all cases of Orders in Council under the 1950 Act Her Majesty's Government have always been at pains to provide for waiver of immunity. But there is this difference: that in the case of immunities and privileges of members of the Arbitration Tribunal and Arbitral Commission waiver cannot be exercised by any international organisation, and the only waiver which could be contemplated would be a waiver of his immunity by the judge himself.
I am ready to undertake to look into this question of waiver should it ever be necessary to introduce an Order in Council under the 1950 Act in respect of Clause 1 (2). I have the feeling that all the persons covered by the immunities will be persons of standing and repute. It is probably not too optimistic to hope that they will settle genuine claims against them, despite any immunity conferred by any Order; judges may be expected to understand that diplomatic privilege only confers immunity from local jurisdiction and not exemption from legal liability.
I am in sympathy with the view that if we can, we ought to have some provision for waiver in any Order. But there are difficulties in this matter and I hope that on reflection, the Committee will accept my submission, for the reasons I have stated, that the method proposed in Clause 1 (2) is the right way to fulfil the obligations into which we have entered under these Conventions.
Mr. H. Hynd: As I understand, the main argument advanced by the Minister is that we are already committed to this by our signature to the Conventions. That seems to me very unfortunate. We are in the unfortunate position of having a Minister telling us that here is something in a Bill about which even he, apparently, is not 100 per cent. enthusiastic but, nevertheless, someone negotiating on our behalf has already signed his name, and, therefore, the House of Commons should not upset it. I think we should try to avoid situations of that kind. If we look at this matter on its merits, I feel that there would be objections by the Committee to putting in a privilege of this kind, and I hope that such a procedure will be avoided in the future.
458
The Minister made a big point of the fact that these powers may never be required. He justified this procedure, as distinct from the procedure in connection with the Coal and Steel Community, by saying that this will involve the introduction of an Order in Council only if and when that should be necessary. If that be so, why have this in the Bill? There should be no insuperable difficulty about amending the Bill, if and when these powers are necessary, along lines similar to the Clause in the Bill dealing with the Coal and Steel Community. I cannot understand why it should be necessary to have this Clause, after what the Minister has said. That argument is the best possible support that my hon. and learned Friend could have for his proposal to leave out the Clause altogether.
Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: As I indicated in my opening remarks, it is not my purpose to press this Amendment to a Division. It was merely a convenient method of bringing before the Government certain points for their consideration. I recognise at once that the Agreement has been entered into and that there are obligations which must be honoured. But, as has been pointed out by my hon. Friends, we are not so much concerned with that as to bring before the Government our consideration of the merits of this case independently of the Agreement. That is why we put down the Amendment and why we are not pressing it to a Division.
I was completely unconvinced by the argument so ingeniously put forward by the right hon. Gentleman regarding the provision that the immunities should be covered by order rather than be inserted in the Bill.
Mr. H. Hynd: Not "ingenious," but "ingenuous."
Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: Perhaps I know the right hon. Gentleman rather better than my hon. Friend, so I shall stick to my word.
If power is taken by Order it will require the affirmative procedure. But then, of course, we cannot deal with it by way of amendment. It is much the less appropriate method for dealing with this kind of thing, once there is a Bill already dealing with it. I venture to put forward for the consideration of the

459
Government—I put it as high as this—that, where a Bill has to be brought before the House dealing with immunities, the immunities should be dealt with in the Bill and not by Order by reference to the 1950 Act.
The whole point of the 1950 Act is to be able, in appropriate cases, to avoid coming before the House with a Bill at all. Obviously, in those cases it is convenient to use the 1950 Act. But when we have to bring a Bill before the House to deal with the subject matter to which the immunity refers, surely—even to put it no higher—it is only a courtesy to the House that the immunities should be incorporated in the Bill and that the House, in Committee, should have an opportunity of dealing with them. I suggest that for the consideration of the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends.
It is no use saying that the advantage of the procedure by Order is that when a member of the Tribunal is sent over here, we can then consider what immunities and privileges shall be conferred on him. That is entirely contradicted by what the Minister himself said later, namely, that the privileges which have to be conferred are already specified in the Convention. That, in fact, was the major argument which the right hon. Gentleman advanced in justification of this position; that we were bound by the Convention. The Convention will dictate what he has to do by Order in Council just as much as what he would have to do were it inserted in the Bill.
I would say a word about reciprocity to clear up the point, because there has been a good deal of misunderstanding. May I put it to the right hon. Gentleman in this way? The test for powers of this kind when a convention is made—long before we come to the stage of dealing with it and implementing it by a Bill in the House—should be the stringent test of what is necessary for the purpose of performing the work for which the immunity is conferred. That should be the only test.
I recognise that it may very well be that the immunities which have to be conferred
in country A may be greater than the immunities necessary in country B.
460
I recognise, also, that in those cases reciprocity would come into operation, because we could not expect the greater immunities in country A without conferring the same greater immunities in country B. But the test, the ordinary test, before we get to the reciprocity stage, should be what is necessary, and only what is necessary, for the purpose of carrying out the tasks which have to be performed.
6.30 p.m.
I repeat—and I still cannot see the answer to my original suggestion—that for that purpose certain of the immunities would be as necessary for a person who is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies as for anyone else. I completely fail to see the difference.
The truth is that a good many of these immunities, such as immunity from taxation, are not immunities which are necessary for the purposes of the task. They are immunities that have arisen by processes of international convention between one country and another. They have become part of the etiquette of international diplomacy, but there is no reason why that etiquette should be extended to these new bodies now being created, except—and I can see the reason for this—in the limited case of the emoluments that are actually paid by the international organisation. The immunities should be limited to that, and to that alone.
I hope that when the Government deal with other conventions—and other conventions conferring immunities are bound to be dealt with—they will, as a result of this debate and the earlier debate on the European Coal and Steel Community Bill, appreciate the jealousy with which the House regards the conferring of these immunities, and that they should be restricted and further restricted to the purposes for which they are necessary and to those purposes only.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 2 and 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Preamble agreed to.
Bill reported, without Amendment; read the Third time and passed.

IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES
6.33 p.m.
The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. R. H. Turton): I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the International Organisations (Immunities and Privileges of the Commission for Technical Co-operation in Africa South of the Sahara) Order, 1955, be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 14th June.
We hope you will agree, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that for the convenience of the House I should also refer to the three subsequent Motions, which deal with similar subjects, so that we can have one debate on the whole matter.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): If that meets with the convenience of the House, it seems to be desirable.
Mr. Turton: I am submitting three new draft Orders in Council and one draft Order amending an existing Order in Council, all of which it is proposed, should be made under the International Organisations (Immunities and Privileges) Act, 1950. Section 6 of that Act laid down that Orders made under it should be laid before Parliament in draft and should not be submitted to Her Majesty, except in pursuance of an Address presented by each House of Parliament praying that the Orders in Council should be made.
These draft Orders in Council, which have been laid before both Houses of Parliament, are designed to fulfil certain obligations which Her Majesty's Government have undertaken, or desire to undertake, as a result of our membership of the following organisations, the first three of which have established, or will establish, a headquarters in the United Kingdom. The first is the Intergovernmental Maritime Consultative Organisation, the second is the Commission for Technical Co-operation in Africa South of the Sahara, the third is Western European Union, and the fourth is the World Health Organisation. The Order relating to the World Health Organisation merely amends an existing Order in Council.
I want to turn to a detailed examination of the individual draft Orders. To take the first, the Intergovernmental
462
Maritime Consultative Organisation, this Order is substantially similar to many Orders in Council that have previously been made in respect of Specialised Agencies to which the General Convention applies. It gives the same immunities and privileges as have been given before. The constitutive Convention was signed at Geneva on 6th March, 1948, and was ratified by Her Majesty's Government on 14th February, 1949.
The Convention does not come into force until twenty-one States have become parties. At present, seventeen States have ratified it and the Organisation is expected to establish its headquarters in London directly the other four States have ratified. The secretariat of the Organisation will probably consist of a secretary-general and twelve permanent international staff. Only the secretary-general will be entitled to the full range of privileges and immunities appropriate to a high official, as contemplated in Part Il of the Schedule to the 1950 Act.
Taking, next, the draft International Organisations Immunities and Privileges (World Health Organisation) Order, this is required to enable Her Majesty's Government to extend to representatives of associate members of the World Health Organisation those immunities and privileges already granted by Article 8 of the original Order to representatives of members of the Organisation and persons designated to serve on the executive board of the Organisation. This extension is required to enable Her Majesty's Government to accept and apply the revised Annexe VII to the Convention on Privileges and Immunities for Specialised Agencies.
There are at present only four associate members of the World Health Organisation. They are the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland, Spanish Morocco, French Morocco and Tunisia. In the past it has been the habit of associate members to send two representatives to a meeting and, therefore, the total number of persons likely to be involved, should the World Health Organisation come to London, would be eight. In the past, the World Health Organisation has never held a meeting in London, but it is possible that in the future it might hold a meeting in London and for that reason I ask that this Order be agreed to by the House.

463
The third Order deals with immunities and privileges for the Commission for Technical Co-operation in Africa South of the Sahara. This is merely a limited Order which confers on the Commission the legal capacities of a body corporate as required by Article 6 of the Agreement establishing the Commission. The Agreement was signed on 18th January, 1954, and was ratified by Her Majesty's Government on 12th April, 1954. It is expected to enter into force shortly—as soon as the six member Governments have deposited their instruments of ratification, or notices of approval. These countries are Belgium, France, the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland, the Union of South Africa, Portugal and the United Kingdom. Up till now four of these members have ratified.
The secretariat of the Commission will be established in London, where it is already functioning on a provisional basis. In this instance, the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas) will be glad to notice that no grant of immunity from jurisdiction or exemption from tax is involved, either for the Commission or its staff. The grant of legal capacities will merely confer on the Commission such attributes as the right to acquire property, to engage and employ staff, etc., in its own name.
Finally, I come to the Draft International Organisations (Immunities and Privileges of Western European Union) Order. I must make it absolutely plain that this Order, with the others, has been before the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments and the Committee has asked for an explanation of certain provisions in the Order. It is my duty to point out that fact to the House. I will furnish the explanation which has already been furnished to the Select Committee. There is an urgent need for the Order and I hope that, in all the circumstances, the House will approve it. However, if hon. Members do not wish to take that course I shall quite understand and I suggest that the debate on the Order should be adjourned, though that will cause inconvenience to certain members of the Western European Union. I therefore hope that, on reflection, the House will be satisfied with my explanation.
Western European Union was established by the Protocols to the Brussels
464
Treaties signed at Paris on 23rd October, 1954. It has its seat in London. It has taken the place of the Brussels Treaty Permanent Commission as the Organisation established for the purpose of the Brussels Treaty, as modified and completed by these Protocols.
Immunities and privileges were accorded with respect to the Brussels Treaty Permanent Commission, which also had its seat in London, by the Diplomatic Privileges (Brussels Treaty Permanent Commission) Order in Council of 1948, and the Diplomatic Privileges (Brussels Treaty Permanent Commission) (Amendment No. 2) Order of 1949. We require the present Order to enable Her Majesty's Government to ratify the Agreement on the Status of Western European Union, National Representatives and International Staff, which was signed in Paris on 11th May, 1955. The present Order will also revoke the previous Orders.
The provisions of the Agreement require that Western European Union shall have the legal capacity of a body corporate and that certain immunities and privileges shall be accorded in connection with the Organisation. They are broadly similar to those accorded in respect of other international organisations of which Her Majesty's Government are members, in particular, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.
The Order has this distinctive feature: it grants exemption from Income Tax to the officials of the Organisation with retrospective effect. If the Order is approved, they will have the privilege of exemption from Income Tax dated back to 6th May, 1955, the date of entry into force of the Protocols constituting the Organisation. There are precedents for this, because Article 12 of the 1954 Order dealing with the Customs Co-operation Council gave a similar exemption of Income Tax that was retrospective in character. So did Article 14 (b) of the Draft International Organisations (Immunities and Privileges of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation) Order, 1954, and the International Wheat Council Order, 1953.
The Act under which we operate contains no express provision either authorising or prohibiting Orders in Council made under it to be given retrospective effect. Therefore, the question to be determined is whether, on the true interpretation of the Act, it authorises Orders in

465
Council to be made with retrospective effect. I submit to the House that those three precedents, when the House gave exemption of taxation with retrospective effect, constitute a valid reason why this Order should be approved.
It was clearly contemplated that Her Majesty's Government should become a member of this Organisation before the date on which the Order is made. After all, the date of 6th May was well before 11th May when the Agreement was made. It would not have been possible to have brought in the Order before 11th May. For that reason, I hope that the House will allow the Order to be passed.
It will be realised that those members of the staff of Western European Union who were members of the Brussels Treaty Permanent Commission will, in fact, have been enjoying this exemption from tax up to the time when the Brussels Treaty Permanent Commission ceased to act. Therefore, for those who were members of the Brussels Treaty Permanent Commission, the effect of the Order will be to continue their privileges from the time when the Commission ceased to the next day when the Western European Union came into force.
The size of the secretariat of Western European Union in London will depend to some extent on the proportions and importance which may be assumed by its principal subsidiary body, the Arms Control Agency. I always try, when I explain diplomatic immunities and privileges, to give the House an idea of the number of persons affected by an Order. I am in the difficulty that the organisation of the Agency is still under discussion, and the size of the London secretariat cannot be defined at the moment. However, so far as can be foreseen, it is likely to comprise about fifty officials, of whom probably not more than four will receive the full range of privileges and immunities contemplated by Part II of the Schedule to the 1950 Act.
I hope that that explanation of the four Orders will satisfy the House that they are necessary, and that in the case of the Western European Union the House, notwithstanding the fact that an explanation has been asked for in respect of that Order, as it was in respect of the precedent Orders by the Select Committee, will still give approval to it.
6.50 p.m.
Sir Lynn Ungoed-Thomas: The draft Orders, taken as a whole, are ones which I should have thought ought to receive the approval of the House. As far as I am concerned, questions of detail are involved in the case of only two of them, and then there is the rather more important point of principle to which the right hon. Gentleman has just referred in connection with the Western European Union Order.
Speaking for myself, I have never felt any great difficulty about retrospective legislation as a matter of principle. It seems to me, and always has seemed to me, to be a matter which should be dealt with on its merits in each individual case. Therefore, speaking for myself, on the political aspect, I do not feel any difficulty about the retrospective provisions of the Western European Union Order.
I now come to the legal aspect of the provision. As the right hon. Gentleman has indicated, the Act under which the Order is made is in quite general terms, not providing expressly for or against a retrospective Order. That, surely, is his own risk. If the Government choose to bring before the House an Order for approval which is not within the terms of the Statute under which it is purported to be made, it is no use invoking the views of the Opposition about it. We can speak about it politically, saying whether we have any political objection or no political objection, but the validity of the Order is a matter which the courts will have to decide in an appropriate case. If the Government wish to take the risk of the Order not being within the Statute, that is a matter the brunt of which they will have to bear or may have to bear in due course. Therefore, I do not see that it is any part o' the function of the Opposition to oppose the Order merely upon the ground that a court of law may or may not hold that it is ultra vires the Statute under which it is made.
I have, however, some other questions arising from the Western European Union Order. They are short questions of detail which are merely instances illustrating the general approach which we have already indicated at some length in the course of the afternoon to the Orders in general.
Taking the Western European Union Order first, I see, in Article 2, which deals with immunity from suit and legal

467
process, the provision in the last sentence that
"No waiver of immunity shall be deemed to extend to any measure of execution or detention of property."
I appreciate that that is in the Order because it is in the Convention on which the Order is based, but I cannot see why there is a provision in the Order, or in the Convention upon which the Order is based, excluding waiver in those cases. It seems senseless and unjustifiable, and I should like to know what justification there can be for such a provision, if it can be furnished.
Article 8 contains what might be another ultra vires provision. We have there the provision that every representative shall enjoy immunity from arrest, and so on. In paragraph (iii) we have the provision that
"…'representative' shall be deemed to include …Advisers, Technical experts."
I understand that the paragraph is based upon Section 1 (2, b, i) of the International Organisations (Immunities and Privileges) Act, 1950. I should have thought that it was, at any rate, questionable whether advisers and technical experts come within the terms of the subsection.
The subsection refers to
"any persons who are representatives (whether of Governments or not) on any organ of the organisation or are members of any committee of the organisation or of an organ thereof."
I should hardly have thought that advisers and technical experts would have come within that description. I do not know whether the Law Officers have considered the point. Again, that is merely a matter of ultra vires the risk in respect of which, is, of course, on the Government. I very much doubt whether those persons come within the terms of the 1950 Statute at all.
Article 9 provides that clerical staff shall enjoy
"Inviolability for all papers and documents."
Surely that is a most extraordinarily and unnecessarily wide provision. It is not limited to official papers and documents, as are other parts of the Order. It is:
"Inviolability for all papers and documents."
In, for instance, Article 14 (b) the inviolability of papers and documents is limited to the work on which the person is engaged for the organisation. I should
468
have thought that a similar limitation should be applied in Article 9 (i, b).
I suppose the Article, which, so far as I can see, would cover British subjects as well as foreigners, would mean that all the papers of anybody on the staff of the organisation who was a British subject would have inviolability although the papers were not official ones. For instance, if there was a personal action against such a person, it seems that he would be entitled to claim privilege and not have to disclose such papers on discovery in the action. It is an extraordinarily wide provision. If I am right in my interpretation of the Article, it is utterly unjustifiable and is a bad instance of the kind of extravagant immunity about which we have been objecting during the course of the afternoon.
In Article 14 immunity is conferred upon
"… the Secretary-General of the Organisation, the Deputy Secretaries-General, the Director of the Armaments Control Agency and such other permanent officials of similar rank as may be specified by the Council of the Organisation…"
As I understand it, under the Act—I believe it is Section 1 (2,b, ii)—the number of the officers of the organisation has to be specified in the Order. That was provided in order to enable the House to consider whether the immunities should be conferred if the numbers upon whom they were to be conferred were unnecessarily large. In this Order we have no indication at all of the number of the officers of the organisation upon whom the immunity is to be conferred. The provision in the Order is such that it might well be ultra vires.
Later in the Article, in paragraph (c), there is conferred upon an officer who is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies,
"As from the sixth day of May, 1955, exemption from income tax in respect of emoluments received by him as an officer of the Organisation."
That is the one provision which, on the Second Reading of the German Conventions Bill, the right hon. Gentleman himself instanced as a case in which no immunity at all should be conferred, because as he said, it would be quite improper, or, to quote his words,
"It is quite right that every British person should pay his Income Tax and it is very

469
unfortunate when we find people evading that Income Tax."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th June, 1955; Vol. 542, c. 1060.]
But what the right hon. Gentleman is doing here is to provide that very immunity from Income Tax which he found so objectionable on principle when he spoke on the German Conventions Bill.
I do not see why this privilege should be conferred upon a British subject. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will be good enough to explain why this extraordinary course is taken in this Order. Again, in Article 16 (b) exemption from Income Tax is conferred on
"all officials of the Organisation of categories specified by the Council of the Organisation."
This apparently applies to United Kingdom and colonial citizens, and is open to precisely the same objection as Article 14 (c).
In his observations on the Bill which we have just been considering, the right hon. Gentleman made some play with the list of members whose names and the particulars about whom had to be published. In Article 17, provision is made for the publication of a list. But that provision does not extend to the officials who are specified in Article 16. I appreciate that the 1950 Act does not make it necessary for the names and particulars of officials specified in Article 16 to be published, but it does say that in their case they may be published.
I should say that it is precisely in the Article 16 category in which it is most necessary to publish the particulars, for this reason: the officials who are to have immunity under Article 16 are
"all officials of the Organisation of categories specified by the Council of the Organisation."
It is left entirely to the Council of the Organisation to say who shall have these advantages, whereas in other parts of the Order anybody can see from the Order the categories of persons who are to have the advantages. Under Article 16, they are the very persons about whom no information of any kind is available. I should have thought that they were the very people concerning whom the list should be published in accordance with Article 17.
470
I wish to ask one or two questions on the Maritime Consultative Organisation. The same question arises about advisers as arises in connection with the Western European Order, and the Article here is Article 8 (b, iii). Article 8 (b, iv) says:
"The provisions in the preceding paragraphs of this Article shall not confer any immunity or privilege on any person…who is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies."
This, again, is an instance where immunity is needed as much by a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies as by anybody who is not such a citizen, particularly, of course, with reference to the immunity from arrest which is provided in this Article.
In Article 9 of the Order, the Secretary-General is given complete immunity
"in respect of himself, his spouse and his children"
even though, as I understand it, he may be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies. Therefore, the exception of the United Kingdom and Colonies does not apply in his case. Though it is considered necessary in the case of the Secretary-General, no other officials of the Organisation has immunity even from
"legal process in respect of words spoken or written and things done or omitted to be done by them in the course of the performance of their official duties."
That seems to be a quite unjustifiable discrimination.
The same difficulty about Income Tax to which I referred on the Western European Order arises under Article 10 of this Order. These are all points of detail which illustrate our criticisms of the Bills and of the Orders which have been made in connection with these immunities and privileges. They are instances in which it appears to me that the immunity conferred is unjustified or goes further than is necessary, or, in certain cases affecting citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies, are instances where immunity which should be conferred is not, in fact, conferred.
7.6 p.m.
Mr. Turton: I will try to answer the hon. and learned Gentleman's questions on these Orders. He said that he was surprised at the Western European Union Order where, having granted immunity and the legal capacities of a body corporate to the Organisation
"no waver of immunity shall be deemed to extend to any measure of execution or detention of property."

471
He thought that a surprising thing, but I think that, on reflection, the hon. and learned Gentleman will come to the conclusion that it is not so surprising. This Organisation has to function, and it would be extremely difficult if it failed to function because all its goods were being detained or had execution levied upon them. Therefore, I do not think that that is an unreasonable immunity.
I was very interested in the point made by the hon. and learned Gentleman about Article 9. He asked why we were asking for inviolability for all papers and documents. Of course, that is only limited to the official clerical staff which is accompanying the representative when present in the United Kingdom for the discharge of its duties.
I agree that inviolability for all papers and documents does look a little bit wide, and I wondered why it was. Then I looked up Part IV, Article 9, of the General Agreement on Privileges and Immunities of the Council of Europe. I believe that was settled if not by the hon. and learned Gentleman himself when he was Solicitor-General, at any rate by his Government. Article 9 lays it down that inviolability for all papers and documents should be given to representatives at the Committee of Ministers. Therefore, if we have erred, we have merely followed the error of the hon. and learned Gentleman's own Government, and that is the reason why we are doing it.
Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: That is one of the things that I really complain about on these Orders. On reading them, it occurred to me that they seemed to be just lifted out of previous Conventions. As the Solicitor-General said the other day with great effect, these Conventions are very loosely worded. I quite agree with him. It really is a most sloppy method just to lift something from a Convention which is loosely worded and put it into an Order which should be precise, of legal effect and something which could be quoted in the courts and relied upon. This is an entirely different category of things, and these Orders should not be treated in this way.
Mr. Turton: I quite appreciate the broad picture which the hon. and learned Gentleman has presented, but we have to remember that we might have representatives attending the Council of
472
Europe who then go, the next day, to the Western European Union; and it is a little awkward if they have inviolability for all papers and documents upon the first day and are then stripped of that inviolability on the second day. In this case, therefore, because of the similarity between the Council of Europe and the Western European Union, it has been necessary to follow the example set by the right hon. and learned Gentleman's Government. I quite agree that it is very dangerous to take examples from previous legislation.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked why United Kingdom citizens are exempted from tax. The reason is that, broadly speaking, in most organisations of this character, that has been the case under the Diplomatic Privileges Act. In fact, those who are officials of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation enjoy this tax exemption. It would be very invidious if officials of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation enjoyed tax exemption but officials of the Western European Union, under the Brussels Treaty, should be denied that exemption. We also have to consider the fact that the Brussels Treaty Permanent Commission enjoyed those facilities. That is why we have these tax provisions.
I hope that for those reasons the right hon. and learned Gentleman, if not entirely satisfied, will realise that we have given considerable thought to the terms of these immunities and privileges, and will come to the conclusion that they are not unreasonable and should be approved.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the International Organisations (Immunities and Privileges of the Commission for Technical Co-operation in Africa South of the Sahara) Order, 1955, be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 14th June.
To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.
Resolved,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the International Organisations (Immunities and Privileges of the Inter-governmental Maritime Consultative Organisation) Order, 1955, be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 14th June.
To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.
Resolved,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the International Organisations (Immunities and Privileges of Western European Union) Order, 1955, be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 14th June.
To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.
Resolved,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the International Organisations (Immunities and Privileges of the World Health Organisation) (Amendment No. 2) Order, 1955, be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 14th June.— [Mr. Turton.]
To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.

DOUBLE TAXATION RELIEF
Resolved,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Isle of Man) Order, 1955, be made in the form of the Draft laid before this House on 9th June.
To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.
Resolved,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Pakistan) Order, 1955, be made in the form of the Draft laid before this House on 21st June.—[Mr. H. Brooke.]
To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.

ESTIMATES
Dame Irene Ward discharged from the Select Committee; Dame Florence Horsbrugh added.—[Mr. Redmayne.]

PUBLIC PETITIONS
Select Committee appointed to whom shall be referred all Petitions presented to the House, with the exception of such as are deposited in the Private Bill Office, such Committee to classify and prepare abstracts of the same in such form and manner as shall appear to them best suited to convey to the House all requisite information respecting their contents, and to report the same from time to time to the House; Reports of the Committee to set forth, in respect of each Petition, the number of signatures which are accompanied by addresses, and which are written on sheets headed in every case by the prayer of the Petition, or on the back of such sheets provided that on every sheet after the first the prayer may be reproduced in print or by other mechanical process; such Committee to have power to direct the printing in extenso of such Petitions, or of such parts of Petitions, as shall appear to require it:
Lieutenant-Colonel Bromley-Davenport, Mr. Deer, Mr. Duthie, Mr. David Griffiths, Mr. Hector Hughes, Dr. King, Mr. Lambert, Colonel Lancaster, Major Legge-Bourke, Commander Maitland, Mr. McGhee, Mr. John Morrison, Mr. Pargiter, Sir Victor Raikes, and Mr. Watkins.
Power to send for persons, papers and records:
Three to be the Quorum.—[Mr. Redmayne.]

ADJOURNMENT
Resolved, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Redmayne.]
Adjourned accordingly at a quarter past Seven o'clock.

ROYAL AIR FORCE
  Wide and Slow-moving Vehicles
  Wide and Slow-moving Vehicles
RAILWAYS
  Accident, Wormit Station
  Accident, Wormit Station
ROADS
  Improvement, Kirkfieldbankbrae
  Improvement, Kirkfieldbankbrae
  Schemes (Staff and Administrative Procedure)
  Schemes (Staff and Administrative Procedure)
CYPRUS
  School Teachers
  School Teachers
  Mr. John Campbell and Mr. Peter Kirby
  Mr. John Campbell and Mr. Peter Kirby
  Situation
  Situation
  Banned Publications (Proclamation)
  Banned Publications (Proclamation)
  Seditious Literature (Arrests)
  Seditious Literature (Arrests)
MALAYA
  Communist Terrorists' Offer (Rejection)
  Communist Terrorists' Offer (Rejection)
  Security Lighting and Electricity Supply
  Security Lighting and Electricity Supply
  MALTA (LONDON TALKS)
  MALTA (LONDON TALKS)
  EAST AFRICA (VISUAL ARTS)
  EAST AFRICA (VISUAL ARTS)
  COLONIAL FILM UNIT
  COLONIAL FILM UNIT
COLONIAL TERRITORIES
  Business Directorships
  Business Directorships
  Africa (Sale of Liquor)
  Africa (Sale of Liquor)
  GOLD COAST (POLITICAL DISPUTES, ASHANTI)
  GOLD COAST (POLITICAL DISPUTES, ASHANTI)
NYASALAND
  Kota Kota Producers' Co-operative Society
  Kota Kota Producers' Co-operative Society
  African Trust Land (Transfer to Public Land)
  African Trust Land (Transfer to Public Land)
  BRITISH GUIANA (EMERGENCY EXPENDITURE)
  BRITISH GUIANA (EMERGENCY EXPENDITURE)
ROYAL NAVY
  Personal Cases
  Personal Cases
  Royal Hospital School, Holbrook
  Royal Hospital School, Holbrook
  Children (Educational Facilities)
  Children (Educational Facilities)
TELEPHONE SERVICE
  Cardiff
  Cardiff
  Rhoos, Sully and Dinas-Powis
  Rhoos, Sully and Dinas-Powis
  Rural Areas, Wales
  Rural Areas, Wales
  Barry
  Barry
  Superintendent Methodist Minister, Huntingdonshire (Shared Line)
  Superintendent Methodist Minister, Huntingdonshire (Shared Line)
  Oadby Exchange
  Oadby Exchange
  Wembley
  Wembley
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Cost of Living
  Cost of Living
EDUCATION
  Senior Pupils
  Senior Pupils
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  National Health Service (Reciprocal Arrangements)
  National Health Service (Reciprocal Arrangements)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Children (Abandonment)
  Children (Abandonment)
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Monopolies Commission (Reports)
  Monopolies Commission (Reports)
BRITISH ARMY
  Personnel (Election Rights)
  Personnel (Election Rights)
  Annual Camps (Agricultural Workers)
  Annual Camps (Agricultural Workers)
Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The EARL OF DROGHEDA on the Woolsack.
Prayers
Several Lords—Took the Oath.

PROPOSED NEW OIL REFINERY
2.37 p.m.
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government if the proposal to permit the erection of another oil-refining plant at the entrance of Southampton Water on the opposite bank to that of Fawley is to be proceeded with.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (LORD MANCROFT): My Lords, I understand that no application for planning permission for the scheme to which the noble Lord refers in his Question has yet been made.
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, in thanking the noble Lord for his reply, I should like to assure him and Her Majesty's Government that shipping interests will be pleased at it, because at the present time there is considerable congestion, owing to the number of tankers lying in Southampton Water awaiting berths at Fawley. I hope that before any such scheme is approved a public inquiry will be held.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I am aware of the fact that this matter has raised some local controversy in the Southampton area. I can assure the noble Lord that, before a decision of this importance is finally taken, a public inquiry is almost bound to be held.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, I should like to remind your Lordships that we meet to-morrow at half past three o'clock.

URBAN CONGESTION AND GREEN BELT AREAS
2.39 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH rose to move to resolve, That full use should be made of the powers provided by the Town Development Act, 1952, in order to relieve congestion in overcrowded urban areas, and that at the same time green belts should be established to prevent the further sprawl of large cities into the countryside. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am sure all your Lordships will agree that the debate on housing which we had on Wednesday of last week was not only of great use in itself but, by good fortune, was also an extremely useful prelude to the debate we are to have to-day on the Motion standing on the Order Paper in my name. Last week's Motion concerned housing in quantity. To-day's Motion, although it has no direct reference to housing, is concerned entirely with the quality of housing. As your Lordships will have seen, my Motion specifies two objectives: first, to relieve congestion in overcrowded urban areas, and secondly, to establish green belts to prevent further urban sprawl.
I am perfectly certain there are no two general propositions which, in theory, could command more universal support in every quarter of the House, but unfortunately it is equally true, I think, that there are no two propositions which encounter greater difficulties in their practical execution. It is about some of these difficulties that I want to talk to your Lordships to-day. They are difficulties which have bedevilled town and country planning ever since town and country planning was first talked of. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, postulated 6 million houses in twenty years. I think the noble Lord was simply doing a little sum in simple arithmetic: twenty times 300,000 makes 6 million. I want to engage your Lordships' attention to-day on this question: where are these 6 million houses to be put?
The first point I want to emphasise is that in looking at the quality of housing, more particularly of a house which is to be a family home, the first consideration is, not the size but the environment, where the house is to be put. Of the applicants on housing lists for new accommodation, 90 per cent., we are told, want a house and garden. I believe that to be an under-statement, and that

349
the real figure is 95 per cent.; but I want to be moderate so I will put it at 90 per cent. The position has been exactly the same ever since I first had anything to do with housing, and that is now more than thirty years ago. People want a house and garden. And how right they are! They want somewhere to get out; they want somewhere private to get out; somewhere to play. They want somewhere where they can go to relieve family tension. I believe that as a family home, particularly where there are small children, a flat in a multi-storeyed block is, and always will be, a second best.
That is the positive side of what I want to say, but there is an important negative side, too. It is a point I have mentioned once or twice in your Lordships' House, and I have never failed to receive a sympathetic murmur of agreement. We want not only to get the best, but to prevent the worst; and the worst is what I may call the urbanisation of our population. It is a dreadful thing to have the population of the towns cut off from the country. London is a grand place to live in, if you can get out of it; it is not so good if you have to go a long tube journey merely to see a glimpse of the real countryside. Therefore, I say that our object must be to check the growth of the population in the urban agglomerations; and, better still, if we can, to reduce it. That means that we should encourage the creation of houses elsewhere—anti what I mean by "elsewhere" I shall come to in a moment.
I do not think I need assure your Lordships that this Motion is friendly to the Government. I would recall to your Lordships two recent statements by the Minister. He made a specific promise to what are called receiving local authorities, under the Town Development Act, 1952, to bear 50 per cent. of the cost of the water and sewerage services, and also to give further help, if necessary, after the first ten years. That was a valuable promise, because up to then the situation was slightly vague. Secondly, the Minister had a conference of local authorities in relation to green belts, and he has now invited the great local authorities to submit proposals for new green belts wherever appropriate. Those two speeches almost give me an assurance that this Motion is one which the Government will be able to accept. Therefore, it was all the more astonishing to read an article
350
in the Manchester Guardian of June 23 which indicated categorically that, in the opinion of the writer, what he called the "dispersal policy" had, been abandoned. I like the Manchester Guardian and I think it is a very good paper. I have been turning over in my mind why on earth that excellent paper should include that statement, which I believe is quite wrong. The only conclusion I can come to is that it was a deliberate little bit of wickedness on the part of the editor, designed to provoke the sort of answer which I hope my noble friend will give me to-day.
In this matter we have two acute problems. One is the controversy about the best use of land, and the other is the difficulty surrounding the control of industrial development; and both these difficulties are surrounded and bedevilled by bogy of finance. Last week several speakers were mildly controversial in a Party political way about housing. This time I do not anticipate any controversy of that sort, but we shall have controversy of a quite different kind, arising from the fears for the nation's food supply of those noble Lords who are particularly interested in agriculture. I want to say a word or two about that aspect. Last week the noble Lord, Lord Quibell, referred to a waste of 50,000 acres a year of good agricultural land.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Noble Lords say, "Hear, hear!", but that is a gross exaggeration, as I hope to be able to prove. I hope the noble Lords who think it is not will give figures to support their view. Let me give my side. In the first place, there is a little mystery here, because the Minister of Agriculture has issued two sets of figures covering almost the same period but showing a totally different result. There is a return for 1938–53, and on April 6 the noble Earl who speaks for the Ministry of Agriculture in this House gave another set of figures which are entirely different, do not think we need worry about the agricultural land lost during the war; most of it was then taken for proper objects and has since been restored. But the figure I would ask your Lordships to look at is that given by the noble Earl, Lord St. Aldwyn, on April 6, which shows an average annual loss of agricultural land since the war of 16,000 acres. I understand that the agricultural returns

351
give a figure for England and Wales for the years 1943–53 of 7,500 acres a year, compared to the 16,000 acres mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord St. Aldwyn. That is rather a big difference.
Whatever the loss may be, I should like to offer two answers to my agricultural friends. One was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Wise. At this stage, with your Lordships' permission, I will refer to an article which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, mentioned, called "How Subsidies Distort Housing Development." It was in Lloyds Bank Review, and I have taken the liberty of putting a few copies of the article in the Prince's Chamber for any noble Lords who would care to have them. I am going to read one short paragraph:
"The figures recently released by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government show that in 1952 the annual value of food from gardens, good and bad together at twelve houses an acre averaged £67 12s. 0d. an acre, whereas that from medium-quality farm land was about £44 an acre. (The garden produce is at retail prices and the farm produce at farm-gate prices; but this is a fair comparison, since on the former distribution costs are saved.)"
It goes on to say that on a housing estate of fewer than twelve houses an acre, the production of food will, of course, be greater. Those are authoritative figures. If they are challenged, I should like to have yet another inquiry, because we really want to get the facts. I should like to ask your Lordships to remember that even if the total produce from these little gardens is not greater than that from farm land—it may be more or it may be less—at any rate, it is in itself a big addition to the nation's food supply, and it is not fair to disregard it entirely as people do when they say that farm land is being used for housing and is going out of production.
I have another argument I wish to put to my agricultural friends. It is a financial one, but it has great bearing, I think, on this food argument, because—and this is going to be one of my main pleas to your Lordships—there are immense sums to be saved by building houses rather than flats. Later, I am going to ask the Minister to have another look at the housing subsidy scale with a view to revising it, because I think we can save millions of money. I believe the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, made the same
352
point. I suggest that the money we save could be put to excellent use by helping agriculture by way of farm improvement or land reclamation. I agree that 1,000 houses at 15 to the acre uses 50 acres more than 1,000 flats at 60 to the acre, but the additional subsidy, taking the flat site at £11,000 an acre, would be £1¼ million, capitalised. That works out at £.25,000 to save each acre of land. I think that is the point which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, made a week ago when talking about spending £25,000 on an agricultural acre, when some of us on this side did not quite understand him.
The attitude of my agricultural friends reminds me sometimes of that of an old Scot of my acquaintance. Two old Scots were having an argument—probably a theological argument—and one said to the other, "Man, it's no use talking to you; you're a bigot." "No," replied the other," I'm no' a bigot, but I'm a dour de'il to convince." And my agricultural friends are "dour de'ils" to convince. But let me say at once how right they are. I do not want them to be convinced except by facts, but I do want them to accept the facts, because I know they have the cause of good housing at heart just as much as I have. I believe they are doing harm by this exaggeration of the threatened loss of the food supply by housing. I think it all helps to stimulate the campaign for flat building. If the facts are not established, I wish the Minister of Agriculture would do something to establish them and then make them known among farmers. I suppose it would be rather too much to suggest to that lion of agriculture, the President of the National Farmers' Union, that he should send a circular out to his members on the subject; but that would do more than anything else to enlighten the farmers.
What I want to put before your Lordships is how much land we shall really need, because I think we must face it. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 193, col. 260]:
"We cannot go on from year to year, or look at this problem, as I am afraid we have done in the past, as a short-term one. The problem has to be regarded as one which will he with us for the whole of the next generation and longer, and we ought to deal with it on that basis."
I could not agree more. Consequently, I want to suggest to your Lordships that of this programme of 6 million houses in

353
twenty years, we should try and get 3 million dwellings in the big towns and, say, 50 per cent. outside. If we do that, it would provide for 150,000 houses a year for twenty years. If we take houses at ten to the acre—I have in mind a combination of local authority and private enterprise—we shall want for proper housing development, outside the big towns, 300,000 acres in twenty years. To that we must add land for factory development, open spaces, schools and so on—another 200,000 acres. Consequently, we need over twenty years 500,000 acres of open land. It need not be good farm land, but it has to be building land. I believe we can get it, and get it with this result. We have to face an immense financial burden in any case, but I believe that under that plan the financial burden will be lower and money can be saved which can be devoted to land reclamation and improvement. I believe millions of people can he happily rehoused and that, at the end of it, the home-grown food supply will be greater.
There is one danger to the green belt to which I want to make specific reference. There is no doubt at all that ribbon development is the greatest danger threatening our green belts now. There is undoubtedly a temptation to farmers and to landowners to sell frontage land which is easily developed. I am a landlord myself. I own agricultural land, and I am aware of the temptation. That is a thing which I think must be prevented by rigorous enforcement of the local authorities' planning powers. I think some local authorities are alive to that and others are not. It is very insidious. There is a little group of houses. Somebody comes along and wants to buy a piece of land for what is called "in-filling." They fill in four acres or six acres and so ribbon development goes on. So much for the green belt.
Now may I turn to industrial development? My first objective is the relief of congestion in the great urban agglomerations. I want to emphasise that congestion means congestion of people, of industry and of traffic—all three. To diminish the congestion in the great towns is just as important an objective before us now as is the building of houses. I hope the Government will accept that view. I think it is a new view but it is one which we have to face. If I may be statistical for a moment
354
—I apologise for the figures—I know that we have to allow for the growth of population, and I am told we must expect by and large over twenty years an increase of 200,000 a year. That makes 4 million additional people. My conclusion is that out of 6 million houses some 2 million will be required for new population and 4 million for rehousing and reduction of overcrowding. How many of these 6 million are to go other than in the big towns? I hope we shall get 50 per cent. out over the long term.
Of course, I know that in the early stages of slum clearance and the clearance of congestion we shall probably want to rehouse on the site a higher proportion than 50 per cent.; but I do not think the proportion ought to be more than 50 per cent. taken over twenty years. What we have to aim at, as I have already indicated, is the provision of the ideal family home within touch of the countryside, the sort of home from which the worker can get to his or her work on a bicycle—on a "push-bike," if your Lordships will forgive be expression. The danger we have to face is that more and more people will be pushed into these flats in the congested areas.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer has told us that there is no reason why we should not double our standard of living within twenty-five years. One of the most important things in a higher standard of living is more spacious living. In twenty-five years there will be more and more demand for more spacious living. I do not believe that in fifty years enough people will be found to live in these multi-storeyed flats in the big towns. That is why we must have dispersal of industry: we shall not get the people out of the towns unless we take the work out too. Fewer and fewer will tolerate crowded living. I venture to prophesy that there is a real danger of these multi-storeyed flats becoming derelict areas in fifty years, and then these millions and millions of subsidies will be utterly and absolutely wasted. I am not burking the size of this problem; I am asking your Lordshps to plan to take out of the existing towns 10 million people. We have twelve new Owns under construction, and the Minister has said that when they are completed they will house 500,000 people. Putting that into relationship with my 10 million, your

355
Lordships will see that the problem is one of colossal magnitude.
Here I should like to state a principle, the choice which I think is before us. We have to choose between two things. We have to go in either for dormitory development, cutting into our green belts, or for country town development well outside the large towns. London is a special case. For London we have to go forty miles out, but in the case of the other large towns one need not go so far. All one has to do is to establish a green belt and then go outside it. There will be a wide choice available for people who want to live in the country, but the green belts, once established, must be sacrosanct. That applies to the local authorities and to private enterprise as well. I should like to emphasise what a large part private enterprise has to play in this matter, if it will "play the game." But the proper location of industry is vital. That is what I meant when I said that I would say what "elsewhere" meant. "Elsewhere" with houses means where we can put industry.
The noble Lord, Lord Wise, made a very good speech last week. He made two points with which I am happy to find I entirely agree. He said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 193, col. 279]:
"The only satisfaction that we can obtain is that, as a nation, by our efforts, we shall fully cater for the needs of the people; and we must build according to those needs."
That is what I am saying. I am also happy to read his further remark (col. 280):
"…there are many thousands of acres of land in this country which could be brought back into cultivation in order to counteract the loss of agricultural land which it may be necessary to acquire for housing purposes."
That will be some consolation to my agricultural friends whom I alarm by my demand for 500,000 acres. The noble Lord, Lord Wise, went on however, to say something about which I am not quite so sure. He said (col. 281):
"We should strive not to bring to these small country places industrialisation, or matters of that sort, however attractive it may be from the point of view of reduction of rates …"
I am far from saying that rural areas have not to be preserved and protected —they have. It is not everywhere that we should want industry, but we must be prepared to get the smaller places to take industry. That will be an urgent job for
356
all the local authorities. Many small towns will benefit by having industry.
There is one small point that the Minister could answer. Is there perhaps not some duplication of the direction of the location of industry? The Ministry of Housing and Local Government look after housing and town planning. The Board of Trade are specifically concerned with the prevention of unemployment. The Ministry of Supply are specifically concerned with certain aspects of defence. It may well be that the Ministry of Labour also come into the matter. I do not suggest that the Ministry of Housing and Local Government should take over the whole of the direction of the location of industry—clearly, they do not know enough about industry. The Board of Trade know about industry, and what I am asking is: what is there in the way of co-ordination? Is there proper, close inter-departmental co-ordination in this matter of the location of industry? Moreover, I am rather afraid that there will be a necessity for some greater restrictive powers. Factories can still expand by 5,000 square feet without board of Trade consent. Another thing which is very dangerous is that there is no Board of Trade control over the location of new premises for office and commercial buildings. I think there ought to be. It may well be that there should be greater power. I am sure that in many cases where factories move out of the towns it would be possible, if the proper steps were taken, to prevent industry from returning to the old site. That might mean the payment of some compensation, but I am sure that could be found by building fewer of these ridiculously high-subsidy flats. We want a real, concentrated effort to get industry out. I hope the Minister will say that he regards that as a national objective, as important as building houses. We have to get all the local authorities in on that, and we have to educate public opinion.
Now a few more words about finance. As regards these flats on expensive sites, most people think that a higher subsidy is paid on an expensive site to meet the land cost. That is an utter and entire fallacy and delusion. Let me give your Lordships an example. On an acre that costs £10,000, the land cost of fifty flats is £200. On an acre that costs £3,000,

357
the land cost of fifteen houses, with gardens, is exactly the same—£200. The real reason for these colossal subsidies is higher building costs. They have risen greatly since the war, and the building costs now run to three and four times the site cost. That is why the local authorities need to have these tremendously high subsidies. It has the economic result of keeping these people in the congested areas because they have to be kept near their work. That distorts the ordinary economic development of cities. The economic development is that if art industry finds it uneconomic, it moves out. It may move to the periphery or it may move right out. These subsidies are keeping people there and are preventing that normal exodus of industry.
What is the result in relation to what the nation should get and what it pays for its housing bill? A flat of 750 square feet often costs over £3,000—seldom less than £2,500. The normal three-bedroomed 850 square feet house costs £1,500. There is actually an extra cost in subsidy of over £1,300. That is the capitalised value; that is not money that is actually paid out. I am being very moderate. I am taking the capitalised present value of the subsidies spread over sixty years. If I gave your Lordships the actual money, paid out over sixty years, the figure in respect of the flat would be £5,205 and in respect of the house would be £1,764, and the difference would be not £1,300 but £3,441 more for every one of the flats compared to the house, which is what the people really want. Will the Minister have a look at that subsidy scale?
I should like to suggest two principles by which the subsidy should be guided. First of all, the subsidy should be related to the size of the dwelling; secondly, there should be a limit of the expensive site subsidy to the cost of the land and not to the cost of the building. In passing, I may say that both in Northern Ireland and in Scotland the subsidy varies with the number of rooms. The savings to be made are colossal. I apologise for inflicting statistics on your Lordships, but your Lordships may like to see them in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I think this one is right: 50,000 people housed in 16,000 lilt flats, with land at £10,000 to £12,000 an acre, at 40 to the acre, cost £31 million in subsidies. Under a mixed development, with 25,000 people in new towns, there is a £5 million subsidy; and with
358
25,000 people on the same expensive sites but at 20 to the acre the subsidy is £9 million. That makes £14 million as against £31 million, a saving of £17 million.
My Lords, I must make one brief reference to the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, who talked of the burden of interest, a matter in regard to which I sympathise with him. How nice it would be if the local authorities could get, I am not sure if he said "money for nothing," but money for half-rate interest or something of that sort. At any rate, it sounded to me very much like what I believe is called "social credit." He did not mention social credit, but the long and short of it is that Lord Greenhill definitely wanted something out of nothing. There is no historical record of that being successfully clone since the portentous event which is recorded in the first two verses of the first chapter of Genesis.
May I make one other comment on the speech of my noble friend, Lord Munster? I thought he was unduly pessimistic about the finance of the new towns. He summed it up by saying that there are two views. I agree that there are two views, but I believe one is right and the other is wrong. I should like my noble friend to have another look at that matter. The published figures show that for 1954–55 at least three of the new towns will show a surplus; the aggregate accounts of the whole of the twelve to March, 1954, show a deficiency of only £234,000 for the year. Moreover, six of the towns would have had a revenue surplus if interest during construction had been charged to capital. And those calculations take no account of the economic disadvantages of central congestion. We know that central congestion means the building of uneconomic tubes and all the other uneconomic features with which we are now familiar.
I know I am speaking for too long a time but I must say a word about the importance of local authorities. All the local authorities, big and small, have a great part to play in this matter; and so, too, have the county councils, who have to supply money. I would stress that here there is an opportunity for urban district councils to make a profitable investment in overspill. I was delighted to read a speech by Mr. Deedes, who is the Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. Only a day o two ago he stressed

359
that point in a most helpful speech. The machinery is the New Towns Act, 1946, and the Town Development Act, 1952. I hope the Minister will tell us something about the respective working of each of those Acts. I pay my tribute to the changed attitude of the great local authorities. There really has been a change of heart. In the old days there was an idea that population, prestige and rateable value all went together; that it was a good thing to retain your population and have a high rateable value. Nowadays, we realise the disadvantages of the congestion which that causes.
I believe that the great local authorities—I speak with certainty of the L.C.C., of Birmingham and of Glasgow—realise that now and are making progress in this great effort to get industry and population out. I have no doubt that thoughts of rateable value still lurk in the minds of some municipal treasurers and rating authorities; but they are a diminishing band, and I hope that the Minister will do all he can to encourage the idea that sound finance is associated with dispersal. Manchester, too, has as fine a record in housing as any of our great cities, but I believe that in this matter of overspill they are finding it difficult to get a move on. I think they have particular difficulty and that they are worried about the machinery. I am sure that my friends in Manchester will make a tremendous effort to be worthy, in these new developments, of their very great past.
I want your Lordships to believe that this present moment is a turning point. My recollection of this matter goes back thirty-five years, when Lloyd George spoke of "a land fit for heroes to live in." When we came home from the war in 1919, many of us for the first time made the discovery that housing conditions in this country were very bad. It was a great discovery; it was a great shock. Now we have to make a new discovery. It is this: in England and Wales 1¾million dwellings have been built since the war, and of that number 65,000 are drawing a high flat subsidy—that is, 3¾ per cent. The Ministry of Housing have told me that last year 308,000 dwellings were built in England and Wales, and of these 45,000 were flats—that is 15 per cent. The discovery and the danger with which we are faced
360
is that the great mass of new housing that we know we are going to create will add to the congestion instead of diminishing it.
We have to admit that ever since 1919 many houses have been built in what ought to have been green belts. I freely confess that thirty years ago, when I was "mad keen" to get houses built anywhere and anyhow, I thought the town and country planners were a "something" nuisance—they interfered with my wanting to put my houses where it was easy to put them. I now realise that they were wise and that in the last thirty years we have, from the point of view I am expressing to-day, lost a great opportunity. In fact, instead of "a turning point" I feel I am entitled to use a more vivid word which means the same thing—that is, "crisis." It is a crisis, and—my Lords—it is later than we think. That is the new discovery of which I believe most people are quite unaware. Compared with thirty years ago, the stakes we are now playing for are much higher. We have the certainty that the houses will be built, and the gulf between the worst and the best is terrific. We have a wonderful opportunity. But I think that to-day we stand in imminent peril. I suppose that the two domestic issues which are most in the public mind to-day are industrial relations and how to maintain the purchasing power of the £. I believe that the quality of the homes of future generations transcends both those questions in importance. I hope that the Minister and the House will accept the Motion. I should like it to be regarded as a vote of confidence in the Minister and a message of encouragement to all the local authorities, great and small.
Moved to resolve, That full use should be made of the powers provided by the Town Development Act. 1952, in order to relieve congestion in overcrowded urban areas, and that at the same time green belts should be established to prevent the further sprawl of large cities into the countryside.—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
3.21 p.m.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, does not wish to speak at this juncture, though I hope he may be persuaded to do so later. Therefore it falls to me to continue the debate. My noble friend

361
Lord Balfour of Burleigh has given us one of his customary forthright and lucid speeches, with a great deal of which I find myself in agreement and—what is much more important—with a great deal of which the County Councils Association would agree. Nevertheless, when appeals for economy are made, whilst I am all for the principle, I sometimes hope that the economy will not be applied too much to my own circumstances. I hope that this tremendous expansion of country towns and so on will not take place at a greatly accelerated rate in the particular area in which I live, and I believe that I have some good reasons, for taking that apparently rather selfish attitude.
In the first place, many of our towns in the South-East are themselves expanding. The population of one quite small town grew by 1,000 last year, and growth seems to be continuing at an average rate of something like 4½ per cent. per annum. I know land on the outskirts of Brighton which in 1947 was valued as open downland at £50 an acre. Today that same land is changing hands at about £1,000 an acre. There is plenty of other evidence that the drift into the South-East of England, which was in progress before the war, is now continuing as fast as ever it was. That process seems to be eating up our amenities and agricultural land quite fast enough. I do not intend to challenge my noble friend's statistics on agricultural land. If the Ministry of Agriculture produce two conflicting sets of statistics on this matter, who am I to put in a third? But it seems to me that there must be some qualification to this argument that house-building in fact expands agricultural production. I thought that in this country we needed more meat and more cereals, neither of which seems to be particularly adaptable to production in somebody's back garden.
Reverting to this question of immigration outside the Town Development Act, I would say that immigrants to my own county of Sussex seem to be of two types: there are those who come to live in Sussex on retirement, and there are the office workers who like to live in the country and who go to London every day for their work. But there is a certain element of industrial immigration, some of it officially sponsored by Crawley New Town Corporation, and some of it by
362
others acting on their own initiative. I would say, in passing, that the railways-are already becoming extremely congested at peak hours. Most of the immigrants live in quite small houses, probably of between £20 and £30 annual value, and, according to our calculations, probably taking out of our rate fund more than they put in.
We live in a world of format, and under the formula of the equalisation grant we get nothing; and we shall not get anything unless our population expands very greatly. But the consequence of the general tendency of this immigration is to put up our rates, and I believe I am right in saying that Crawley New Town, with all the science and skill put into it, has already put up the rates of the West Sussex County Council by about 1s. I do not see, therefore, how we can be expected to welcome any approach to greatly increasing the rate of immigration under the Town Development Act, particularly as we should not be likely to receive much financial assistance. The County Councils Association are at present examining the question of why the Town. Development Act is not working better and are having various conversations with the Ministry. They have not yet reached any very definite conclusions but your Lordships will remember the lines:
"In matters of commerce the fault of the Dutch
Is offering too little and asking too much."
I think that the receiving authorities will be found to be taking that attitude to the exporting authorities and to the Ministry.
My noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh referred to the great cost of flat building. I ant not qualified to comment upon that. He did not, I think, touch on the ancillary expenses that go with housing in new areas—roads, sewers and, above all, schools. I hope that somehow it may be possible to get these various statistics compared, but I do not know whether the costs are quite so disparate as they are made out to be on Mr. Osborn's article. Nor are we entirely convinced that if we accommodate greatly increased population from London that will do a great deal of good. It sometimes seems to me that we are engaged in a gigantic game of merry-go-round.: that as fast as population comes out of London, new population arrives there;

363
and that we, in these neighbouring counties, could go on building almost indefinitely without ever satisfying the demand. There does not seem to be any document which sheds light on what is happening.
I was reading the somewhat large document, Report of the Development Corporations of the New Towns. I am a great believer in the new towns, and I believe that it was a great act of statesmanship to start them. They were originally conceived, however, as my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh has emphasised, as a measure to decongest the great cities, and in this document which describes the growth of all these different new towns I can find very little about the real effect that the building of the new towns is actually having on the decongestion of London and the other great towns. Is there any diminution in the numbers of industries in London? I have heard it said that as fast as industries leave London for the new towns and elsewhere, other industries come in and take their place. Is there any diminution in the numbers of offices in the Metropolitan area? Certainly it does not appear to be so, if one can judge by the evidence of one's eyes; and I now see that the erection of skyscrapers is contemplated for the accommodation of office workers in the City of London. Certainly there does not seem to be very much diminution in the traffic of London.
I am sure that something has been done to reduce the residential population in certain central areas in London—one can tell that from the census figures and from the fact that certain Parliamentary constituencies in the centre of London have been abolished. But is there any evidence at all that the population—at any rate during the day—of the Greater London area is any less now than it was, say, in 1947? People surely follow the movements of sources of employment, and unless new sources are prevented from arising within the central area, though we may increase the traffic, we shall have done very little to tackle the real problem.
I think that bears out what my noble friend, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, said in regard to this matter. There does not seem to be any element of national planning, or, at least, an element that is intelligible to the world at large, though I have no doubt that certain proposals
364
made by particular local authorities are encouraged or discouraged, as the case may be, according to whether they fit in with the Ministry's views or not. I do not think there is any published document showing the overall picture of what the Ministry of Housing and Local Government would like to see. We in Sussex are fortunate in having living among us some very eminent citizens, members of the Government. We have the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary, the Lord Chancellor, I think, and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. If we are told by a Government containing all these eminent people that we ought to take much larger numbers of the population from London, of course we shall pay great heed: but at the present moment we are far from being convinced that we should be helping to solve the problem which has been so eloquently described by my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh.
There is, however, one other side of the picture. There are a few places which we should like to see further developed in our own interests, and such development might well fit in, though to a limited extent, with the objects which my noble friend who moved the Motion has in view. But we find great difficulty in doing this, chiefly, I think, because of the limitations hitherto placed on capital investment. At the risk of appearing a little parochial, I should like to give your Lordships a particular instance from my own knowledge. The House may know of a small port in Sussex called Newhaven. There, for a variety of local reasons, we should like to see more building, more industry and a busier port. Our ideas on these matters are quite modest, but we should like to have a few more industries, either from London or, possibly, from one of the overcrowded county boroughs nearby. Possibly there are many other places in the country at which similar proposals might be put in force which would help in the decongestion. For the purpose of getting any constructive planning going, we have to deal first (the noble Lord mentioned this) with the Board of Trade to get permission for the industries to establish themselves. Secondly, we have to deal with the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, for housing locations and for loan sanctions for schemes of water and sewerage. Thirdly, we have to deal with the Ministry of Transport for

365
road improvements; and, fourthly, we have to consult the Transport Commission in regard to port facilities.
It is to-clay, I believe, fairly easy to get a decision from the Board of Trade. Though at one time they wished to judge every case on its merits, I think they are now ready to take a long-term point of view. The Ministry of Housing and Local Government are always extremely sympathetic, but, no doubt because of the financial limitation on capital schemes, their sanctions for loans seem to take an extraordinarily long time. On any matter of road improvement we have to deal with the Ministry of Transport, and I think, frankly, they are the most difficult Ministry of all. I have no doubt that that again it is largely due to finance—roads demand the expenditure of a great deal of money. But I think it is also, in part, due to the organisation of the Ministry, and to the fact that expenditure on road maintenance comes under quite a different heading from expenditure on road improvements. In these days the word "maintenance" covers quite a lot: apparently you can double the size of your roads, have dual-carriageways, round abouts and so forth. You can construct something like a race track leading up to your towns, but when it comes to matters like the enlargement of a bridge or a small diversion of a new road—something which may be quite vital to your plan — that comes under an entirely different heading, with an entirely different series of priorities and no information whatever is available as to when work of that kind could be contemplated. This attitude may be intelligible but, equally, it renders constructive planning extraordinarily difficult. The British Transport Commission were for a long time unable to answer any question about port facilities, though since the major programme of works was authorised by the Government some months ago they have made some specific plans for Newhaven which have been very much welcomed by the inhabitants. But again I think their implementation may depend to some extent on the road programme.
I agree with Lord Balfour of Burleigh that there seems to be no method of co-ordinating the work of different Ministries. On top of this, there is always the possibility of some body like the Electricity Commissioners, or one of the Services, coming in with a new proposal,
366
often made at very short notice, which may have a revolutionary effect on plans. The County Councils Association, in their conversations with the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, will no doubt deal with a number of these problems, in addition to the problem of finance but at present, the impression one gets is that long-term planning is all right for local authorities but quite impossible for Government Departments.
To summarise, I would say that, though the idea of a body of planners sitting in. Whitehall and distributing the population, on a national basis may appear superficially attractive—and I agree that it has many points to commend it—it is unlikely to prevail against the wishes of the receiving authorities. The potential receiving authorities are capable of being persuaded, particularly if the persuasion is accompanied by an adequate financial offer. But money is not the only thing. We are seriously bothered by the idea of the continuing drift to the South-East we do not want to become a constantly expanding dormitory suburb for London, and we have to be convinced that an accelerated rate of immigration really is in the national interest. But where we do, in our own interests, want to expand, we could wish that it were a little easier for us to do so.
3.40 p.m.
LORD SALTER: My Lords, I shall be very grateful if you will allow me a few minutes of your time, not to make a speech (I had not intended to speak at all to-day) but to make a few comments upon the two speeches which we have heard. All of us, I am sure, have listened to the opening speeches with great interest, and so far as I am concerned it has been with a large measure of agreement. I suppose that everyone in your Lordships' House desires to relieve urban congestion and that the Government should take positive action to help this relief. But upon what principle? Probably most of us would agree that we certainly do not want to encourage more and more distant dormitory towns. There are, of course, dormitory towns; and there must he daily commuting: we cannot stop it. But surely we want to aim our policy at restricting and reducing, rather than at extending, this. More and more distant dormitories are time-consuming, life-consuming, soul-destroying factors in our economy. In

367
addition to the disadvantages to the individual they will also, probably, if allowed to continue and expand, destroy any hope of anything like a green belt policy. In the second place, while relieving some housing congestion in the centre, they add immensely to the general traffic congestion problem, which is also a very serious problem before the country.
What we really desire to do is not to increase by Government policy the tendency to sleep out of town and conic in to the places where we earn our living at congested centres, but, so far as possible, to disperse the earning centres themselves. That means the encouraging of the settlement of industries outside the great urban areas. I entirely agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, said as against another noble Lord whom he quoted as expressing a contrary opinion. It is no use thinking that we can relieve the congestion in urban centres by encouraging towns outside, to be inhabited by pensioners and rentiers. They must be towns that are self-supporting economic units. Except where a locality has a special advantage, such as an attractive holiday resort or something of that kind, new development really means attracting industries as the basic magnet and compelling force. They may be light industries, but, by and large, they must be industries. Once we have them, they attract population, and will support a population immensely greater than the number of workers in the industries themselves, because there will be all the subsidiary forms of earning, in shops and the rest, which are based on that foundation. But we must have that foundation. If we are to be successful in this policy of dispersal, we must definitely contemplate attracting industries, in some way or another, to the new towns, or to the older towns under the 1952 Act designed to expand them.
In this connection, I would venture to ask your Lordships to turn your attention to one point that was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh—that is, the relation between subsidy policy and the policy of trying to secure relief of urban congestion. I am certainly not going to make any adverse criticism of the subsidisation of housing in itself, but I think that differentially greater subsidies applied to building upon especially expensive sites need reconsideration. There
368
perhaps I do not agree entirely with the noble Lord. He said, and so far I would agree with him, that it is uneconomic to give much greater subsidies to flats in high buildings than to houses. Perhaps, But he went on, if I understood him aright, to say that he would like a differential subsidy to be related to the expensiveness of the site. But what does that mean? If the Government took no hand in this at all and left everything to the play of economic forces, what would happen would be that a congested area of land would become expensive for housing and the wages in one form or another of the people engaged in those industries in the congested area would have to be increased. Then there would be a perfectly natural inducement to prospective industrialists to plant their industries in the country, rather than near the centre of great and expensive towns like London. But what happens in fact is that not only do the Government, rightly, give subsidies for housing, but they give a differentially high subsidy to those built upon expensive land. That is to say, by their own deliberate action, though it is not intended for this purpose, the Government cancel what would otherwise be a perfectly normal economic force tending to take industry away from urban centres.
I suggest that that policy ought to be reconsidered. One of the principal criticisms I have of planning and of planning control, as it has in fact been practised, is that too often planning is not really planning in the true sense at all —that is to say, a general plan based upon a balanced policy; it is too often the pursuit of a particular economic purpose without regard to its secondary consequences. It has been for many years the policy of successive Governments, of whatever political complexion, to pursue two purposes: one, to assist in the decentralisation, the dispersal of the industrial life of the country to relieve urban congestion, and the other, to assist the provision of houses by means of subsidies. But these two policies have been pursued separately and without regard to the one point at which they seem to me to conflict—namely, in giving differentially high subsidies for houses that are built on expensive sites. This means the cancellation of the normal and natural economic force that would otherwise tend to help the other policy of the Government of

369
dispersal and decentralisation. I venture to put these two or three considerations before your Lordships at this stage in the debate.
3.48 p.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I think we are all delighted to find that the enthusiasm of the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, for better housing, and his great knowledge of the housing problem, are unabated after thirty years. Although I do not regret for a moment that he inaugurated this debate, it is a sad reflection on the past improvement in our social conditions that the noble Lord has had to address his industry and enthusiasm to the same problem after this lapse of time. Let me say at this stage that I shall be speaking from the point of view of London and not from that of the Party I represent. I do not mean that there is any difference, far less any conflict, between the views of my Party and the policy of London, but if anyone were to speak from the standpoint of the Party I represent, then clearly my noble friend Lord Silkin, who has been Minister of Town and Country Planning, is much better qualified to do so than I am.
I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, that effective action to carry out the provisions of the Town Development Act is most urgently required. The noble Lord said, rightly, that nowadays there is no alternative method of relieving overcrowding in our great conurbations and finding new homes and work for their surplus population. He has stressed the advantages to all local authorities concerned: to the small authorities in the countryside, for whom the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, was speaking—although I do not think he shared Lord Balfour's point of view—and also to the large exporting authorities in the urban areas. The noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, might have said—although he did not—that small town expansion is like the quality of mercy as described by learned counsel in The Merchant of Venice:
"…it is twice blest;
It blesseth him that gives and him that takes."
I should like to deal with the position of London, because I believe I can do it without being parochial. It illustrates feel, the need for speedy action. Nowhere else in the country is the problem of congestion so acute. London has a larger overspill in numbers than any of
370
our other great cities., larger even than that of Birmingham or Glasgow, and the hardship of unsatisfactory housing conditions is therefore even more widespread. At the same time, the dispersal of London's population and its settlement in less crowded areas outside London is typical of the difficulties and problems confronting all our large conurbations. The Minister of Housing and Local Government takes the view that the surplus population of the London County Council area —that is to say, those who cannot be rehoused inside the county—is about 280,000 persons. Before I go further, I should like to say that this is certainly a minimum figure, and it is not a figure with which the London County Council have been in agreement. I hope that the Government are right and that the Council are wrong. I say that now, because it may well be that even when these people have been settled elsewhere there will still be an acute problem in London. These are the people for whom homes and work have to be found outside London. They include virtually the whole of the London County Council waiting list of 160,000 applicants for better accommodation; and I would remind your Lordships (I mentioned this last week, and I hesitate to repeat myself, but I think it is of some importance) that atleast 50,000 of the, applicants on this waiting list are people who are in urgent need of rehousing. Most of whom have been waiting for a long period of time.
I do not think it is generally realised outside London that, owing to the growing shortage of central sites, and the difficulties, to which several noble Lords have alluded, of using these central sites for housing development, we can rehouse in London only families dispersed by slum clearance and other essential redevelopment. What, then, is the prospect of relief for the vast majority of Londoners in the near future? Clearly they would have to pull up their roots in London and learn a new loyalty and different way of life elsewhere, and that in itself is a difficult psychological problem. But that clearly can be overcome. It has been calculated that the existing council estates in the suburbs will take about 70,000 persons. Going a little further outside, the new towns are expected to take another 75,000 persons. This leaves a balance of at least 135,000 persons who

371
must go beyond the suburbs and beyond the new towns into an area between fifty and one hundred miles from London. These are the people for whom accommodation is being sought and work is being looked for in these small country towns. I think these figures show the enormous size of the contributions which these small towns must be willing to make if London is not always to be as overcrowded and underhoused as it is at the present time.
VISCOUNT GAGE: Would the noble Earl tell me whether the housing list to which he has referred shows any signs of getting smaller, even when steps have been taken to reduce it?
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I am glad the noble Viscount has asked me that question. I can tell him—because I saw the figures this morning, as a matter of fact—that the housing list has decreased by 5.000 in the last six months. It is growing smaller, but at a very slow rate, as the noble Viscount can judge.
Therefore, what we are most anxious to know from the Government is whether the Minister is going to work the 1952 Act in a wholehearted way. This Act will only work, and can only work, if the Government are determined to put their authority behind it. There has been a considerable period of delay and inaction since the Act was passed, but the Minister's statement on April 25, which was a most encouraging and helpful statement, may indicate a change of attitude. If that is the case and the Minister now means to press forward with the Act, then clearly no one will wish to recriminate about the past. I suggest to the Government that the best way of proving their good intentions will be to take other measures of prompt, further action, which are required if this development is to be carried out. The financial encouragement which has been given to the receiving authorities as a result of the Ministerial statement of April is indeed a useful step forward, but it will not take us the whole way by any means: other changes of policy and administration are no less essential if this work is to proceed.
What I should like to ask the Government (and I have given notice of these questions) is what their intentions are, and whether they will make certain changes in policy and administration which in
372
London we regard as being vital, and certainly vital to any quick or really satisfactory progress in the dispersal of our population and the growth of these small towns in the neighbourhood. In the first place, I should like to ask the Government whether they will give a lead to the authorities in the countryside. Are they willing to give up their attitude of Olympian detachment and exercise the leadership which I believe public opinion expects at the present moment? This, I believe, is particularly important for the breaking down of what I might call political prejudice. This whole matter of town expansion is clearly not a Party problem in any sense of the word, and I hope it never will be. At the same time, we must recognise that it cannot take place without the agreement of a number of authorities that often differ in their political outlook. The influence of the Government clearly would be most valuable in preventing these differences from becoming any sort of obstacle to agreement. If the Minister is prepared to accept, in principle, the need for leadership, then would he, in consultation with the exporting authorities, with the urban authorities, encourage towns which are considering expansion to take a favourable decision, and planning authorities in their areas to give their blessing to schemes of town expansion? For example, could not the Minister write a personal letter—because a personal letter always carries a great deal of weight—to all the authorities concerned?
My second point is this. One of the big difficulties about increasing the populations of these small towns has already been alluded to by several noble Lords, and it is the difficulty of inducing new industry to go in and provide work for the incoming inhabitants. I thought the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Salter, was well justified, if only because he laid particular emphasis on the absolute need for getting new industry and new firms to go into these places. This difficulty has been aggravated by a conflict of policy between the Board of Trade and the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. I believe both the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, and the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, said that there had been a lack of co-ordination between Government Departments. I wish I could feel that that was all. In my view, it is far worse than that, and there has been

373
not only lack of co-ordination but the pursuit of conflicting policies. The Ministry of Housing and Local Government have obviously wanted firms to go into the expanded towns, because that is an essential condition of expansion; but the Board of Trade have tended to turn down applications from the industrial firms because of the prior claim of the development areas.
Now we have all had experience of such conflicts of policy between Government Departments, and there is machinery in every Government to resolve them. In the last resort, of course, the matter has to come before the Cabinet. In this case, as the prior claim upon industry to go into the development areas, which., as your Lordships remember, were originally called the depressed areas, and go back to the days of mass unemployment, is really a relic of the conditions of those days, I hope the Government will decide that expanding towns are at least equally important—that is to say, they should be given the same priority; I am not asking for a higher priority—as development areas. If the Government will agree to this, then I should think it would be possible to say that, as a general rule, when a firm applied to go to an expanded town the Board of Trade would give an industrial development certificate. I do not say it would be given every time firms wanted to go anywhere else, but I should have thought that it might be adopted as a general rule for the guidance of the Board of Trade. If this were done, it would make an immense difference to the possibility of proceeding with the building and development of these small towns quickly, without further delay. These are the two most important changes which we should like to see. We should like to see vigorous support of town expansion by the Government, and a higher priority for new industry in the expanded towns. There are other things of rather lesser importance which the Government could and should do to help this policy forward.
Another difficulty experienced by local authorities is that sites for building a town expansion in a small town sometimes vanish while the negotiations are going on. This clearly cuts the ground from under the feet of the negotiating authorities. Therefore, what I should like to ask the Government is whether they would instruct the planning authori-
374
ties to refuse permission for the sale of land on the grounds that negotiations are proceeding—that is to say, would temporarily refuse permission for dealings in land in a specific area while the negotiations between the authorities are going on. Another difficulty about effecting this dispersal from the urban areas and getting the people right outside is, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, pointed out, that industry is apt to come back into the vacated premises of firms who have moved out. Of course, in theory this can be stopped by a local authority if it can afford to buy the empty premises. But the cost is usually high, and often too high for the local rates to bear. What. I should like to ask the Government is whether they will consider increasing the grant to local authorities for this purpose. I think there is a strong case for it, because, after all, the policy of dispersal is a national policy:, it is primarily a national responsibility; therefore there is a special case for a grant of the same order as that paid to local authorities for other duties of national importance, such as education.
My last two questions are limited entirely to London, which in this respect is different from the other great towns which are trying to get rid of their surplus population. May I just put the London position quite briefly? If London fails to secure the consent of a sufficient number of receiving authorities to take an overspill of 150,000 persons or slightly less, what other alternative will the Government suggest that London should try? If there is no other alternative, then will the Government approve, in principle at any rate, that another new town should be started in the vicinity of London, catering mainly for the county of London area; and, in that event, will the Ministry be willing to discuss this possibility? As your Lordships are aware, the existing new towns provide for the whole area of Greater London and cannot, therefore, absorb more than a certain proportion of the surplus from the central area. It would be essential to find another site for a new town, and I hasten to point out here, as the noble Viscount, Lord Hudson, will be "weighing in" for agriculture in a moment, that such a site need not interfere with the schemes of agriculture. The noble Viscount will know that there are considerable areas in East Anglia—especially, for instance, in

375
Suffolk—which are quite unsuitable for agriculture, even for rough grazing. It would appear possible, at any rate on the face of it, for building development to take place in such areas without taking away land from agricultural use.
The other question I should like to ask is this. The London County Council have been negotiating, or are negotiating at the present time, with sixteen of these small towns within a radius of about a hundred miles from London. Ten of these towns have already come in, or are likely to come in, whilst six are much less likely to do so. Of the remaining six, four are cases in which everything will depend upon the attitude of the Government. These six will take altogether 50,000 people—that is to say, a third of the total overspill—so they are an extremely important feature of expansion from London. I should like to ask the noble Earl whether the Government would approve in advance, subject, of course, to receiving the detailed schemes, a larger number of towns for expansion from London than the ten which are already approved or likely to be approved. If the Government cannot approve of the six, or some of the six, which I have just mentioned, then can the Government suggest other towns with which the London County Council should negotiate? I hope I have not been parochial. I have tried not to be, but I feel this is a splendid opportunity to get a statement from the Government which will be reassuring and encouraging, not only for London and for the rural authorities with which London has to deal but for the country as a whole. I look forward, with hope, to the statement which we are to receive at the end of this debate.
4.9 p.m.
VISCOUNT HUDSON: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, started off by making a statement which may be true in actual wording, though, so far as my experience goes, it certainly is not true in intention. He said that the ordinary man who applies for accommodation wants a house and garden. And it may be true that the majority of those people do state, when they make their application, that they want a house and garden. I happen, for my sins, to be President of the Allotments and Gardening Association, and all I can say is that
376
our experience over the last five or six years definitely shows that the man who says he wants a house and garden does not, in fact, cultivate his garden. Roughly speaking, about one in five does. We have about a million members and there are about 5 million gardens and allotments. We spend all our time, and a certain amount of Government money, in endeavouring to increase our numbers. If there was any truth in what were the intentions of the people about whom the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, spoke, we should go ahead and make great strides; but in fact there is not.
The brief answer—and this applies to the figure quoted by Mr. Osborn in his interesting article in Lloyds Bank Review—is that you cannot compare the produce from an acre devoted to gardens with the produce from an acre of agricultural land, because a very small amount of that acre which is devoted to gardens is in fact cultivated. A few people cultivate roses, chrysanthemums and so forth, but the great majority do not produce any food. Therefore, one cannot take this mythical figure of £67 12s. worth of produce from an acre of gardens and apply it to the total number of houses being built. The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, will forgive my saying so, but I am reasonably certain that the figure which the Government Departments have produced, on which this estimate Mr. Osborn quotes is based (I admit that he is entitled to quote it, because it is a Government figure) is far from correct. I should like to see a new and more practical estimate made. There is this further point: even if the value of all the food produced by these gardens is admitted to amount to £67 an acre, the fact remains that it is very largely food of which we have substantial surplus supplies in this country—vegetables, fruit and plants—whereas, of course, what agriculture is asked to produce in large quantities is proteins and milk, as the noble Viscount. Lord Woolton, used to impress on me in the days when we worked together. Therefore, the two are not comparable. You cannot say that whatever imaginary figure 'is produced for gardens and allotments is comparable with the figure for agricultural land.
The noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, also said that local authorities had done magnificent work. The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, talked about

377
London. London is one of the biggest "villains of the piece." From my experience, London has no regard for the potential food-producing value of the land it wants. It says: "I want that land. I am the London County Council. The Government do not stand up against me. I am going to take it." That is what the London County Council did during the war, as the noble Viscount will remember. There was an area east of London on which the Council set their eyes—some of the most highly producing horticultural land in the country. Quite close there was an area of very poor land. I did my best to persuade the London County Council to lake the inferior land on which to build their houses. I was told: "We are taking the first-class land." I said that I would take the matter to the Cabinet. The Council said, "It is no good because we shall win"—and, in fact, they did. They have made some arrangement—I do not know what it is —for Slough. As I go up from home at the week-end I see this first-class agricultural land with a large notice on it saying. "Future site for a satellite town from London." I could go on quoting many cases, but it still remains true. Having made that plea for agriculture, I would add that these figures in Mr. Osborn's article so far as the cost of subsidies is concerned, are probably correct. Frankly, they are frightening. Even if we may have a passion for preserving agricultural land, the farmers have to realise the importance of finance from a broad, national, economic view. Quite clearly the whole question ought to be looked at again.
I do not know enough about how the new towns are developing. Three or four years ago I was most impressed by Crawley. But the important thing is to remember the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Salter: that what is needed is not the building of more dormitories, which is the tendency at Slough, but the dispersal of the working area. If we re-examine the whole of the Town Development Act from that point of view we shall be getting somewhere. I am quite sure that, agriculturally speaking, we should be prepared to provide whatever number of acres are required, so long as they are in reasonably poor country and so long as reasonably poor land is concerned. I do not particularly like the growth of the small towns because, in my
378
experience, that upsets the whole balance of agriculture. If small towns are developed it means that there are great openings in other industries for the agricultural worker—and agriculture is already suffering a heavy drift from the land. In these small towns the drift from the neighbouring farms into the towns is much greater thin we generally realise.
I should therefore like to suggest to the Government that we have another look at the problem in the light of what has been happening in development for the last five years, to see whether we cannot help London. Some of the land in Suffolk is first-class, in spite of the efforts of the noble Lord, Lord Iveagh, to grow lucerne there; and there are many areas of land covered by the Forestry Commission which would make good places to live in, with gardens producing £67 worth of food an acre. We should take advantage of the turning point and make quite sure that we are not continuing to develop along wrong lines. The whole question should be looked at again to see what are the real facts about food production and whether or not better food production could be encouraged from allotments and gardens. Certainly we, the Allotments Society, would be only too glad to have a little extra money: a little extra grant would be a good thing. We could push on and develop a little more. We should like the whole question looked at again.
4.18 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I had not intended to speak, although my name was on the list. I ought to explain that my name was put sown without any authority on my part. I felt I was so much in agreement with the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh—I knew what he was going to say; his speech was largely in agreement with the speech I made a week ago—that no useful purpose would be served by merely saying once more that I agreed with him. We have had a very good debate, but there are one or two points which perhaps could be amplified and discussed before the noble Earl replies. What this debate has established once more is the point upon which I tried to build my speech last week: that is, that there is a real need for clear and fresh thinking upon this subject. We have been going along very much in a rut. I was glad the noble Viscount,

379
Lord Hudson, made the same point. We have been rather assuming that this is a conflict, almost an irreconcilable conflict, between those who want to build high up and those who want to build all over the country, using up good agricultural land. That is not the case; indeed, I think the argument is becoming largely academic, because the areas in which it is possible to build in the centre of towns are rapidly becoming used up.
I feel the House ought to realise the problem with which we are faced. I hope the House will not mind my just putting it once more as I see it—it has been put before. There is, first of all, the fact that our large towns are congested. We have slums and we have houses that are built too close together, intermingling with industry and badly arranged. We are all in agreement that those areas must be redeveloped. The fact is that when we come to redevelop, if we are going to build on modern standards we can build for only a proportion of the numbers housed on the original site—possibly a half, possibly a little more; but if we say approximately a half I do not think it will be far out. The question then arises, where are we going to provide accommodation for the other half? We then have the fact that our population is increasing. Perhaps it ought not to: perhaps we ought to take steps to do something about it; but the fact is that it is increasing every year. One can make whatever calculation one likes about that. I thought that the annual increase in population creates a need for about 70,000 houses a year. The noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, thinks it is not quite so many. Well he can have his figure; he said 60,000. But whatever the figure is, there is a need for 60,000 or 70,000 additional houses every year, merely to meet the increase in population. Where are we going to put these people?
There is also the fact that certain people have to live near their work. You cannot have a waiter who works at the Savoy Hotel until two o'clock in the morning, going to an expanded town to live; he has to live close to his work. Nor can the docker who has to start work (when he does start) at six o'clock in the morning, be expected to go to one of these towns. These people have to be near their work. There are large
380
numbers of other people who, by reason of their occupation, must be housed near their work. So that the truth of the matter is that there is a need for a large number of flats. How many I do not know. That is one of the questions we might look into. A certain number are required. But there are other persons who are not obliged to be on top of their work. Then the problem of transport arises. We cannot go on putting more and more transport on our restricted roads without doing something about that problem.
There is the further fact of the enormous cost of building flats. Lord Balfour of Burleigh is perfectly right in saying that, on a site in a congested area, or anywhere else for that matter, it costs two or three times as much to build a flat, with a lift, as it does to build a house. I should have thought it is a matter for inquiry as to why that should be so. I am informed that on the Continent flats can be built as cheaply as houses. Why should flats cost so much more in this country? I should have thought that that was a matter for fruitful inquiry. I feel that there is so much that we ought to look into that it is difficult to be dogmatic about this problem. I hope my noble friend Lord Listowel will not mind my saying that. It is sometimes easy to talk a little superficially about building new towns in Suffolk. After all, you have to get people to go and live there. I presume that Suffolk is sparsely inhabited for very good reasons—one of which may well be that people do not want to live there. We cannot start a new town unless we can be sure that people will go to live there.
Furthermore, the essential factor in a new town is industry. One of the reasons why the new towns catering for London have been built where they are is that it was essential to ensure that industry would be prepared to come there. It would have been much more favourable to build the new towns a little further away, but then came the problem of whether industry which had hitherto been dependent upon a London market would go the extra twenty or thirty miles—it turns on the distance there and back which a lorry can travel in one day, and so on. All those matters require the most detailed and complicated investigation before one can make a decision. I

381
assure noble Lords, and the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, in particular, that all these towns, including Crawley, were carefully considered from the point of view of siting.
Now may I say a word about the views of Viscount Gage? He has quite properly questioned the policy. I think it is right that in this connection the policy should be questioned from lime to time. I said at the outset that we are in danger of getting into a rut in assuming that what was a good idea five years ago continues to be a good idea. Well, let us examine it. I am not very happy about the fact that a policy which was designed for dispersal is not altogether achieving that purpose. People are coming into London; houses which are vacated by people who go to live in the new towns are being reoccupied by people who come in. Factory premises and other premises are being reoccupied. That may not be the whole truth—some of then are and some are not, and some are being used for other purposes. Where a person vacates a house which is not fit for habitation, I hope it is the case that it is not reoccupied. This is a matter that needs Ito be looked at carefully, to ensure that as a matter of course the expenditure to which the nation is being put at the present time in building new towns is not being thrown away through both industrial premises and houses being reoccupied as fast as they are vacated.
Of course, the same remarks would apply to the policy of expanded towns. I believe that the policy is right; I believe that by and large there is no other way of providing for the population in the new conditions that we want, with greater space and better conditions, than by some such policy as new towns. But I think we ought to be quite sure that this policy is producing the remit, and that we are not merely going back to what was happening before the war—to more and more of the population of this country gravitating to London, until, as before the war, Greater London represented about one-quarter of the population of the country.
The noble Viscount, Lord Gage, referred to offices. He sees a large number of offices going up in London. Here, again, I think that there is a case for inquiry. Are we building far too many offices in London? Is the result going to be that we shall attract people into Lon
382
don? We endeavour to restrict industry, but we do not appear to be restricting offices, and it would be a shocking thing if London became a city of clerical workers and nothing else. I admit that there is a certain amount of planning control as regards change of user, but there does not seem to be much planning control in areas where offices previously existed. It appears that where there was, before the war, a block of fifty offices, when those are demolished new buildings go up with a hundred offices or more. That aspect should be looked at. Again I do not want to be dogmatic and the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, will appreciate that I am not intending to criticise anybody. I am merely trying to make a case for further examination of the problem, to ensure that steps taken to control it are really effective.
I could not follow the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, and did not agree with him in his desire to provide complete freedom for the East Sussex County Council. They are an admirable body, but they must play their part in accepting, for dispersal purposes, a certain number of the population, not merely those people who wish to retire in the delectable surroundings of the numerous seaside resorts in the area of which the noble Viscount speaks. They must, I think, accept a certain number from London. But the noble Viscount is right when he says they wane to be satisfied that the problem is thus being solved, and that they are not merely accepting the burden of providing schools and other services—a heavy burden in the early days—without at least having the satisfaction that they are thereby helping to solve it. I agree that without that assurance they might very well hesitate.
These are somewhat discursive remarks but I hope I have satisfied your Lordships that the problem is not an easy one. One can be dogmatic: on either side, but we need here fresh thinking and definite information. On the agricultural side, for instance, there are many conflicting figures as to how much agricultural land has been lost. One gets enormous extremes on one side or the other. They certainly cannot both be right, and I would not suggest that the truth lies between the two, for it may not; one side may be wholly right. I should like an investigation into what we mean by "good agricultural land." I know that there is

383
a definition, but do we accept that definition for this purpose? I should like to have the truth about the amount of agriculture which is produced in back gardens. My own instinct (it is only an instinct and I do not know whether the noble Viscount, Lord Hudson, has more information than I have) is that he is right and that what is produced is limited and is not wholly what is required. There is no substitute. We cannot substitute for 100 acres of arable land, 1,000 gardens each of one tenth of an acre. There is all the difference in the world there. I hope that when the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, comes to reply he will be able to give the House an assurance that all these matters, which are at the moment the subject of controversy based upon inadequate data, will be re-examined. I hestitate to suggest another Committee, but it may well be that the right way to deal with this problem is to set up a Committee to look into the various questions upon which are based the future housing policy of this country.
4.35 p.m.
THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (THE EARL OF SELKIRK): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government welcome this debate, not least because we in this House always enjoy hearing a speech from the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh—in fact, I do not know any speaker who commands more general regard and interest in the House. We particularly welcome the opportunity to discuss the broad issues of planning without being drawn into that labyrinth of legislative complexities which sometimes arises when we examine statutory provisions. I say that without any discourtesy to the draftsmen, for I well know the complexities.
The noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, is right: the present is a time of opportunity. I know that, in a sense, town and country planning is inevitably a very long business. None the less, there is now a real urgency—the noble Lord even used the word "crisis"—and I say that particularly because, over a very wide field, there is to-day a considerable measure of agreement. It is not just that we know what we would have done thirty years ago, for any child could say that. It is not just agreement among students and enthusiasts: it is agreement among the great body of local authorities which
384
has gradually been built up. It is fair to say that to a very wide extent they are now accepting the broad principles of the Report made by Sir Montague Barlow of some fourteen years ago. He drew attention to the danger of industrial concentration and said that it constituted a social, economic and strategic problem which demanded immediate attention. I believe it can be said that the importance of the problem has now been accepted by the great body of local authorities in the country.
The extent of that agreement is that progress is no longer measured in terms of increased population or increased rateable value. I remember that when I was a member of a certain city council I used to look at the valuation and population figures rising year by year and, perhaps rather unthinkingly, regarded this as a sign of progress. We now know that those things are not a measure of progress. The measure of progress in our big cities is the quality of life afforded to the citizens, and the means which those cities can offer to provide a gracious way of living. The result is that we are specifically seeking to limit the size of our big towns and to reduce their population. This is, of course, no new idea. I believe that it is some thirty-five years since the Green Belt round London was first suggested by Sir Robert Unwin, and, of course, there was an immense amount of work done under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947. What is new is the extent to which we are to-day gaining agreement on these broad issues, agreement which has been reached only after a great deal of co-operation and hard work among local authorities.
May I turn to the broader aspect of this matter? At this juncture it is, in a sense, a coincidence that we can now go forward with this policy of limitation not only without economic loss but with economic advantage. There is now no difficulty, as there was a hundred years ago, in getting power to any part of the country. New transport facilities have developed over the last fifteen or twenty years—not good enough, perhaps, but an improvement. There is the development of light industry: the extensive development of light industry is really only a matter of a decade or two in this country. Although this is a matter of a very long-term development, we can undoubtedly say that a start has been made. We have

385
the machinery and it is being used. The noble Viscount, Lord Gage, wondered whether any result had been produced. All I can say is that I think we can affirm that the increase in the population in Greater London has been checked. The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, I think, spoke of the more rapid increase of population which was taking place before the war. There is now a marked change.
The noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, emphasised two points: first, the relief of congestion from overcrowded urban areas, secondly, the establishment of green belts to prevent an urban sprawl. In both these matters the full, active and enthusiastic support of the local authorities concerned is absolutely essential. This is necessarily a slow business. I think it is fair to say, on the green belt side of this problem, that considerable, if slow, progress has been made. There was the pre-war Act; there was Sir Patrick Abercrombie's Greater London Plan, and the 1947 Town Planning Act. I think we can say now that the Green Belt of London is assured, and that all the local authorities concerned are resolutely determined to insist on its proper maintenance.
The position is perhaps not quite so satisfactory in the provincial cities. In most cases, I think, the appropriate areas are being preserved by administrative action. I should like to emphasise that to define these areas as green belts would be a considerable start and would strengthen the hands of those who have to administer planning control there. The public, I believe, understand what a green belt is, and they are very ready to support it. They would understand better exactly what it is and, I believe, would find it easier to maintain, if a suggestion which I have in mind were adopted. I wish to make it clear that I am expressing only a personal view, but I often wonder whether in some areas it would not be possible to put up notices, perhaps on the roads, stating: "This is a green belt," so that people would have some idea which were the areas immediately concerned. I think it would be a good thing if such areas were defined on the ground and not simply on the map.
The Minister has said—and I would re-emphasise his policy—that it: is our clear duty to prevent further unrestricted sprawl. The noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, said that the green belt
386
should be sacrosanct. To show that we are taking action, it is worth recording here that in the last two years, as a result of the dismissal by the Minister of appeals, 1,700 acres have been retained as green areas. That figure does not take into account any applications for building which were refused by the local authorities before they came to the Minister. The establishment of green belts does bring out into sharp relief the problem of decongestion in housing and industry from our large conurbations. We have now reached a stage when, within a short time, there will be little or no room left for building houses inside the green belt at all. That applies to all our big conurbations, whether Liverpool, Glasgow, Manchester or, indeed, London itself.
That is the position. It is a position which will raise a problem of policy. The long-term policy of all Parties, I think, has been the decongestion of large cities —
VISCOUNT HUDSON: May I interrupt the noble Earl to ask one question? Has he any figures showing the amount of land in green belts which has been lost. He says that 1,700 acres have been saved. How many have been lost? It is quite an appreciable amount I should think.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I am afraid that I have not the figures. I should have doubted whether such figures would show that the acreage lost in green belt areas is very great. London, of course, is the only one of our great towns which is approaching maturity in this matter of the green belt at the present time. If the noble Viscount goes back far enough, I would agree with him that when this idea was first mooted considerable areas were lost; but I should doubt whether very much has been lost since 1948 and 1949. I say that with reserve, of course, without seeing the figures.
Reverting to the measures taken to relieve congestion, let me refer, first, to the new towns. We have now, including the Scottish towns, fifteen new towns in various stages of development, but only eight are effective from the point of view of the decongestion of London. In these eight new towns it is fair to say that there has been very satisfactory progress. Some 25,000 houses have already been completed, and 163 firms of varying types are now in operation in these

387
towns. There are now some 8.000 houses in various stages of construction, and 53 factories are going up at the present time. I should like to emphasise the importance of making sure that this decongestion is not regarded simply as a question of population, but, equally, as a question of industry. This principle that we should not get into a system of dormitory suburbs is fundamental. Industry and population must move together, and in this the new towns have been particularly successful.
The second development, which is more recent, is that coming under the Town Development Act, 1952. The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, asked me whether, if this effort fails, we shall go over to the creation of further new towns. I think it is a little premature to put that question. What I can assure the noble Earl is that the main policy of decongestion is one which the Minister has very much at heart. He cannot interfere in individual cases, for he is in this embarrassment: he may have an appeal for planning permission made to him personally. But in principle he is behind the policy and in that way would give the noble Earl or the London County Council all possible support. It is a matter to which we attach very great importance.
I should next like to say something about the advantage of expanding town development over new towns. In the first place, it brings the local authorities concerned—by which, I mean the local authority of the receiving area and the local authority of the exporting area—into full co-operation. I think it is not unfair to say that in some places, in the initial stages, new towns were not greatly welcomed by the local authorities concerned. This method, however, gets over the difficulty by bringing in the local authorities at the earliest possible stage. The advantage of building on an existing township at once becomes apparent. I was greatly encouraged by what the noble Viscount, Lord Gage said at one point in his speech. He was, I thought, suspicious of this expanding town idea, but he went on to say that this sort of thing might help Newhaven. Here was one place which, it might be argued, could be put forward as a candidate for this sort of expansion. That is exactly the sort of thing we have in mind.
388
There may be one town here, another there; and if we can pick up one or two like that we shall be only too glad to do so.
Other advantages of building on an existing township are that a certain number of services, such as roads, sewers, schools, power and so on, are already available; and already a general social life of the community is in existence. In the early stages of a new town that does not exist, though as time goes on, of course, they overcome that difficulty. The noble Viscount, Lord Gage, emphasised the need for persuasion in regard to these new areas. He suggested that the easiest way to persuade was by fairly liberal grants to local authorities. I should not have thought that the arrangements announced at the end of last month were altogether unsatisfactory: certainly we very much hope they will be sufficient to prove attractive to both parties. I like Lord Listowel's comparison of this with the quality of mercy, because it is our intention that it should benefit both the exporter and the receiver.
I would only say this about progress. So far, about fifteen to twenty small towns are considering the possibility of relieving expansion in the larger overcrowded towns, and I can assure the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, that there is no intention of confining this sort of development to any arbitrarily limited number of towns. Clearly, one has to start somewhere, and the scheme in principle should have very wide and flexible applications. Two schemes, at Bletchley and Swindon, have already started, and over 1,000 families from London have been rehoused there. At Bletchley it is proposed to build 3,000 houses, which will accommodate about 10,000 people from London, while Swindon will take about 20,000 people from London over ten years. In both cases, corresponding industrial development will take place, either by the creation of new industries or by the expansion of existing industries. There is a small scheme at Aylesbury. In Lancashire, Worsley will take about 15,000 people from the Salford housing list in the course of ten years. This scheme is already well on its way. In Manchester and Birmingham, negotiations are going ahead between the county, borough and district councils with a view to the reception of the overspills of these cities.

389
Perhaps I may say a word about Glasgow, although it does not strictly fall within the terms of the Town Development Act, 1952, which does not apply to Scotland. The only urban area with a major overspill problem in Scotland is Glasgow, where some 300,000 people will have to be rehoused outside the city boundaries. The overspill, therefore, is comparable in size with the overspill from the London County Council area. The Government intend to establish a new town at Cumbernauld capable of accommodating 50,000 people, 40,000 of whom, under arrangements agreed with Glasgow Corporation, will come from Glasgow's waiting list. However, this is not nearly sufficient, and the matter is one of urgency, as all the sites within the city's boundaries will be exhausted by 1957–58. The Secretary of State has therefore invited the Clyde Valley Planning Advisory Committee to undertake investigations into the possibility of the provision by neighbouring 'kcal authorities for the reception of Glasgow's overspill and into their willingness to do so. This Committee have also been asked to submit a phased programme and to make suggestions on the principles suitable to Scottish local government conditions which may require to he embodied in town development legislation for Scotland.
I was also interested in the suggestion that offices should be moved away from congested areas. I see no reason why offices should not be centred outside the congested areas. Of course, the heads of firms have to meet visitors, make contacts with markets and so on; but the staffs which are doing routine work could well be located outside. The Government themselves have moved certain of their branches and will continue to look out for possibilities of moving out more.
There has been a good deal of talk, both in this debate and the other, about flats. I think the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said the question was a little academic, and I rather agree with him. The real answer is the extreme urgency of building houses. The noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, gave the number of flats as compared with houses up to now as 15 or 18 per cent., and that is a comparatively small figure. He said that the vast majority of people prefer a house and garden and I am sure that that is probably true; but if people were offered
390
either a house and garden twenty miles away or a flat near their work, I wonder whether the percentage would be quite so high. I do not know the answer to that question; possibly the noble Lord would know better than I do. The real answer is that in congested areas big corporations have to use to the maximum extent the ground that is available for rehousing.
The noble Viscount, Lord Gage, brought out the fact that in new housing areas there were a number of costs which may not have to be incurred when building flats in existing cities, and that in comparing the two, it was important to take these into account. 'There is the other side of the case. Suppose we succeeded in transferring population and industry from congested areas, there is a certain danger that some places would become what is known as "hollow." If we are to get the 6 million houses about which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has spoken, we have to use for the time being all possible means of getting houses. I wonder whether the conflict between agriculture and housing is really as acute as it is said to be. It is Government policy not to take the most valuable agricultural land if that can be avoided. Various questions have been asked about the true statistical position. The replies given were strictly statistical, but when it comes to taking account of farm land and marginal land on the edges of sheep farms, then we could reach almost any figure. On one occasion during the war, when a careful examination, I believe under the noble Viscount, Lord Hudson, was made of the area under smallholdings, it was found that a certain number of farms had not been included. Therefore I think the figures must have a qualified acceptance. I certainly concede that at the present time we are taking over 30,000 acres a year of agricultural land for housing.
There was a good deal of discussion on the question of the co-ordination of Departments. It. is really no good trying to set someone up as a planning dictator, because if any problem arises it may be one which it is proper for the Board of Trade to consider, or it may be for the Minister of Agriculture, or the Minister of Supply, to consider. It is impossible to conceive that one Department could take a decision without fully consulting the others. They have to do that, without the slightest doubt at all. We should certainly be happy to look at the

391
machinery and if the noble Lord can give any examples we will gladly see whether the machinery could not be made to work more smoothly. But each Department must play its part and must examine any claim which affects it. The location of industry is not a separate thing; it is an essential and integral part of planning. The noble Viscount, Lord Gage, said that there was a good deal of disconnection between various Departments and that he had a great difficulty in getting answers to agree with each other. That may well be true, but I am not at all sure that he would not rather have that than that all Departments should speak with one voice. I suspect that when he deals with the Departments, the noble Viscount plays one off against the other, with the skill he shows in other fields, and I dare say the differences between the Departments do not altogether prevent him from achieving his objects.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, would the noble Earl agree that when the Board of Trade and the Ministry of Housing and Local Government do not agree, somebody has to decide which Department gets what it wants? The question I asked the noble Earl—and perhaps he will be good enough to reply —is whether the Board of Trade will continue to have the higher priority where there is any conflict with the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, or whether, in dealing with industry for these expanding towns, the Ministry of Housing will have at least as high a degree of priority as the Board of Trade?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: The noble Earl raises the question of priorities. I think he knows as well as anybody else what happens when two Government Departments disagree; I do not need to explain that to him. The Government themselves reserve the right to try to persuade appropriate firms to go to the development areas. It is no good saying that the Board of Trade have their way. There is no doubt that we have to persuade these firms, and that is a pretty ticklish business, as everyone knows who has had any experience. I do not think it is of much use talking about priorities in this connection. The Board of Trade looks at every application on its merits. The experience of the new towns shows that development areas and overspill
392
movements do not conflict in practice as much as they might be supposed to do in theory. The new towns have had their fair share. It must always be remembered that overspill means overspill of industry as well as of population; the two things go together. It is no good having industry without having population. The real answer—and I am sure this is the case—is that there is room for both, and I think there is evidence to show it.
The other point, which is an important one, is a question again raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, as to whether this is a merry-go-round in which people go in as quickly as other people go out. I recognise that that is really the root of the whole matter. I would say this to the noble Viscount: that it is virtually impossible in the cities to build new houses except in replacement of old ones. So the actual population per acre is not likely to increase; in fact, it is bound to decrease. But the crux of the matter is that industry should not step in and continue work on the old factory site. We have given a lot of consideration to this matter, and I am afraid there is only one solution—namely, for the local authority to buy up the factory; and in order to help them to do this the Government are prepared to pay 50 per cent. of the loss involved in such a transaction. I am sure that anybody who thinks of it will realise that if you persuade a man to go away—in fact, if you encourage him to—you must allow him value for the premises which have been vacated. I do not think there is any way to get round that. I recognise that the crux of the matter is to reduce the volume of industry which exists here. The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, asked one other question about refusing permission to sell as soon as negotiations start. We have not power to do that, and I feel it would be going too far. Designations can be made for compulsory purchase as soon as agreement is reached, and I do not think we can go further than that.
If this debate has helped to get the policy of the Government rather better understood—I do not know whether it has or not—then it has certainly served a useful purpose. I should like to emphasise that what we need is close co-operation between the exporting and the receiving authorities. This raises immense problems of adjustment of outlook on

393
both sides; but vast conurbations cannot and must not be allowed to continue sprawling out. Such action raises every conceivable problem and aggravates it to an intolerable degree. We have an immense task in front of us which will take a long time, but we have—and I believe to-day's debate has shown it—a wide measure of agreement. What we want now is agreement between local authorities to give effect to this policy. It is for that reason that the present is a period of importance and opportunity, and why the Government commend this Resolution to the House and ask them to accept it.
5.3 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, before the noble Earl on the Woolsack puts the Question. I should like to say that I have every reason to be grateful both to the, House and to my noble friend Lord Selkirk for the way in which this Motion has been received. I trust that my noble friend will not think me unduly carping if I revert to one point which I do not think he dealt with, asked whether he: would ask the Minister to review the subsidy scale. My noble friend, if I may respectfully say so, glossed a little over that by saying that tie local authorities in the great cities have no choice but to build to the maximum in the centres. That is not entirely correct. These great authorities have a certain freedom of choice as to what they will build: whether it be houses or flats on the site, and at what density. My point is that the present scale of subsidy financially influences the local authorities unduly in favour of flats on expensive sites, and that is why I want
394
my noble friend to ask the Minister to subject the whole thing once again to close scrutiny.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, if I may reply to the noble Lord, I would point out that I was dealing with the general principle and explaining why it was not possible, taking the extreme view, to cut out flats altogether. These matters are subject to review, and I will give an undertaking that this subject will be looked at again.
On Question, Resolution agreed to.

POLICE (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend, Lord Strathclyde, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it is desirable that the Bill be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament.—(Earl Fortescue.)
On Question, Motion agreed to: Ordered, That a Message be sent to the Commons to communicate the said Resolution and to desire their concurrence.

NUNEATON CORPORATION BILL
Reported, with Amendments.

MAIDSTONE CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.
House adjourned at six minutes past five o'clock.