Sitting of 29 July 1958

Preamble
The House met at hall-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  ANGLE ORE AND TRANSPORT COMPANY BILL [Lords]
  Read a Second time and committed.

  PRIVATE BILLS [SUSPENSION OF BILLS PARTLY CONSIDERED BY A COMMITTEE]
  The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Charles MacAndrew): I beg to move,
  That if the Committee on any Private Bill, or Group of such Bills, have reported or shall report their opinion to the House that the consideration of any Bill or Bills already partly considered should not be proceeded with in the present Session, all further proceedings upon such Bills shall be suspended during the present Session.
  With the permission of the House I should like to move this and the succeeding Motion together.
  Hon. Members will have seen the two special Reports from the Committee on this group of four Water Bills. The Committee have reported that they have been unable after twenty-six days to complete their consideration of these competing Bills, and the first Motion is to suspend further proceedings on the Bills to the next Session.
  The second Motion enables the promoters of the four Water Bills to resume proceedings in the next Session of Parliament at the point which they have reached today. The delays in the consideration of these Bills have not arisen due to any fault of the promoters, and the House may, therefore, feel that exceptions should be made from the general rule that the business of the House, whether public or private, should be contained within the framework of the Session. The promoters will thereby be saved further delay and expense.
  1116
  I commend the Motions to the House.
  Mr. Shinwell: Is this not an unusual proceeding? Under which Standing Order does the Chairman of Ways and Means move this Motion?
  The Chairman of Ways and Means: It is quite a usual proceeding when Bills are held up and cannot be passed in the Session in which they are introduced. By this means they are carried over. It is exceptional to some extent, but it is quite customary to do it. I hope the House will pass these Motions, because that will save a lot of time and money for the promoters. It is no fault of theirs that delays have arisen.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Ordered,
  That if the Committee on any Private Bill, or Group of such Bills, have reported or shall report their opinion to the House that the consideration of any Bill or Bills already partly considered should not be proceeded with in the present Session, all further proceedings upon such Bills shall be suspended during the present Session.

  SOUTH BUCKS AND OXFORDSHIRE WATER BILL, BUCKS WATER BOARD BILL, READING AND BERKSHIRE WATER &C, BILL AND MID-WESSEX WATER BILL
  Ordered,
  That the Promoters of the South Bucks and Oxfordshire Water Bill, the Bucks Water Board Bill, the Reading and Berkshire Water &c. Bill and the Mid-Wessex Water Bill shall have leave to suspend any further proceeding thereon in order to proceed with the same, if they think fit, in the next Session.
  Ordered,
  That the Agent for the Promoters of any such Bill intending to suspend any further proceeding thereon shall, if the Bill has been suspended on the Report of a Committee, give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to proceed with the same Bill in this House in the next Session; provided that all Fees due upon any such Bill up to that date be paid.
  Ordered,
  That not later than Five o'clock on the third day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bills shall be presented to the House.
  Ordered.
  That there shall be deposited with each Bill a Declaration signed by the Agent for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceeding in this House in the present Session.

  1117
  Ordered,
  That the Bills when laid upon the Table shall be deemed to have been read the first and second time and committed; and shall be recorded in the Journal of the House as having been so read and committed.
  Ordered,
  That any Petitions presented in the present Session against the Bills, and which stood referred to the Committee on the Bills, shall stand referred to the Committee on the same Bills in the next Session.
  Ordered,
  That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bills, unless their Petition shall have been presented within the time limited in the present Session.
  Ordered,
  That in relation to the Bills, Standing Order 127 (Right of audience before committees on opposed bills) relating to Private Business, shall have effect as if the words "under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against bill)" were omitted;
  Ordered,
  That any Instruction in the present Session to the Committee on the Bills be an Instruction to the Committee on the same Bills in the next Session;
  Ordered,
  That no new fees be charged in respect of any stage of the Bill upon which fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
  Ordered,
  That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
  To be communicated to the Lords.

  PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (SHEERNESS) BILL
  Lords Amendments considered and agreed to.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT

    Thames Valley (Flood Barrier)
    Mr. Doddsasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what progress has been made in the preparation of a report on the practicability, design and estimate, cost of constructing a movable flood barrier for the purpose of preventing flooding in the Thames Valley.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. J. R. Bevins): The amount of work involved on this proposal has exceeded expectations and my right hon. Friend has not yet received the report of the consulting engineers. They are, however, fully aware of the importance of completing their tests and reporting as soon as possible.
    Mr. Dodds: Whilst thanking the hon. Gentleman for that information, may I ask whether he will bear in mind that we were promised a report by the end of 1957? In view of the disastrous floods in 1953, the fact that they may recur, and the fact that the Waverley Committee's Report suggested that there should be a barrier near Dartford and many people feel that there is not on the part of the Ministry the sense of urgency that this important matter demands, will the hon. Gentleman give a more definite assurance about the time when we can expect the report?
    Mr. Bevins: The position is that the two firms of consulting engineers wish to carry out further tests before they decide the best method of operating a barrier. I cannot say when the report will be ready but when it is received I assure the hon. Member that it will be studied with urgency by my right hon. Friend.

    Industrial Areas (Trees and Shrubs)
    Mr. Ellis Smithasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (1) if he will initiate a campaign in all industrial areas in England and Wales to clean and brighten the towns and cities by the planting of trees, shrubs, plants and turf, and appeal for the united co-operation of all organisations, employers and others in each area;
    (2) if he is aware of the two-year campaign being carried out in the North-West for cleaning and beautifying the industrial areas by planting trees, shrubs, plants and turf; what assistance is being given by his Department; and with what results;
    (3) if he will give the results of the general circular his Department sent out

    1119
    to local authorities asking them to plant more trees and shrubs.
    Mr. Bevins: I am glad to say there is evidence that local authorities generally are becoming increasingly aware of the importance of trees to the amenities of both town and country, and I have no doubt that the circular played its part in stimulating interest.
    My right hon. Friend is aware of the fine work being done by a number of local authorities, in the north-west and elsewhere, in striving to make industrial areas more beautiful. He hopes that more authorities will do likewise, and that, besides planting on their own land, they will encourage planting on private land of all kinds. My right hon. Friend expects to publish in the autumn an illustrated book suggesting ways in which the appearance of towns can be improved by tree planting, and advising on the choice of species.
    Mr. Smith: While appreciating that sympathetic reply, may I ask whether the Parliamentary Secretary will consult his right hon. Friend with a view to asking him to consider the advisability of the Ministry taking the initiative to a greater extent than it has done in the past, in order to stimulate interest in this matter and give greater encouragement to local authorities?
    Mr. Bevins: I am not sure in what way my right hon. Friend can take the initiative over and above what he has done already. If the hon. Member has any suggestions, we should be glad to consider them.
    Sir L. Ropner: In view of the highly unsuitable choices that are often made, may I ask from what source local authorities can obtain advice about the most appropriate species of trees to grow?
    Mr. Bevins: Many local authorities have their own parks superintendents. We have experts in the Ministry whose services are always available to the smaller local authorities.

    Land, Holditch (Road)
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs, in relation to
    1120
    Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council's appeal, reference 1436/40620/70L.2(d) 11741, against Staffordshire County Council's proviso to planning consent for the use of land at Holditch, Chesterton, that a trunk road should be included in the plan, if he will consult with the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation about his present proposal that the trunk road should follow the line of the present Liverpool Road and Talke Road, Chesterton; and, in the light of these consultations, if he will reconsider whether it is necessary or desirable to include a road in the Holditch plan.
    Mr. Bevins: I am aware that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation no longer proposes to construct a trunk road along the line cutting through the Holditch Industrial Estate, but the Staffordshire County Council, which is the local planning authority for the area, considers that there is a need for some kind of road here. Neither I nor my right hon. Friend see any reason to dissent from this view, which was upheld when dismissing the appeal on 9th May.
    Mr. Swingler: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that in the original plan the road included in the Holditch plan was the trunk road but that in the meantime the Minister of Transport has changed his scheme for a trunk road? Why is it necessary, therefore, to include the road in the plan? Does the hon. Gentleman know of anybody in this area who wants the road?
    Mr. Bevins: Yes, Sir. It is the view of Staffordshire County Council that a road is necessary through the Holditch Industrial Estate as well as the other thoroughfare to which the hon. Member has referred.

    Stafford North Local Valuation Court
    Mr. C. Howellasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs how many requests for the postponement of a hearing under the Local Government Act, 1948, have been refused by the Stafford North Local Valuation Court each year since 1948.
    The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Mr. Henry Brooke): I regret that this information is not available. But in amplification of previous Answers and correspondence I can assure the hon. Member that applications made in good time and with sufficient reason given are not refused.
    Mr. Howell: Does not the Minister agree that, where the Act specifically lays down that an appellant can appeal to a lands tribunal only if he or his representative attends the court, there is a moral obligation on the court to permit the case to be postponed on a written application from the appellant sent several days previously? Alternatively; would not he agree that it is an injustice to a workman to deny him the right of postponement because he or his representative cannot attend, and that it is an injustice for the court to give a decision in those circumstances?
    Mr. Brooke: I cannot agree that proceedings of this kind are unfair and unjust. One must bear in mind that the members of the local valuation courts are themselves serving unpaid, and in the case which the hon. Gentleman has in mind a request for a postponement was received two days before the proposed date of the hearing, with no explanation given. In the circumstances the court, in the exercise of its discretion, decided that it would not grant deferment.
    Mr. Howell: On a point of order. In view of the statement just made by the Minister, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment at the first opportunity.

    Local Government in London (Royal Commission)
    Mrs. Butlerasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether he will now indicate when the Royal Commission on Local Government in London will be issuing its report.
    Mr. H. Brooke: It is too early to say when the Royal Commission will report.

    Water Undertaking, Exmouth (Petition)
    Mr. Mathewasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether he is yet in a position to reply to the petition sent to him by the hon. Member for the Honiton Division of Devon, signed by nearly 5,000 residents of Exmouth, objecting to the proposal to take over the Exmouth Urban District Council's Water Undertaking and requesting that the Minister should not take any compulsory action.
    Mr. Bevins: My right hon. Friend is considering this Petition, which was received in the Department only a few days ago, and he will reply to my hon. Friend as soon as possible.
    Mr. Mathew: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply, but will he urge on his right hon. Friend the examination of this matter with the utmost sympathy, bearing in mind the fact that this is an extremely efficient undertaking, which is run very economically, and that literally thousands of local ratepayers regard the proposal as a forerunner of nationalisation and, eventually, of higher water rates?
    Mr. Bevins: Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend has all that multiplicity of considerations well in mind, and I hope my hon. Friend will be patient and await the reply.

    Biddulph Urban District (Grants)
    Mr. Harold Daviesasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what grants have been made by his Departments since 1945 to the Biddulph Urban District Council, Staffordshire; and for what purposes these grants were made.
    Mr. Bevins: As the Answer contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Davies: Can the hon. Gentleman give some indication of the amount of time that elapses between the request by the local authority for a grant, its submission of plans, and the award of the grant to the authority?
    Mr. Bevins: It varies from case to case. I am not sure what type of grant the hon. Gentleman is referring to, but if the suggestion is that there have been delays in respect of this local authority, I shall be glad to look into the matter.

    Year

    Compensation for loss of rates on extinguishment of tithe rent charge

    Subsidies under the Local Government Acts 1929 and 1946

    Housing Subsidies

    Evacuation

    £

    £

    £

    £

    1945–46

    …

    …

    17

    6,773

    3,504

    35

    1946–47

    …

    …

    15

    6,892

    3,903

    29

    1947–48

    …

    …

    16

    7,011

    4,681

    —

    1948–49

    …

    …

    16

    —

    5,450

    4

    1949–50

    …

    …

    15

    —

    6,868

    —

    1950–51

    …

    …

    15

    —

    7,763

    —

    1951–52

    …

    …

    15

    —

    8,296

    —

    1952–53

    …

    …

    15

    —

    10,394

    —

    1953–54

    …

    …

    13

    —

    16,809

    —

    1954–55

    …

    …

    14

    —

    27,899

    —

    1955–56

    …

    …

    14

    —

    29,786

    —

    1956–57

    …

    …

    13

    —

    30,731

    —.

    1957–58

    …

    …

    13

    —

    29,445

    —

    191

    20,676

    185,529

    68

    Total: £206,000 approximately.

  HOUSING

    House Purchase (Local Authority Advances)
    Mrs. Butlerasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what action he is proposing to take to enable local authorities to advance 100 per cent. of the purchase price to suitable applicants for loans for house purchase.
    Mr. H. Brooke: While I wish local authorities to make full use of their powers to lend for house purchase, these could only be extended by legislation. I will keep in mind the suggestion in the hon. Member's Question.
    Mrs. Butler: Whilst thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, may I ask whether he appreciates that if he could take some action quickly it would greatly assist families who are being evicted under the Rent Act and are trying to help themselves by buying houses but who cannot get together the 10 per cent. deposit in the short time available?
    Mr. Brooke: This suggestion has been made to me from a number of quarters. To prove that I have not a closed mind
    Following are the figures:
    Grants paid to the Biddulph Urban District Council in respect of purposes for which the Minister of Housing and Local Government is now responsible, for each of the years from 1945–46 to 1957–58:
    on the subject, I would point out that I raised no objection to a provision of that very character in the Wallasey Corporation Bill which has been before Parliament this Session.
    Mr. Page: Is my right hon. Friend aware that facilities of this sort for advances of 100 per cent. to house purchasers would be welcomed on this side of the House as well, at any rate in respect of new houses?
    Mr. Brooke: I will take note of that.

    Prefabricated Houses (Public Open Space)
    Mrs. Butlerasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs when he proposes to introduce legislation to permit local authorities to retain prefabricated houses on public open space for the temporary housing of the homeless.
    Mr. H. Brooke: As I said in reply to the hon. Member on 24th June, I do not think that such action is needed. In general we want more public open space, not less.
    Mrs. Butler: Since the Minister's estimate of the number of homeless families, certainly in Wood Green, differs from that of the local authority, in that he thinks that the problem will he negligible after October and the local authority thinks that a great many families will be involved, will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to look at this matter again in six months' time when the position will be clearer, and consider whether action on these lines can be taken then?
    Mr. Brooke: I am afraid that I cannot give that undertaking. In the case which the hon. Lady has in mind, Wood Green Borough Council sought Ministerial approval to keep 56 houses on public open spaces until August, 1960, and that was granted. I really do not believe that they ought to stay there longer.

    Rent Act, 1957
    Mr. Doddsasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what progress is being made in the objectives of the Rent Act; what evidence he has of unreasonable demands by landlords from tenants of decontrolled houses; and what effect he estimates evictions under the Act will have on the housing problems of local authorities.
    Mr. H. Brooke: The Rent Act is already enabling landlords to put and keep their property in better repair, and is encouraging them to re-let rather than to sell. The decontrol provisions are working, and cases of genuine hardship should be met by the provisions of the Landlord and Tenant (Temporary Provisions) Bill. I anticipate no serious difficulties for local authorities.
    Mr. Dodds: Will the right hon. Gentleman state what has been the effect of his warning to unscrupulous landlords who are trying to make tenants who have short leases; of neglected property take on all obligations except for major structural operations? What information has the right hon. Gentleman that the evictions after October, as a result of the Rent Act, will not create major problems for some local authorities at a time when the housing programme is being cut down materially?
    Mr. Brooke: Since the warning to which the hon. Member refers, I have introduced the Landlord and Tenant (Temporary Provisions) Bill and that Bill, in the course of its passage through Parliament, was amended, I should have thought, in the sense which the hon. Member would approve. Nobody can tell for certain the number of people who may be homeless after October, but I know that the London County Council first made an estimate of 30,000 and then reduced it to 3,000. I think that it will be lower than that.

    Lake District National Park (Private Houses)
    Mr. Whitelawasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (1) what powers have been given to the Lake District Planning Board over the erection of private dwelling-houses in the Lake District National Park;
    (2) on what grounds he decided not to allow the appeals made by Dr. Newall and Mr. Horn against the refusal of planning permission for the erection of two bungalows near Lake Ullswater.
    Mr. Bevins: The Lake District Planning Board has the powers of a local planning authority under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, to control development including the erection of private houses. The bungalows in question were to be erected on conspicuous sites in an area of great natural beauty in a National Park. My right hon. Friend agreed with the local planning authority that bungalows here would damage the landscape.
    Mr. Whitelaw: Whilst it is widely appreciated that the Lake District Planning Board serves the best interests of the Lake District, may I ask whether my hon. Friend is aware that in this case the Board overruled the authority concerned and flatly contradicted one of its own previous decisions? Is he also aware that the considerations which he has mentioned may have applied to two private individuals who were trying to erect bungalows designed to fit in with the scenic beauty of the district, whereas the same consideration did not apply to a public body which was allowed to erect

    1127
    cottages of a very ordinary design indeed in exactly the same area?
    Mr. Bevins: It is true that the Lake District Planning Board delegates some of its planning functions to the rural district council, but it is perfectly entitled to overrule that council if it thinks that the latter is wrong. It thought so on this occasion and so did my right hon. Friend. As for the comparison with the Outward Bound buildings, I have looked at these two cases and I am perfectly convinced that, owing to the shielding of the Outward Bound buildings by trees and the difference in the contour, they are not offensive to amenity whereas the bungalows on the edge of the lake would have been so.

    Flats, Cardiff
    Mr. Callaghanasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs on what date his sanction was sought by the Cardiff City Council for the erection of twelve three-storey blocks of flats at Ball Road, Llanrumney, Cardiff; and on what date his assent was given.
    Mr. H. Brooke: On the planning aspects of this scheme my assent was not required; Cardiff City Council is itself the planning authority. As regards the Housing Acts, the Council submitted the scheme to me on 8th May, 1958, and my approval was given on 25th June.
    Mr. Callaghan: In view of the impression under which a number of local inhabitants are labouring that this was intended as an open space, can the Minister confirm that in fact it was not so intended? Secondly, can he tell us whether any limitation is put on the type of housing development in the area?
    Mr. Brooke: To the best of my knowledge, this land was not allocated for open space, nor am I aware of any limitation being put on the form of housing development.

    Decontrolled Houses (Repair)
    Mr. Blenkinsopasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what action he
    1128
    is taking to check the growing practice of landlords in Newcastle-upon-Tyne threatening eviction proceedings against tenants who reduce their rent when landlords' undertakings to carry out repairs remain unfulfilled.
    Mr. H. Brooke: I am not aware of this practice. But I welcome this opportunity of re-emphasising that the security of a controlled tenant is in no way affected by his exercising his rights under the disrepair procedure of the Rent Act.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: While welcoming the right hon. Gentleman's clear statement to this effect, is he nevertheless aware that many tenants refuse to believe that this is the case, and are paying very much higher rents, as they have been, in effect, almost terrorised by private landlords in many cases? Will the right hon. Gentleman not cease to make these public statements about the true position of the tenant, both on the radio and in other ways, to try to ensure that tenants appreciate their rights?
    Mr. Brooke: I have from the beginning done all in my power to let tenants know what are their rights, and one and a quarter million copies of the 6d. booklet, "The Rent Act and You", have been sold. Unfortunately many people may have been misled by false propaganda about the Rent Act.
    Dame Irene Ward: Arising out of that answer, may I ask my right hon. Friend if he is aware that I have sent him a specific case of a landlord, who fortunately is not a constituent of mine but who has property in my constituency at North Shields, who has deliberately terrorised the tenant? The details of the case have been sent to my right hon. Friend. Does not he consider that it is ill-advised merely to dismiss these allegations?
    Mr. Brooke: One thing I have learned is that it is unwise for any of us to express a view about a case on the spur of the moment without knowing both sides of it.
    Mr. Mitchison: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, to my own knowledge, far too many landlords are still refusing to accept the holding back of rent, which the tenant is entitled to do under the Act, and will he consider bringing forward legislation to make such a

    1129
    refusal an offence, even when there is no entry in the rent book?
    Mr. Brooke: In the kind of case to which I think the hon. and learned Gentleman is referring, paragraph (8) of the First Schedule to the Rent Act enables the tenant to go to the local authority and seek a certificate stating definitely whether or not the undertaking has been carried out.
    Mr. Mitchison: That is not the point.
    Mr. Blenkinsopasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether he will introduce legislation to enable tenants to enforce proper standards of repair against their landlord when the property has become decontrolled under the provisions of the 1957 Act.
    Mr. H. Brooke: No, Sir. The repairing obligations of landlord and tenant must be a matter for agreement when the terms of a new tenancy are settled.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: Does not the right hon. Gentleman recognise that many people have taken on new tenancies quite forgetting the fact that this puts them completely in the power of the landlord? Will he consider the very serious plight of many tenants of bad property who are now unable to enforce any decent standard of repair against the landlord? Will he seek powers to enforce decent standards upon the landlords?
    Mr. Brooke: I am very sorry if any tenants have entered into unwise agreements without taking professional advice beforehand, as they have been advised repeatedly to do.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: Is not the Minister aware that this is a natural consequence of his own Act, and will he, therefore, take measures to protect tenants against these consequences?
    Mr. Brooke: The Opposition cannot distract attention from the shortcomings of their own housing policy by continuing to slight the Government, who have had the courage to tackle rent restriction.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: In view of the evidence from both sides of the House that landlords are taking advantage of tenants, may I ask the Minister whether
    1130
    he will recognise his obligation, as the Minister who recommended this legislation to the House, to protect the tenants against them?
    Mr. Brooke: No, Sir. I think we must all have regard to the protection that is available to us under the law. I am extremely sorry when individuals, whether in this matter or any other, fail to inform themselves adequately.
    Mr. Gower: While it may be true that considerable repairs are needed, is not there evidence from all over the country to show that in recent months the scale of repairs to houses has been far greater than for very many years?
    Mr. Brooke: Yes, Sir. That is one of the excellent effects of the Rent Act which the Opposition have sought to prevent.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: On a point of order. I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment tomorrow.
    Dame Irene Ward: Further to that point of order. May I join in the debate tomorrow night?
    Mr. Speaker: I shall have to see how we get on, but I think the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop) may want to ask for legislation.

    Atherstone (Housing Programme)
    Mr. Mossasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (1) whether he will reconsider his decision not to allow the construction of 22 houses at Warton in the Atherstone rural district in the County of Warwick;
    (2) what representations he has received from the Atherstone Rural District Council concerning the construction of 22 houses at Warton; and whether he will state his reply.
    Mr. H. Brooke: I have already agreed that the council should put 67 dwellings into tender this year. The council has asked for this to be increased to 89 because it claims that it was delayed by my Department in approving the layout for its Warton site. It is not in dispute that there were difficulties about the layout proposed by the council, which took time to resolve: but this particular problem

    1131
    had no bearing on the size of programme I could authorise the council to put in hand this year. I shall be prepared later in the year to review its request for an increase.
    Mr. Moss: While welcoming the right hon. Gentleman's approval of the houses, may I ask whether he is aware that the Atherstone Rural District Council has completed only 12 houses this year, as compared with an annual average of 122 since 1951–52? Is he aware that since 1956 preparations have been made at Warton to build houses to remove slum dwellings? Would not it therefore be a good idea if the council were allowed to get on with those as well?
    Mr. Brooke: What I have done is to approve a programme of 67 houses this year, which should cover the immediate slum clearance commitments, and I have told the hon. Member that I am prepared to look at the matter again later in the year.

  KENYA

    Kamiti Prison Hospital (Detainees)
    Mrs. Castleasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many detainees in Kamiti Quarry Hospital, Kenya, are suffering from tuberculosis and leprosy; how long have they been in the hospital; and what treatment they are receiving.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. John Profumo): I assume the hon. Lady is referring to Kamiti Prison Hospital, which is the central prison hospital to which all convicts and detainees suffering from infectious tuberculosis are transferred. At 15th July there were 30 detainees suffering from tuberculosis and four suffering from leprosy in the hospital. The maximum period for which any tubercular patient has been under treatment there is two years; the lepers are new arrivals. As the medical treatment is varied and technical I will, with permission, circulate details of this in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mrs. Castle: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that information confirms that in a letter which I have received from one of the detainees in the hospital, which also complained that the treatment which the detainees are receiving is not the same
    1132
    or as good as that given in the civil native hospitals, and that it also alleges that medicine is refused unless the men confess, and that there is no diet for the sick different from that of the healthy? Will he examine those points carefully?
    Mr. Profumo: I think that the hon. Lady knows that if she sends my right hon. Friend or me any information of this sort, we will always examine it very carefully. I hope that she will resort to that instead of making what appear to be wild allegations in the House. I assure her that when she reads my Answer, she will see that the treatment afforded is of the most up-to-date kind.
    Mr. Callaghan: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that, however undesirable he may think it, this sort of Question becomes inevitable in view of the recent discussion which we had in the House on whether Members' correspondence is privileged or not?
    Mr. Profumo: If the hon. Lady likes to speak to me, that will give me even greater pleasure.
    Following is the information:
    Patients receive the following treatment:
    (i) Tuberculosis:

    (a) Chemotherapy (isonicotinic acid hydrazide and para-amino-salicylic acid).

    (b) Pneumo-peritoneum

    (c) Postural treatment to assist the closure of large lung cavities

    (d) Symptomatic treatment.

    (e) Extra diet

    (All T.B. cases are X-rayed every six months.)
    (ii) Leprosy:
    Avlosulphon tablets combined with symptomatic treatment.

  SEYCHELLES

    Shoe Repairs (Prison Labour)
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what petitions have been received by the Government of the Seychelles from shoe makers against the use of prison labour for the making and repair of shoes; and what action has been taken.
    Mr. Profumo: The Governor received a petition dated 19th February, 1958, alleging that the Prisons Department was undertaking shoe repairs for the public,

    1133
    using prison labour and in direct competition with commercial shoemakers. It was found that six private repairs had been undertaken, in order to extend the training in cobbling given to the prisoners by the police cobbler. On 25th February the Superintendent of Prisons was directed to limit work to the repair of police and Prison Department boots and the shoes of nursing sisters; the petitioners were informed of this decision.
    Mr. Swingler: As there are plenty of opportunities in the Seychelles for constructive labour by prisoners which will not damage the interests of craftsmen or traders, will the Under-Secretary ensure that there is strict adherence to the rule that prison labour should not be exploited to the detriment of civilians?
    Mr. Profumo: So long as the international regulations are being observed, those are matters which are better left to the local authorities.

    Lepers, Curieuse (Rehabilitation and Resettlement)
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps are being taken by the Government of the Seychelles for the rehabilitation and resettlement of persons discharged from the leper settlement of Curieuse; and what financial provision is made for them during the period of resettlement.
    Mr. Profumo: The Director of Medical Services makes sure that people discharged from the leper settlement have a suitable home to go to and someone to look after them. The Welfare Department finds work for them if asked. Financial help in the form of poor relief is given if necessary.
    Mr. Swingler: Will the Under-Secretary make some inquiries about the present financial provision? Is he aware that many of these people fall into a state of destitution after leaving the settlement? As they should clearly be given special care and welfare facilities, will he inquire what measures are being taken by the Government of the Seychelles to provide some form of regular financial assistance?
    Mr. Profumo: My Answer was designed to let the hon. Member know that I am perfectly satisfied that the Government of the Seychelles are taking these masters into consideration and helping all those who need help.

  SIERRA LEONE

    Diamond Smuggling
    Mr. R. Edwardsasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what proposals were made on the problems of diamond smuggling in discussions between President Tubman and Sir Maurice Dorman, Governor of Sierra Leone, during the Governor's official visit to Liberia.
    Mr. Profumo: I understand that the Governor took the opportunity during his visit of discussing the matter informally with President Tubman who expressed his sympathy for the Sierra Leone Government in their difficulties and promised his support within the limits of what was practical.
    Mr. Hector Hughes: Can the Under-Secretary say whether these conversations will be embodied in a document or White Paper for consideration by the House? In the meantime, what steps are being taken to stop this practice?
    Mr. Profumo: I could not give that undertaking without further consideration

    Palm Oil Industry
    Mr. R. Edwardsasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what proposals for a national policy are being considered by the Sierra Leone Marketing Board to stimulate the palm oil industry, in view of the conclusion in its annual report for 1957 that the palm oil industry is of fundamental importance to the economy of Sierra Leone.
    Mr. Profumo: The Marketing Board's Report urged the adoption by the Government and others concerned of a policy of planting high yield varieties of oil palms; and I understand that the Sierra Leone Government have been actively investigating means of stimulating production of palm kernels, as well as of other agricultural products.
    Mr. Edwards: I thank the hon. Member for that reply, but does not he agree that there is great scope in the palm oil industry for the possible development of the co-operative principle? Does not he further agree that a scheme similar to the one operating in Nigeria, where seedlings are circulated at very cheap rates, and where there is a high degree of

    1135
    training, might also be considered for the palm oil industry of Sierra Leone?
    Mr. Profumo: I should like to look into that matter.

  TRINIDAD

    Constitution (Discussions)
    Mr. Brockwayasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what conclusions were reached in his official discussions with the Governor of Trinidad regarding constitutional changes for that territory.
    The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd): Discussions have not yet taken place.
    Mr. Brockway: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that this is the last week before the Recess? As these discussions are contemplated, in view of the able administration of the islands by Dr. Eric Williams and the fact that Trinidad is to be the site of the Federal capital, will he do his utmost to enable full self-government in Trinidad to be realised?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Work at the Colonial Office does not stop merely because the House of Commons rises.

  WESTERN ADEN PROTECTORATE

    Discussions
    Mr. Brockwayasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what conclusions have been reached in the official discussions with the four rulers of Western Aden Protectorates regarding the establishment of a federation of these territories; and what proposals have been made for increasing the provision of British defence forces.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I explained the result of my discussion with the Rulers from the Western Aden Protectorate in my reply to the question of the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson) on 17th July. The Answer to the second part of the question is that it is not in the public interest to disclose what scales of British forces may be required in the Aden Protectorate or elsewhere from time to time.
    Mr. Brockway: In these discussions, will the right hon. Gentleman be careful not to establish an artificial structure which does not have the support of the people of the Protectorates?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: That will certainly not be an accurate description of the proposed federation.

  CYPRUS

    Crimes of Violence (Compensation)
    Mr. Wallasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will extend the Recovery of Compensation for Malicious Damage Act, introduced by Greek members and passed by the Cyprus Legislative Council in 1931, to cover compensation for crimes of violence in Cyprus.
    Mr. Profumo: The Governor is considering whether the amendment of this legislation would help in present circumstances.
    Mr. Wall: Does my hon. Friend agree that it might help to check racial violence if, when damage was done to the property of one of these communities and the culprits could not be found, the other community had to pay just compensation?
    Mr. Profumo: Those are the sort of things which the Governor is taking into consideration, but my hon. Friend should bear in mind that this violence is often caused by people coming from another district.

    Arrested Persons (Bail)
    Mrs. Castleasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many offenders arrested in Cyprus under the Emergency Regulations, since January of this year, have been granted bail.
    Mr. Profumo: One hundred and twenty-eight.
    Mrs. Castle: How many of those arrested were in cases involving offences which could bring the death penalty? Is it a fact that a Turkish police sergeant carrying a primed bomb in his car, a case which carries the death penalty under the Emergency Regulations, was granted bail, jumped his bail and escaped to Turkey? Is this the only case of its kind? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is a

    1137
    widespread belief in Cyprus that the Emergency Regulations are not being operated with scrupulous impartiality?
    Hon. Members: Shame.
    Mr. Profumo: I simply will not accept the implications of the hon. Lady's question. There is a later Question on the subject which will be answered by my right hon. Friend. The answer to the first part of the hon. Lady's supplementary question is that there were six cases of carrying firearms, four Greek and two Turkish.

    Police Sergeant Mustafa Tuna
    Mrs. L. Jegerasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what was the charge brought against Police Sergeant Mustafa Tuna in Cyprus; what is the statutory punishment for this offence; why bail was granted to Police Sergeant Tuna, without guarantors; and what are his present whereabouts.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: He was arrested for being in possession of a bomb, for which he was liable to imprisonment for life or a lesser punishment. The grant of personal bail lies solely within the discretion of the judge. Mustafa Tuna left Cyprus for Turkey on 8th July.
    Mrs. Jeger: Is the right hon. Gentleman quite satisfied not only that justice was impartially done in this case but that it was seen to be done? Is he aware that this case has caused the gravest misgivings in Cyprus, as an example of apparent favouritism to a Turkish citizen?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: It would not be proper for me to comment upon any judicial action taken, but I would certainly say that the fact that this man went to Turkey on a Turkish passport, and therefore escaped further proceedings, is highly unfortunate.

    Archbishop Makarios
    Mrs. L. Jegerasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what response there has been from Her Majesty's Government to the most recent letter of Archbishop Makarios, offering to co-operate in attempting to end violence in Cyprus; and whether Her Majesty's Government will now permit the return of the Archbishop.
    Mr. K. Robinsonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if, in view of Archbishop Makarios' plea for the cessation of violence, he will now permit the Archbishop to return to Cyprus.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Her Majesty's Government have noted the full text of the Archbishop's recent response to the Governor's message. The House will be aware that violence continued after the Archbishop's statement. I see no reason to make an alteration in this aspect of our policy as stated on 19th June, and cannot add to what I said on this matter in reply to supplementary questions on 24th July.
    Mrs. Jeger: Is not it getting clearer every day—a fact that we all deeply regret—that the situation in Cyprus cannot be improved without the active participation of Archbishop Makarios? Will not the Government give him a chance to get back among his people, on the spot, to use his power and influence to bring about a better situation in the island?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I think that we are all anxious to say nothing which will make a solution more difficult, but I must remind the hon. Lady that the statement made by the Archbishop included the words,
    "The recent Greco-Turkish trouble in Cyprus wholly arises from the Turks."
    That statement is certainly not true, nor does making it suggest that the immediate return of Archbishop Makarios would be an appeasing factor in the island.
    Mr. Robinson: Will the right hon. Gentleman understand that the presence of the Archbishop in the island would be a moderating factor? Does he appreciate that sooner or later he must bring the Archbishop back? Is he determined that it must be too late?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I have answered that supplementary question in advance.

  NORTHERN RHODESIA

    Government Quarters (Allocation)
    Mrs. Castleasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what has been the result of the consideration by the Central Whitley Council in Kenya of the allocation of Government quarters on a nonracial basis.
    Mr. Profumo: The staff side has not yet been able to produce proposals to put before the Council. The next opportunity for the Council to discuss the question will be in early August but meanwhile all senior African officers in Nairobi have been allotted quarters at European standards.
    Mrs. Castle: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that a purely ad hoc solution is not satisfactory, since it does not fulfil the non-racial principle? As this matter has been dragging on since February of this year, can he give some indication of the difficulties on the staff side and what the staff is standing out for?
    Mr. Profumo: The difficulties are the practical ones of preparing a detailed scheme which is both in line with the policy of non-racial allocation and fair to those who have joined the Service expecting a certain type of accommodation.

    Employment (I.L.O. Convention)
    Sir L. Plummerasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps have been taken and are being considered by the Government of Northern Rhodesia to counteract discrimination in employment, including discrimination on grounds of race, in view of the recent Convention adopted by the International Labour Organisation at Geneva.
    Mr. Profumo: The Convention was adopted only last month and as Her Majesty's Government have not yet decided what action to take the question does not at present arise.
    Sir L. Plummer: Do Her Majesty's Government see any reason why the Convention should not be applied to Northern Rhodesia?
    Mr. Profumo: I am afraid that that is a hypothetical question.

    Constitution (Discussions)
    Mr. Stonehouseasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will make a statement on his discussions with Sir Arthur Benson and the delegation from Northern Rhodesia with regard to constitutional changes.
    Mr. Wallasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will make a statement on his talks with the Governor of Northern Rhodesia.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I have at present nothing to add to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) yesterday.
    Mr. Stonehouse: Can the Colonial Secretary give an assurance that no changes will be imposed in the Protectorate before the House has had a chance of debating them? Will he bear in mind that there is widespread opposition, not only in Northern Rhodesia, but also in this House, to the proposals which will give a majority to the European minority, which is only 3 per cent. of the country's population?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I could not accept the hon. Member's description of the White Paper proposals, but I will be quite frank with the House: it will be necessary to advise Her Majesty to make constitutional instruments during the Recess in order that the Government of Northern Rhodesia may proceed with the registration of voters under the new franchise proposals to enable the holding of a new election within the time limits imposed under the present constitutional instruments. The House knows my difficulty, and also knows that I have been long urged to get on with the task of constitutional development in Northern Rhodesia.
    Mr. Brockway: On a point of order. Will Her Majesty's Government have the power to impose these constitutional changes without an Order in Council, which should lie upon the Table and be open to debate by the House of Commons?
    Mr. Speaker: I am not sure about the facts of this Order, but usually there are safeguards for the House in proper cases. But there is no power to prevent a Government Department making an Order generally during the Recess.
    Mr. Callaghan: I am sure that the whole House and the Leader of the House will agree that this is an unusual situation, in which substantial constitutional modifications are apparently to be made, and the House of Commons will have no opportunity of pronouncing upon them even though the final responsibility is that of the House of Commons. Will the Leader of the House consider the position which is likely to arise, so that we can have a statement, if the situation is so far

    1141
    advanced, before the House rises, so that we might all have further time to consider what changes are to be made?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Perhaps I may answer for Her Majesty's Government. I understand the difficulties but I do not believe that there would be a different policy, whichever party was in power, in regard to the proceedings during the next few months. We cannot stop the necessary work during the Recess. I have given a great deal of thought to this matter, and I should be willing to arrange that the Order should be in two parts and it would then be the second which would enable the changes to take place. We could consider, through the usual channels, whether the House would wish to discuss proposals before an election could take place.
    Mr. Wall: Is not it a fact that the delay has been caused by the long discussions about the Constitution?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Yes, it has been thoroughly thrashed out.
    Mr. Callaghan: Are we likely to have a statement about the proposed machinery before the House rises?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Not in addition to what I have said. I think that what I have said will ensure that the House, if it wishes at the time, will be able to have a discussion before irrevocable action is taken.
    Mr. Brockway: On a point of order. Grave issues are involved here for the whole of Central Africa. If there were a demand by hon. Members for a sitting of the House before these proposals are put through, would you take it into consideration, Mr. Speaker?
    Mr. Speaker: The only provision made in our Standing Orders for the recall of the House is in Standing Order No. 112. Unless that were put into operation, there would be no way of recalling the House.

  TANGANYIKA

    Education
    Mr. Malcolm MacPhersonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many boys completed middle school education in Tanganyika at the end of last session for whom places were not
    1142
    available in secondary schools or trades schools.
    Mr. Profumo: A total of 3,850 boys completed middle school education at the end of last session. Of these, 1,759 entered secondary trade schools. Of the balance of 2,091, 362 entered teacher training centres, and some 600 are known to have taken up employment with central or local government, missions and seminaries. Statistics are not available for those who entered the many other fields of employment.
    Mr. MacPherson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there are not enough secondary schools to take all the boys who want to go to them, nor enough trade schools? Will he try to make sure that the comparatively small number of people in the population of Tanganyika who succeed in completing middle school education have an opportunity to go further with their education?
    Mr. Profumo: Yes, Sir. The Tanganyika Government has this matter very much in mind.
    Mr. J. Johnson: Can the Under-Secretary confirm that although Tanganyika has a population of about 9 million Africans, fewer than 250 have finished their school certificate course? Is that correct?
    Mr. Profumo: I should not like to hazard a guess about those figures without more information, although I know that the hon. Gentleman is usually accurate.

  EAST AFRICA

    Customs and Income Tax (Changes)
    Mr. Stonehouseasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies in view of the fact that the recent Customs and Income Tax changes in Kenya, Uganda, and Tanganyika were not considered by the East African Revenue Advisory Board, as provided by Order in Council, how far the new Regulations will be implemented; and what action he proposes to take to clear the confusion in commercial circles in the three territories in regard to customs changes.
    Mr. Profumo: It is for the High Commission in its discretion to refer any such question to the Revenue Advisory Board and decisions of this kind cannot by their nature be the subject of prior public discussion. The recent changes came into effect on 8th May although the Income Tax decisions are effective in the main on incomes arising in 1958 and the new Customs Regulations came into full effect only on the 1st July. I see no cause for the confusion which the hon. Member suggests exists.
    Mr. Stonehouse: Has the attention of the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend been drawn to the speech of the Minister of Commerce and Works in Uganda earlier this month, which was reported in the Uganda and Kenya Press and which was to the effect that the Customs changes were illegal? What action has been taken as a result of that speech?
    Mr. Profumo: No action has been taken as a result of that speech.

    Makerere College
    Mr. Malcolm MacPhersonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why such a high proportion of members of the Council of Makerere College are governmental nominees.
    Mr. Profumo: Since the recurrent expenses of Makerere College are met almost entirely by the East African Governments it is not unreasonable that there should be 14 Government nominees, of whom only five are officials, out of a total membership of 23.
    Mr. MacPherson: Does the hon. Member realise that the universities in this country also have their recurrent expenses met out of public funds? Does he realise that on the score of academic freedom, if this sort of governing body were offered to any university or university college in this country it would be instantly rejected?
    Mr. Profumo: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has not wholly appreciated that there is an Academic Board which is responsible to the Council to carry out the academic management of the College. The Makerere College Council is mainly responsible for the financial control and general administration of the College.

  HONG KONG

    Development Corporation
    Mr. Mathewasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will give support to the proposed formation of a development corporation in Hong Kong.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: This is a matter in the first instance for the Government of Hong Kong to consider.
    Mr. Mathew: Will my right hon. Friend draw the attention of the Government of Hong Kong to the advantages of the establishment of such a body, which are twofold: first, to co-ordinate the industrial production of Hong Kong, and, secondly, to harmonise United Kingdom and Hong Kong industrial production when there may be conflict?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I know that it has been arranged that the member who brought this idea forward should put up a plan to the Trade and Industry Advisory Committee.

  NIGERIA

    Tin Mining
    Mr. E. L. Mallalieuasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the present number of unemployed workers in the tin mining industry in Nigeria; what alternative employment has been found for them; and what proposals are being considered by the industry and Government of Nigeria for the future of the mines, in view of the latest decisions of the International Tin Council.
    Mr. Profumo: The labour force has dropped by 22,000 between June, 1957, and June, 1958, but only about 500 have registered as unemployed. The remainder have returned home to work on their farms or have obtained employment elsewhere in Nigeria. If there is continued large-scale redundancy and unemployment resulting in hardship, the Federal and Northern Region Governments will be prepared to consider advancing certain building and development projects in the worst affected areas in order to provide some alternative employment. The extension of the railway from Jos to Maiduguri is expected to begin within the next two months and

    1145
    in recruiting the labour force for this work preference will be given to unemployed miners.
    Mr. Mallalieu: Can the hon. Member say whether plans are being made for the re-assembly of this labour force when full production is possible again?
    Mr. Profumo: I do not think that any active plans are being made, but I judge that it will not be very difficult to reassemble the labour force.

  MALTA

    Discussions
    Mr. Rankinasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has yet reached a decision on the future of Malta as a result of his discussions with the Governor.
    Mr. Awberyasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if the discussions with the Governor of Malta respecting the constitutional future of the island have now been completed; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: My discussions with the Governor are nearly over and I hope to make a statement before the House rises.
    Mr. Rankin: Would not the Colonial Secretary think it a worth-while gesture at the moment to release those who are held in political detention, and, secondly, to consider the advisability of withdrawing the emergency regulations?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: No, Sir—to both questions.
    Mr. Awbery: Is the Minister aware that Friday, when the House rises, coincides with three months of emergency in Malta? Will he now consider allowing the state of emergency to die a natural death? May I also ask him to give further consideration to the constitution that he proposed a few months ago? Further, is he aware that a commercial undertaking has offered to do the work in the dockyard, but that it proposes to employ only 4,000 men, instead of 13,000? Will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that alternative employment will be found for the remainder?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. Member will be well advised to await my statement.

  UGANDA

    Constitution (Proposals)
    Mr. J. Johnsonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware of the constitutional proposals for the future of Uganda that have been submitted to the Governor by J. K. Babiiha, Member of the Legislative Council, on behalf of the Toro Kingdom; and what action he proposes to take thereon.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: These proposals have not been submitted to the Governor. I feel that no action is called for on my part, although these suggestions are an interesting stimulus to public discussion in Uganda.
    Mr. Johnson: Bearing in mind the ignorance of the Minister about these proposals, will he confirm the fact that the smaller kingdoms of Uganda are distinctly apprehensive of Buganda, and the Buganda Government as a whole? Will he give the House an assurance that he will safeguard the interests of the smaller kingdoms, if and when any future constitution is being considered?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Most certainly, yes.

  GIBRALTAR

    Newspaper Article
    Mr. G. Jegerasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to the resolution passed by the Gibraltar Legislative Council protesting against libellous innuendoes concerning the loyalty of Gibraltar during the war contained in an article in the Sunday Dispatch, 6th July, 1958; and what action he will take to reassure the people of Gibraltar of the Government's appreciation of their services in the war.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Yes, Sir. I am sure that all in this House will wish the Gibraltar Legislative Council to know that any imputation on the loyalty of the people of Gibraltar is deeply resented in this country.
    Mr. Jeger: Is the right hon. Member aware that that Answer will cause great

    1147
    satisfaction in Gibraltar, where the Legislative Council described that article in the Sunday Dispatch as deliberate lies and an unwarranted libel? Will he take steps to see that his remarks are passed on to the Legislative Council?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Yes, certainly. I think that the article complained of contained a deplorable statement.

  CYPRUS
  Mrs. L. Jegerasked the Prime Minister whether he has yet been able to make arrangements to meet the Prime Ministers of Greece and Turkey to discuss the future of Cyprus.
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): I have been asked to reply.
  I have nothing to add at present to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies to a supplementary question by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) on 24th July.
  Mrs. Jeger: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is now nearly five weeks since the Prime Minister promised this House that he would go anywhere and meet anybody in an endeavour to bring the Cyprus problem nearer a solution? Is it the intention of the Government that the House should rise without any further initiative being taken to improve this really disastrous situation in the island?
  Mr. Butler: There is no intention that no further initiative should be taken. I cannot indicate this afternoon when such an initiative would be, but I do not think that my right hon. Friend would feel himself stopped from departing from his original wish, namely, that such talks should take place and that every possible step should be taken to ensure peace in the island.
  Mr. Gaitskell: I am sure that the whole House is deeply shocked and disturbed at the succession of murders in Cyprus in the last week or so. I was wondering whether it might be worth while inviting the Greek and Turkish Prime Ministers to join with our Prime Minister in an appeal that Cypriots should end violence.
  Mr. Butler: I will certainly bring to my right hon. Friend's attention the wishes of the Leader of the Opposition in this matter. As the House knows, my right hon. Friend is engaged today in concluding the discussions that have been taking place over the weekend, and he has asked me to regret that he could not be present in the House this afternoon. I will convey the right hon Gentleman's remarks to my right hon. Friend.

  OPENING OF PARLIAMENT (TELEVISION)
  Mr. Leatherasked the Prime Minister if he will announce the decision of Her Majesty's Government with regard to televising the ceremony of the Opening of Parliament.
  Mr. R. A. Butler: I have been asked to reply.
  This matter is under consideration and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister hopes to make an announcement before the House rises.
  Mr. Leather: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the arguments which are now being dealt with are very similar to those gone through over the televising of the Coronation and, indeed, over the televising of Her Majesty's opening of Parliament in Ottawa a few months ago—and that in each case the decision to televise the ceremony was amply justified by the results, and that in fact a decision to do so in this case would cause great pleasure to the vast majority of our people?
  Mr. Butler: My hon. Friend may rest assured that these precedents have been carefully studied, and the resultant conclusion has been registered, but we must also take into consideration the point of view of hon. Members of this House, and of many people who have a different attitude in this matter. The concluding decision will be given after hon. Members—not only among the Opposition but others—have had an opportunity of expressing their opinions.
  Mr. Woodburn: If a decision is taken to televise the ceremony, would not it be desirable that it should be done in colour, so that the film could go all over the world and be seen with a colourful background? I am not commenting upon the wisdom or otherwise of the decision.
  Mr. Butler: One of the problems of colour is the intense heat of the lights which are necessary for any such process. I can give no undertaking that technical considerations would not rule out this medium on this occasion.
  Sir G. Nicholson: What steps, if any, is my right hon. Friend taking to find out the opinion of hon. Members?
  Mr. Butler: I am usually very closely in touch with the views of my hon. and right hon. Friends, and I have been fully informed of them. I have also taken the opportunity to ask the opinion of the Leader of the Opposition, which I hope he will be good enough to give the Government in due course.
  Mr. V. Yates: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that if there are to be any extensions of the B.B.C. or other television services, there would be much resentment if the television cameras were to be turned only on the small clique that seems so far to have been under the influence? [Laughter.]
  Hon. Members: Answer.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Speaker: I have a word to say to the House about the business for the next two days—or nights.
I have been deeply impressed with the number of hon. Members who desire to raise matters after 7 o'clock on Thursday, which was the time allotted to hon. Members to raise them. There are so many subjects that it looks like being a very prolonged sitting. As tomorrow is the occasion of the Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation Bill), and we may have some time after the conclusion of the debate on the National Health Service—assuming that that finishes at a reasonable hour—I was wondering whether some hon. Members could raise their subjects tomorrow night instead of on Thursday; so that we could perhaps have two late sittings instead of one very late sitting.
If hon. Members think that suggestion worthy of exploration, and if they will contact the Minister who is to reply to the subjects they raise, to see whether they can arrange for the business to be taken tomorrow after the conclusion of
1150
the main debate, and let me know, I will do my best to make arrangements for the convenience of the House.
Mr. Chetwynd: To get some sort of order into those debates, Mr. Speaker, will you advise the House about what the subjects are likely to be, so that we can follow on in some organised way?
Mr. Speaker: I will do what I can about that.

SUMMIT CONFERENCE (MR. KHRUSHCHEV'S LETTER)
The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:
Mr. BESWICK: To ask the Prime Minister when he expects to meet Mr. Khrushchev.
Mr. Beswick rose—
Mr. S. Silverman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am wondering whether, in the exceptional circumstances—
Hon. Members: Order.
Mr. Speaker: A point of order is being raised.
Mr. Beswick: I was rising to a point of order, Sir.
Mr. Speaker: Then I will call Mr. Beswick.
Mr. Beswick: The point I wish to raise is this, Mr. Speaker. As I am sure that the Government wish to extract themselves from the impossible position in which they have been placed by the summit exchanges, will the Lord Privy Seal give an answer to Question No. 48?
Mr. Speaker: I do not know about that.
Mr. Silverman: As a matter of fact, I was proposing to raise exactly the same point, Sir.
I should like to put to you, Mr. Speaker, that in the very exceptional circumstances in which we find ourselves and because, apparently, Parliament is to adjourn very soon, the natural interest of Members of Parliament in the televising of the opening of Parliament next November ought not to be allowed to displace their more immediate interests in more important matters
Mr. Speaker: It is not a matter of the interest of hon. Members in the televising of the opening of Parliament that is the concern here. It is the Standing Order which limits Question Time to this hour. There is no precedent that I know of which would justify me in allowing Questions after the hour, unless I have been given notice beforehand.
Mr. Gaitskell: May I add a few words in support of my hon. Friends on this matter? Had we supposed that Question No. 48 would not be reached, I think I should have asked you to be allowed to put down a Private Notice Question. I should have thought that most hon. Members were very much concerned with the situation over the Summit Conference, and I am sure the Government are. If the Lord Privy Seal were prepared to answer the Question on behalf of the Prime Minister, I wonder whether, in those circumstances, you would be prepared to allow him to do so, Sir.
Mr. Speaker: A Minister is always entitled to make a statement, with the permission of the House, if he feels that he should do so in the public interest, but not to answer a Question unless he has given notice that he proposes to do so. That is the position under the rules of the House.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): I am quite ready to make a short statement. It is, in fact, only a holding statement. It is as follows. As the House knows, my right hon Friend the Prime Minister has now received a further letter from Mr. Khrushchev, the full text of which was available only this morning. We shall consult urgently with our allies about this. As regards the arrangement for a meeting, including the representation of other States, I would refer to my right hon. Friend's last letter to Mr. Khrushchev, which was published on Sunday.
Mr. Beswick: Arising out of that statement which the Lord Privy Seal has been kind enough to make to the House, may I ask whether he can say now what is the reason which prevents Her Majesty's Government from naming the date for the Summit Conference? May we have an assurance from the Lord Privy Seal that he will be able to give
1152
us a date before the time at present fixed for the rising of this House?
Mr. Butler: Consultations must take place, but nobody can say that my right hon. Friend and Her Majesty's Government have not acted with the utmost dispatch, both in answering Mr. Khrushchev's letters and in the scope and pithiness of our replies. I do not anticipate that my right hon. Friend or Her Majesty's Government will delay in any way in making a further answer to Mr. Khrushchev's letter. I will certainly convey to my right hon. Friend the request of the hon. Gentleman, which, I believe, represents feelings held elsewhere, that the House should receive the maximum information before we rise.
Mr. Foot: Since the Prime Minister's letter of 26th July made no specific reference to the matter, can the right hon. Gentleman say what is the attitude of Her Majesty's Government towards the participation of interested Arab States in the proposed summit meeting?
Mr. Butler: The answer of 26th July suggested that the necessary arrangements should be made with the permanent representatives of the members of the Security Council. It also stated that my right hon. Friend would be ready to go to New York for a meeting, if Mr. Khrushchev would also go. I agree that there is no detailed reference to the point raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman, but I cannot go any further in answering that matter today.
Mr. Gaitskell: First, I should like to thank the Lord Privy Seal for his courtesy in making that statement. May I ask whether he is aware that while we gave our full support to the proposal of Her Majesty's Government that the Summit Conference should take place under the aegis of the Security Council, and while we think it most desirable that it should be associated with the United Nations, we also strongly supported the proposal that there should be private meetings taking place simultaneously? Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that Her Majesty's Government will not allow the desirability of this association with the United Nations to obstruct the holding of any Summit Conference altogether?
Mr. Butler: I can give an assurance on behalf of my right hon. Friend that

1153
it has always been his intention, and that of Her Majesty's Government, that the procedure should be formal and informal. That would give the opportunities which the right hon. Gentleman desires.
Mr. Bevan: Are we to understand that that would not include the possibility of representatives of the Arab States being present?
Mr. Butler: I would like at this stage to say that it would certainly not exclude the possibility of other States being associated with the talks.
Mr. Gower: May I ask, in relation to the question put by the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick), whether it Is not difficult to understand how this country alone can fix a date until it has consulted all the other countries concerned?
Mr. Butler: That illustrates part of the difficulty of the procedure, but it should not in any way detract from the desire of Her Majecty's Government that such talks should take place as soon as possible.
Mr. S. Silverman: Should it turn out on further investigation that some, though not all, of the nations which might attend a Summit Conference are willing to attend at an earlier date, would the right hon. Gentleman say whether Her Majesty's Government would be in favour of a meeting of those who are prepared to meet while those who are not prepared to meet can stay away?
Mr. Butler: I do not think that I should take my answers any further today. I have done my best to give the House the latest information and to say that we shall give the House any further information we can before the House rises. It is quite clear that it is Her Majesty's Government's wish that a conference of the type suggested should be effective. A definition of what "effective" means must be analysed when we see the reply.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
Mr. Mason: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that when we put on the Order Paper Questions for answer by the Prime Minister we frequently have to undergo the frustrating experience of sitting throughout Question Time without the Questions being reached, could you not give consideration to arrangements being made for the Prime Minister to be given a third day, or for his Questions to be advanced on the Order Paper?
Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order.

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. R. A. Butler.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  OPENCAST COAL BILL
  Lords Amendments considered.
  Consideration of the Lords Amendments in the Title, line 7, postponed till after the consideration of the subsequent Amendments.—[Sir I. Horobin.]

  OPENCAST COAL BILL

    Clause 5.—(EFFECT OF OPENCAST SITE ORDERS.)
    Lords Amendments agreed to: In page 6, line 35, leave out "a compulsory rights order, being".
    In page 7, line 5, leave out "compulsory rights".

    Clause 7.—(GENERAL LIMITATIONS ON EFFECT OF COMPULSORY RIGHTS ORDERS.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 8, line 18, at end insert:
    (b) any rights of any statutory water undertakers under any public general Act relating to the supply of water, or under any byelaw made by virtue of such an Act, or under any local enactment, in so far as (apart from this Act) the Act, byelaw or enactment restricts, or enables the undertakers to restrict, the working of coal or other minerals, or the doing of any other act, on land comprised in the order;
    3.42 p.m.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power (Sir Ian Horobin): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    The Amendment fulfils an undertaking in another place to ensure that the National Coal Board cannot override, by means of a compulsory rights order, certain provisions of the 1945 Water Act.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Lords Amendment: In page 8, line 30, after "include" insert:
    "the following:—
    (a)"
    Sir I. Horobin: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    This Amendment and the following Amendment, in line 32, deal with a similar point. They ensure that the Coal Board cannot override by means of a compulsory rights order certain provisions of the Railways Clauses Act, 1845, and various local Acts.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to: In page 8, line 32, at end insert:
    "(b) any rights of the body carrying on a railway, canal, inland navigation, harbour or dock undertaking (not being rights falling within the last preceding subsection) under any enactment (whether contained in a public general Act or in any other Act) in so far as (apart from this Act) the enactment would operate so as—

    (i) to restrict, or enable that body to restrict, the working of coal or other minerals on land comprised in the order which is adjacent to a railway, waterway, harbour, dock or other works situated on land not comprised in the order, being works vested in that body or works which they have any right or duty to maintain, or

    (ii) to require, or enable that body to require, coal or other minerals on land comprised in the order to be left unworked for the protection or support of such a railway, waterway, harbour, dock or other works."

    Lords Amendment: In page 9, line 10, at end insert:
    "(8) In this section 'statutory water undertakers' and 'local enactment' have the same meanings as in the Water Act, 1945."
    Sir I. Horobin: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    This Amendment and the next two Amendments, in lines 11 and 13, are consequential.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to: In page 9, line 11, leave out "the reference" and insert:
    "references to statutory water undertakers, to the Water Act 1945, and".
    Lords Amendment: In page 9, line 13, leave out "a reference" and insert:
    "respectively references to a local water authority, to the Water (Scotland) Act. 1946, and".
    Sir I. Horobin: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    Mr. William Ross: This Amendment has a Scottish application. I wonder, therefore, whether we could have guidance from a representative of the Scottish Office.
    Sir I. Horobin: The three Amendments are, as I said on the previous Amendment, entirely consequential. They do not raise a point of substance at all.
    Mr. Ross: Nevertheless, this is a Scottish Amendment and as Scotland is involved we should have a Scottish Law Officer to advise us.
    Question put and agreed to.

    Clause 8.—(LIMITED COMPULSORY RIGHTS ORDERS.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 9, line 29, after "lease" insert:
    "or order conferring working rights".
    Sir I. Horobin: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    This Amendment is the first of a series dealing with a small point about the rights to work minerals under the Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Act, 1923. There are persons who have obtained these rights by court order. The Amendments provide that such a person shall be treated as if he were the mineral lessee.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Lords Amendment: In page 9, line 31, to leave out paragraph (d).
    Sir I. Horobin: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    This is the first of another series of Amendments which leave out a number of references to timber which are survivals from an earlier draft. In due course I shall move Amendments to Clause 51 to assimilate these two easements and similar rights which make a neater way of dealing with this matter.
    Question put and agreed to.

    Clause 9.—(PROPERTY EXEMPT FROM INCLUSION IN COMPULSORY RIGHTS ORDERS.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 10, line 45, at end insert:
    "(4) An opencast site order as confirmed by the Minister, shall not comprise any land of which possession—

    (a) has previously been taken in the exercise of emergency powers, and

    (b) has at any time (whether before or after the commencement of this Act) been retained in the exercise of those powers for the purpose of working coal on that land, or on land contiguous therewith, by opencast operations, and

    (c) has before the confirmation of the order ceased to be retained in the exercise of those powers,

    unless, at the time of confirming the order, the Minister is satisfied that there are special circumstances existing at that time, or special circumstances relating to the land in question, which justify its inclusion in an opencast site order notwithstanding that possession thereof has previously been so taken and retained."
    Sir I. Horobin: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    This is a more important Amendment, but I am sure that it will be generally agreeable. It deals with compulsory rights orders on land which has been previously requisitioned. In all parts of the House and in the Committee it was felt that this Amendment was desirable because it says that there must be special circumstances. There might be a greatly increased need for coal, yet a very great amount of coal might be sterilised by the Coal Board not being able to go over a very small piece of land twice. I think that it will be generally agreed that in special circumstances the Board should go twice over the same land.
    Mr. Harold Neal: The Amendment deals with what the Parliamentary Secretary described formerly as a very important, contentious and difficult matter. We are grateful to him for fulfilment, in part, the undertaking he gave us on Third Reading, but for us to say that we are satisfied with the drafting of the Amendment would be an exaggeration. We wish it were couched in more precise terms.
    Where there have been cases of re-entry on ground that has formerly been excavated by opencast mining there have been exceptional hardship and inconvenience. I have never been able to understand why a second or third seam could not be excavated at the first entry. Planning has gone wrong somewhere if, after land has been restored, a second entry has to be made. In Lancashire, Derbyshire and other parts of the country a great deal of inconvenience has been suffered from second entry.
    When land has been excavated, and restoration has been made, the farmer imagines that his tenant right has been restored and that he can get back to normal agricultural production. It is an enormous disappointment for him to find that his land has to be churned up again, his stock interrupted and his production stopped. The inhabitants of the area also conclude that when restoration has been made they are finished with the inconveniences of dust and dirt and village life being incommoded by the traffic in opencast coal being conveyed

    1159
    through the streets. It is a deep disappointment to those people when a second entry has to be made. As we emphasised in Committee and on Third Reading, we wish that this could be entirely eliminated.
    I can illustrate the position by quoting the case, of which I have informed the Parliamentary Secretary, of the village of Tibshelf, in my constituency. That village has suffered opencast mining operations in one way or another since 1944. The entire perimeter of the area is residential and has been excavated. There is now a proposal to make a second entry and, in one part of the site, it will be a third entry. The exasperating part of the matter is that the second entry was most disappointing. Thousands of tons of coal had to be buried because it was unsuitable. Nearby there is a school at which the studies of the children will be interrupted for a second time in a few years. Although the Ministry informs me that silencers are to be fixed to bulldozers and draglines, that is not like fixing silencers to motor cycles.
    I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to explain the provision in paragraph (c), which says:
    "unless at the time of confirming the order, the Minister is satisfied that there are special circumstances existing at that time, or special circumstances relating to the land in question, which justify its inclusion in an opencast site order notwithstanding that possession thereof has previously been so taken and retained."
    We should like to know what "special circumstances" are intended. Would they be a thick seam, a thin overburden, or the calorific value of the coal concerned? We were indebted to the Parliamentary Secretary for telling us on Second Reading that except in circumstances where there is a substantial quantity of coal involved second entry will not be made.
    Does a substantial quantity mean 1,000 tons of coal or more? We were also informed that if no second entry were allowed 10 million tons of coal would be sterilised, but that would not be a great loss in view of the fact that 4½ million tons are already in stock and cannot be sold.
    We would rather see this matter more strictly defined in the Clause. I am advised that it is not possible to put in
    1160
    legislation an absolute duty on a Minister, but the terms of this Amendment are so ill-considered and ill-defined as to be a disappointment to us in that regard. We hope that the Minister will exercise the powers conferred on him under this Clause with the utmost sympathy and consideration.
    Mr. Tom Brown: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. H. Neal), I feel far from satisfied with this Lords Amendment. It is not our intention to divide the House on it, but we feel entitled to reinforce the plea which we put in Committee. I know I should be ruled out of order if I started to argue the case for the discontinuance of second or third visits to opencast sites, but I am very anxious about this matter.
    I am particularly anxious about those unfortunate people in districts where opencast mining has been going on—as in my constituency—for sixteen years. That is a long time for people to be inconvenienced and to have their peaceful enjoyment of the land disturbed. Now it is proposed that those in charge of opencast operations should be able to visit these sites two, three or four times. In passing, may I say that I am greatly indebted to the Department for the decision taken last week in connection with the site known as Smithy Wood. It has been decided that for the time being the fourth visit to that site will be suspended. I am grateful for that declaration of an armistice, but I am particularly worried about the wording of this Clause and about what has fallen from the lips of the Parliamentary Secretary.
    I do not want the hon. Gentleman to have the idea that I mistrust his words, or have no confidence in what he says, but I am very troubled. My concern is based on past experience in dealing with regional officers. I want to know who is to determine the "special circumstances" mentioned in the Amendment. Are they to be regional officers, resident engineers, or contractors who have entered into contracts to work opencast coal? We should like an assurance from the Parliamentary Secretary about who is to determine the special circumstances in relation to paragraphs (a), (b) and (c).
    I am not reading from a textbook, but speaking from painful experience. I

    1161
    do not want to rouse myself into indignation because of treatment meted out to my people in Garswood and Ashtonin-Makerfield, where attempts have been made to persuade the regional officer and the resident engineer not to do such and such things because that would be detrimental to those living in areas adjacent to an opencast site. Very much to my surprise and regret, officials have ridden roughshod over the opinions of the local authorities. We have reached a stage in the process of opencast mining at which we should not allow that to happen. Let us give a little consideration to those who live on these sites and to what they have passed through in the last fourteen, fifteen or sixteen years.
    In view of the stocks of coal which are on hand and the difficulty of disposal of small coal now produced by opencast mining operations, we ought to have an assurance that the special circumstances on which the Minister will base permission for a second or third visit to a site will be decided either by the Minister himself, the Parliamentary Secretary and his advisers, or the Chairman of the National Coal Board. I say emphatically that this should not be left to regional officers. I am not saying this with disrespect to those officers, but because I feel keenly about the matter. These officers live in salubrious surroundings in places like Sale and other parts of Cheshire. They have no conception of what people in opencast mining districts are passing through and have had to pass through. For more than sixteen years these people have been experiencing inconvenience and loss of peaceful enjoyment of amenities.
    I appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to give these people some respite. Let it not be said that hon. Members of this House allowed this work to be continued when it could have been stopped.
    4.0 p.m.
    Mr. G. H. Oliver: I wish to ask the Parliamentary Secretary one question. When authorisation is sought, which would include land the subject of this Amendment, will it be possible, when objection or representations are made under the authorisation order, for the Minister or whoever gives the decision, to make quite clear what the special circumstances referred to are?
    Mr. J. T. Price: I share the apprehensions which have been voiced so strongly by my hon. Friends. There are whole areas of land which, to all intents and purposes, have been turned into the equivalent of battlefields with all the resultant inconvenience and distress to the local population. Having once tasted this experience, unless there are very special circumstances those people ought not to be subject to a second visitation.
    Like my hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown), I speak from personal knowledge and experience of large tracts of country in the part of Lancashire I have the honour to represent, which resemble the fields of Flanders during the First World War. They have been torn and riven, often to depths of 80 ft. or 100 ft. Although economic circumstances are quite different from those of the time when we reluctantly agreed to these operations being started, we find an ever-increasing demand from the technical people running the operation to have at their disposal more land on which to keep the machines working.
    I want the Parliamentary Secretary to tell us, from his technical information and advice, whether a special circumstance could be defined and accepted by the Ministry as meaning long-term contracts which have been made by contractors employing machines, which often cost £1¼ million each, and for the purpose of keeping those contracts going. Is the main purpose of the operation to provide more coal, or is the process reaching such a stage that a vested interest has been created to provide more sites to keep the machines going?
    This is a very serious matter. In my constituency, which has been as greatly affected as any part of the country, there is rising public indignation. I know that I am going a little beyond the narrow terms of this Clause, part of which is good, but which does not go so far as we want it to go. We do not want any loopholes left for those who have a vested interest in this matter. I speak without disrespect of any individual, but there is an interest among surveyors and inspectors in finding new land which can be dug up for sites. I hope that this House will never be so insensitive to public duty as to condone a situation in which the needs of the machine are given a greater

    1163
    importance than the needs of the people so greatly affected by opencast mining operations. This Bill has had a long and patient examination in Committee, and at this late stage the Minister should not allow this Clause to be used merely to define as a special circumstance something necessary to keep the contracts going—because this work is being done by outside contract.
    We know that when this form of mining was started, the country was crying out for all the coal that it could get. We had to do it. The machines had to be bought at a very high price from America and elsewhere, and in conditions in which private commercial contracts were made involving special depreciation on account of the high initial cost of the machines, but let it never be the policy of the Ministry to say that it is right to go from bad to worse, with all the distress that this work causes, merely to allow surveyors to find new tracts of land to dig up so that machines can be kept going.
    We in this House are concerned with keeping those whom we represent happy, and unless the Minister can say that this process is economically justified in the wider interests of the country, he can rest assured that many of us who represent the industrial areas will continue to oppose, by every legitimate means, further inroads into our land.
    Mr. Joseph Slater: I was not on the Committee that discussed the Bill but, like many other hon. Members from the mining areas, I am particularly disturbed that we should have had such an Amendment as this at this late stage in the Bill's progress through Parliament. Each and every one of us in the industrial areas of the North has been disturbed by the immediate effects of the first operation.
    I was very interested to hear the observations of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Neal), who said that the second and third operation might be regarded as special circumstances because of the existence of a second or third seam. My hon. Friend also asked about the 10 million tons of coal that would otherwise be sterilized, It seems that the Minister's determination will rest on the belief that that amount of coal is,
    1164
    in all probability, likely to be sterilised unless extracted by opencast operation. I believe that the contractors will look very favourably on a second and third visit to a site, but I think that we would do an injustice to those areas where opencast mining has already been going on for so long if we allowed this Amendment to pass.
    One of my hon. Friends has said that it is not the intention of this side of the House to divide against the Amendment, but I sincerely hope that we will divide and thereby lodge our protest against the attitude of another place in sending us such an Amendment as this. I remember that when one of the most important Bills ever to go through this House was being dealt with in Committee, one Clause contained the words "where practicable".
    We have similar circumstances here in defining the phrase "special circumstances." Who will determine these special circumstances? That is the crux of the matter. Up to now we have not had a satisfactory answer to that question, and unless we do get a satisfactory answer, unless we are told who is to be responsible for interpreting "special circumstances," I sincerely hope that we on this side will divide against the Amendment.
    Mr. William Ainsley: When opencast mining first started I was an underground worker, and we miners were fearful because this work was then shortening the life of the collieries. From that day onwards my constituency has suffered from the ravages of opencast working. Not more than a mile from my own home we have had opencast workings. The top soil has been replaced, the grass seed has been sown and the grass is already growing, but only last weekend I noticed that even larger bulldozers were being brought on to two sites in particular, and that they were again removing the top soil before proceeding to even deeper opencast working.
    4.15 p.m.
    As with factory production, opencast mining is improving in technique. Machines are being made bigger and stronger, and they can go deeper. This is resulting in these opencast sites being opened up two or three times, and it will

    1165
    not only upset the social amenities of the areas affected but will also have a disastrous effect on the mining communities in those areas. It is having a psychological effect on the underground workers. These facts should be borne in mind.
    We also have to remember that these machines are being operated by private enterprise and, as a result of these longterm contracts, the work is going forward regardless of its effect on social amenities. As the Parliamentary Secretary will know, I have already drawn his attention to what I call the disastrous effects on the social life of one area, and the effect it will have on agriculture and the farming community there.
    Will the Minister please give consideration to all these facts, and especially the disturbing effect that the result of these ravages is having not only upon human life, but on cattle and on the production of milk and eggs?
    Mr. Charles A. Howell: In considering these Amendments, I have been forced to the conclusion that, whilst I cannot regard them as had, they could be better. It is remarkable that the Parliamentary Secretary is getting neither support nor condemnation from his own side, but I cannot help thinking of what would have happened had his hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) been here. That hon. Member loses no opportunity of criticising anything to do with the nationalised industries, and this Amendment provides an opportunity for anyone so minded to be rather cynical about the operation of a nationalised industry.
    Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will explain to the House who exactly is to determine the need for these subsequent phases of opencast operations. Is it to be the same person who recommended the original reinstatement? Will he be the person who decides to reopen the site for the second stage, or will it be someone else? In my own industry, the railways, if a workman makes a mistake he is disciplined, but here it seems that someone must have made a mistake in the first place.
    Someone has first to decide to go to the expense of closing an opencast site. To reinstate it costs a lot of money, but to
    1166
    reopen it will give a chance for cynics to say, As soon as the grass begins to grow, you can bet your life that the bulldozers will be back". Whoever decided to close the site and to reinstate it must have made a mistake if, later, another expert says, "We will reopen it." There must have been a mistake, otherwise they would not have gone to the expense of reinstating the site in the first instance.
    I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us who is to make the decision to reopen. A considerable amount of public money is involved in reopening, as in reinstating. I do not want to see this or any other nationalised industry brought into ridicule, but I think that this Amendment will provide a strong opportunity for that to happen.
    Mr. Niall MacDermot: In what I think is an unusually thick-skinned mood, the Parliamentary Secretary had not, I think, realised that there is a lack of enthusiasm for this Amendment, and some concern as to whether it will achieve anything at all. In Committee, and I think on Third Reading, we were all agreed that, unless there are quite overwhelming reasons for so doing, it is obviously most undesirable ever to reopen a piece of land once it has been restored. In Committee, we were given the assurance that it would be only in exceptional circumstances that the Minister would confirm an opencast site order permitting the site to be worked a second, third or fourth time.
    This Amendment seeks to write that assurance into the Bill, but what I would respectfully put forward for consideration by the Minister is something which, I think, would give a great deal more effect to it. I suggest that, in giving effect to this Amendment, the Minister should undertake that, in any such case, when confirming the order, he will state what are the special circumstances that have led him to that confirmation. People would then know what was operating in the Minister's mind, and what were the overwhelming reasons.
    Unless the Minister does that, the whole of this Amendment is pure verbiage. It achieves nothing whatever, because the Minister already, before confirming the order, must, if he is to do the job properly, take all the circumstances into account, and, in view of all the assurances

    1167
    already given, he will not confirm an order so as to allow a site to be worked a second and third time after restoration unless he thinks that there are special circumstances that warrant it. Therefore, unless there is to be something different in practice, all this will be mere verbiage.
    If the Minister would undertake, when certifying that there were special circumstances, to state in his certificate what those special circumstances were there would be something for people to get their teeth into, and they would be able to see what were the overriding reasons to justify the action in that particular case. Moreover, if he did state what his reasons were, and it was found that he had taken into consideration an irrelevant circumstance, that would be something that could be challenged in the courts by the injured party. But if, as so often happens in this sort of case, the Minister merely says, "I have considered the matter fully, and have decided that there are special circumstances", though the Minister may be taking into account something entirely irrelevant the subject has no remedy in the courts whatsoever. I would, therefore, urge that this course be adopted. We might then have something tangible in the way of a concession, rather than a mere sop that achieves nothing.
    Sir I. Horobin: I think that the hon. Members who have spoken, at any rate those who were on the Committee, will not disagree with me when I say that I have already made it quite plain that I share all their anxieties and their distaste for going on to the same land more than once.
    I think that in fairness to the Coal Board—this is a point which those who were on the Committee will appreciate—I must correct the suggestion that it has always to be the result of a mistake. That is not so. In the early stages, when machines were small, they could not get down to some of the depths required and which are very economical. So it would not be fair to the Coal Board to suggest that it is always a question of a mistake.
    I am sure that everyone is agreed that, if it can be avoided, it is thoroughly undesirable to go back a second time, let alone four or five times. The whole problem that arises—and hon. Members will recall that I made inquiries at an
    1168
    earlier stage—is simply that it appears that there genuinely are cases where very large quantities of coal would be sterilised if use were not made of the more powerful machinery that is available. The position, therefore, is how to try to balance the rights and wrongs of the matter and, as the hon. Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. MacDermot) said, to try to write into the Bill, so far as we can, what has been quite clearly expressed to me, that the intentions of Her Majesty's Government are entirely in agreement with those expressed on both sides of the House.
    I think that I can reassure the House quite considerably on a number of points which have been raised. The easiest way of doing so is to follow the request of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Neal) by going a little more into detail than I did in opening, on the last paragraph of the Amendment itself.
    We have to be clear what is happening. It is not an authorisation, as was suggested by one hon. Member opposite. This is a compulsory opencast site order, and it has to be confirmed by the Minister. It is, therefore, the Minister who is responsible, having, of course, taken all advice on these matters. There is no question of regional officers or anyone else entering into it. The Minister is responsible. Unless he confirms the order it has no effect, and the Minister can be held accountable to this House.
    There are two types of circumstances in the Amendment which we are considering and they both deal with points which have been raised. First, there may be special circumstances existing at the time. This is precisely the kind of consideration which led the Minister to postpone the particular proposals which were referred to by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown).
    There are what I might call coal supply conditions, when we need coal very much more than we do at other times, and when the immediate need for coal is less it would be reasonable, under this Amendment, and it would, in fact, take place, that the Minister could say that it might be right to go twice over a particular site, in spite of all the disadvantages, if there were a coal famine. But at this time it would be quite unreasonable to put people to all that inconvenience when

    1169
    there is possibly a temporary surplus. That is the effect of the words
    "special circumstances existing at that time."
    Then, of course, there may be special circumstances relating to the land in question. Those are cases which really do exist. I have satisfied myself very carefully on this point with the Coal Board. For technical reasons, the run of the strata or whatever it may be, there may be quite a disproportionate amount of coal made inaccessible if the Board cannot go over perhaps quite a small area a second time. That would be the kind of consideration which would be material in considering whether there would be special circumstances relating to the land.
    Mr. J. T. Price: I think that the Parliamentary Secretary may be overlooking one important aspect of this matter. The Amendment which we are discussing does not deal only with the Minister's approval to extract the coal a second or third time. It relates to the prospecting operations. In that connection, the visit of a surveyor and people drilling holes may create a great nuisance to the farmer in possession of the land, because water will come out of the holes in bad weather and create springs, as I have often seen in my own division.
    Sir I. Horobin: This is a very complicated Bill, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take it from me that he is on an irrelevant point. It does not arise on this Amendment. It has nothing to do with prospecting at all.
    The next point that I should like to make clear is on procedure. I think that what I have to say will reassure hon. Members on a number of points. The position here is that the initiative has to be taken by the Coal Board. It is the Coal Board which starts things off and says, "I want to take compulsory rights over certain land." It is not the contractor or anyone else. It is the Board which starts this operation off and, the authorisation having been gone through, it says, "We want to have compulsory powers for such and such land."
    That request, as it were, from the Coal Board has to go to the Minister. If the Amendment is accepted, the Coal Board will have to say precisely what special considerations it relies on, either in respect of time or in respect of the land,
    1170
    in asking the Minister to allow it to go over land which has been under-requisition and which has since been abandoned.
    The Coal Board will have to say exactly on what it relies to justify going twice. Having said that to the Minister, the Minister will have to confirm it. I am glad to be able to say—and this will, I am sure, satisfy and please hon. Members—that this point has been taken already by the Minister. It is the intention of the Minister in every case to give reasoned decisions; and that puts more teeth into the Amendment.
    The only other thing on which I think I ought to assure the House—and then I hope that hon. Members will be willing to accept this as a genuine attempt to deal with a difficult problem—is that while, of course, this Amendment procedure can come into legal effect only when the Bill is passed, my noble Friend has already given instructions that as a matter of administrative practice these considerations shall become operative at once in relation to land which, as the House will realise, for some time in the future may be taken under requisition procedure. I hope that the House will feel that we have made a genuine effort to meet hon. Members on this point.
    Mr. Slater: The Minister has said that the application comes from the Coal Board in the first place. It makes an application to go ahead for a second or third time on land recognised as being opencast, and the Minister then determines his reasons for giving that consent on the considerations given to him by the Board. Does he take into account any other considerations? Does he send anyone from his Department to see the site, or does he determine his decision by what he receives from the Board in the course of the application? If that is the position, does he not agree that it will not give us that firm finality which we desire to have in regard to this matter?
    Sir I. Horobin: The Minister would obviously not say, "The Coal Board says that this is right, and therefore it is right." I do not think that hon. Members opposite would have quite such unbounded confidence in the Coal Board's statements. The Minister is responsible for checking what is said to him. The Board says, "I want to do this for such

    1171
    and such reasons". It is for the Minister to satisfy himself that those reasons are either good or bad, and he must stand or fall on that by reason of his responsibility to Parliament. I do not think that I can go further than that. It is his responsibility to satisfy himself that there are these special circumstances.
    4.30 p.m.
    Mr. S. O. Davies: Before the Minister decides, could he not communicate with the local authority concerned and present to that local authority the reasons given to him by the Coal Board?
    Sir I. Horobin: The administrative machinery for consultation in all these cases is very well established. I do not think that one could conceivably attempt to write into the Bill all the people with whom the Minister should or should not consult in every case. One must assume that when one says that the Minister is responsible for satisfying himself that there are these special circumstances, he will take the necessary and sensible steps administratively to put himself in possession of the facts and judge of them.
    Mr. Oliver: The Minister is sidestepping the issue. The point that I put to him was quite clear. It is true that there may not be an authorisation; probably that stage has passed. When will the public, the owners of the land, the local authorities and the planning committees have an opportunity of expressing themselves on whether the land should or should not be opened again? If it is just a question of the Minister being satisfied by the Coal Board that its proposals are justified by reason of the circumstances being exceptional, what opportunity have the people of objecting to this land being opened, particularly if the opportunity for a public inquiry has passed before the Minister gives his reasons?
    Mr. T. Brown: I know that the Parliamentary Secretary has done his level best to explain to us—
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): The hon. Member may ask a question, but he must not make another speech. He has already spoken. Perhaps he can put his words in the form of a question.
    Mr. Brown: The Parliamentary Secretary appears to have some knowledge of the machinery involved, but not a complete knowledge. We have two departments—the Coal Board and the opencast mining branch. Which of those two departments has the final say whether to permit a second visitation to an opencast site?
    Sir I. Horobin: Neither. The final say is in the hands of the Minister responsible to Parliament. The Minister has to be satisfied by the Coal Board of the reasons on which they rely. He then goes into the matter and gives a reasoned decision. As the hon. and learned Gentleman points out, if in that decision he is relying on matters which are improper or irrelevant it can be tested in the courts. I do not think that one can go any further.
    Mr. MacDermot: Am I right in thinking that there is a further answer to this point? Is it not correct that before any land could be re-opened under this Measure, the Coal Board would have to obtain a fresh authorisation before reaching this stage at all, and that when it does that there is ample provision in the Bill for local authorities and all other interested persons to make their representations? All that will have been done long before we get to this stage.
    Sir I. Horobin: The hon. Member is correct. I thought that as the hon. and learned Member for Ilkeston (Mr. Oliver) was on the Standing Committee he would have appreciated that. All that authorisation procedure must be gone through, and, as is pointed out, that is the time when these representations will take place. We are now purely at the stage in which, authorisation having been obtained for working opencast coal, the question of compulsorily taking rights over a particular piece of land arises. Therefore, the hon. Member is perfectly correct in what he said. I assumed that Members who were on the Committee would have appreciated that fact already.
    Mr. Oliver: The Parliamentary Secretar was on the Committee, but he does not seem to have appreciated the point at issue.
    Question put and agreed to.

    Clause 15.—(SUSPENSION OF CERTAIN PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 17, line 20, at end insert:
    "(c) any reference to the provision of a suitable alternative right of way shall be construed as a reference to the making of a suitable alternative way available for use by the public during the period for which the order under that section remains in force;"
    Sir I. Horobin: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    Mr. Neal: Mr. Deputy-Speaker, would it be convenient to take the subsequent Amendments in pages 18 and 19?
    Sir I. Horobin: It is intended to take all the Government Amendments to this Clause together.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am agreeable if that is the wish of the House.
    Sir I. Horobin: These Amendments deal with a very simple point relating to public rights of way. If these Amendments were not made, it would be necessary to dedicate the new temporary right of way and then undedicate it when the old one was back in use, and this would be an extraordinarily cumbrous and expensive proceeding. All that these Amendments do is to say that if the Board, under its powers, has suspended a right of way it must make available for public use an alternative one, but it will not be necessary to dedicate it. The dedicated right of way is suspended. We think this is a sensible provision.
    Mr. Neal: We consider that these Amendments are fair and reasonable. It is obvious that the Coal Board would have been placed in exceptional difficulties if, after excavating and restoring the site, there were two paths instead of one. It would involve considerable expense if the original right of way had to be undedicated.
    I believe that the circumstances in which this may arise are very few, but when rights of way are removed the local inhabitants are very conscious of their rights. Although these paths may sometimes be little used, the inhabitants are inclined to feel that they have lost a valuable right if they are unable to use the paths. In the past, contractors have always tried to provide an alternative path. That is what will have to be done
    1174
    in this case. There will have to be an alternative path and not a right of way so that there will not be any need to undedicate the original path. We therefore support this Amendment.
    Mr. T. Brown: We on this side of the House appreciate the importance of this and the subsequent four Amendments to this Clause. We stressed the importance of this matter in Standing Committee. What troubles me is the attitude that is adopted by contractors responsible for the extraction of opencast coal and the difficulty experienced in securing a proper roadway from the site to the main thoroughfare. I know that these Amendments deal specifically with alternative roadways; they are not permanent but are alternative to the way which is being removed.
    An alternative roadway which is constructed in the course of winning opencast coal in order to transport it from the site to the depositing station may become what we know as a first-class roadway, for it is to the credit of the National Coal Board that the roadways that they are now constructing are very different from those which they constructed, say, eight or nine years ago. It may be that the roadway which has been newly constructed as an alternative will be better than the one which is displaced.
    I understand that before a footpath or roadway can be diverted permanently, a proposal must be submitted to the quarter sessions. I am wondering whether we must go through what we in Lancashire call "all that paraphernalia," or whether, immediately the opencast coal operations on a site have finished, the National Coal Board will do away with that roadway and restore the original one, which in many instances will have been there for centuries. These roadways are by no means new. The Parliamentary Secretary will remember that at an earlier stage I mentioned one, and I was taken aback when Members on his own side of the Committee did not know what a "dingle" was. The footpath in question has not yet been restored. That is my concern.
    It is all very well for the Lords to put down these Amendments to help. It is all very well for the Parliamentary Secretary to say that these things will help us in the restoration of the original footpaths,

    1175
    but in the districts concerned those responsible for the restoration of footpaths which have been temporarily closed because of opencast operations are refusing to restore them. It may be that they are being awkward and stupid, but the footpath to which I referred on 11th March has not yet been restored.
    It is useless for us here to talk about what the N.C.B. and the regional office are prepared to do. Unless there is an enforcement order upon these people, they will not do it. They should apply commonsense and reason. They have taken the footpaths from the people in the villages and have put something in their place for the time being, but when they have finished with their opencast mining operations they say—
    Mr. J. T. Price: They could not care.
    Mr. Brown: I quite agree. They are apathetic, indifferent and, to a degree, selfish in outlook. Little consideration is given to the people who for two, three or four years have been debarred from using the footpath which they and their families before them have used.
    I ask the Parliamentary Secretary again, as I did on the previous Amendment, that at least somebody in authority, either in Hobart House, at Millbank, or wherever it may be, should have power to say to the Coal Board or to the contractors, if they are responsible, "Now, you are finished. This roadway is of no further use to you for the transportation of opencast coal to the depositing station. Now that you have finished, restore the original footpath to the people whom you have debarred from using it whilst you have been carrying out opencast coal operations."
    4.45 p.m.
    I must speak very strongly on this. I feel, and the people in my village and in my constituency feel, that hitherto no attempt has been made either to restore footpaths to their original condition or to do away with the temporary footpath which has been substituted. We have reached the stage when one Britisher should not be awkward with another and when these people should attempt to be amenable, reasonable and tolerable and try to give some degree of contentment to those who have been debarred from
    1176
    using the footpath which they have had for many years.
    Sir I. Horobin: The short answer to the speech of the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) is that his question does not arise on these Amendments. Whether the provisions in the Bill are now as strong as he and I would like to ensure that the old permanent dedicated right of way is restored does not arise on this Amendment. We have been into that matter carefully, and I hope we have made it right. All that these Amendments deal with is what happens to any temporary right of way.
    The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Neal) was quite right. We are discussing here the narrow point whether the Coal Board is to be saddled with another dedicated right of way simply because in pursuing its operations it had, very properly, to provide temporarily an alternative road for the inhabitants. That is the whole point. The question of restoration, how quickly it is done, how certain it is and the quality of the permanent right of way, does not arise here. I hope that the point made by the hon. Member for Ince is satisfactorily dealt with in the Bill, but it does not arise at this stage and I should be out of order to pursue it. All that we are doing in the present Amendments is preventing the Coal Board from being saddled with an extremely cumbrous piece of machinery by which there may be two rights of way instead of one.
    I hope that the House will feel that we are doing a sensible thing in enabling the Coal Board to give a temporary right, as it must do, but then to be able to get rid of it as soon as—and the sooner the better—it restores the original permanent dedicated right of way.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Further Lords Amendments agreed to: In page 18, line 26, leave out from "alternative" to end of line 28 and insert:
    "way will be made available by the Board (whether on land comprised in the authorisation or on other land) for use by the public during the period for which the order remains in force."
    In line 31, leave out "the provision of that alternative right of way" and insert:
    "making that alternative way so available, or in permitting it to be used by the public,".
    In line 43, leave out from "then" to end of line 3 on page 19, and insert:
    "in the application to that order of subsection (5) of section five of this Act, the authorised purposes shall be taken to include the purpose of making an alternative way available for use by the public on land comprised in the order, and the right exercisable in accordance with that subsection, as against all persons directly concerned, shall include the right to permit the public to use any way so made available."
    In page 19, line 4, leave out from "land" to "is" in line 5, and insert:
    "on which the alternative way is to be made available."

    Clause 16.—(ACQUISITION OF RIGHTS FOR PURPOSES OF DRAINAGE OR WATER SUPPLY.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 20, line 32, at end insert:
    "(8) Nothing in this section shall be construed as authorising any interference with the exercise of a public right of way, or any contravention of a prohibition or restriction imposed by or under any enactment (whether contained in a public general Act or in any other Act)."
    Sir I. Horobin: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    The Amendment deals with a small point. It is to make clear that the compulsory purchases under Clause 16 of a right to discharge water on to land does not relieve the Board from complying with the general law and, in particular, with the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act, 1951. There are a number of Amendments of this type. I feel sure that hon. Members on both sides would wish to ensure that none of the compulsory rights orders overrides the protections for the public such as the prevention of pollution. The Amendment makes certain that the Board still has to comply with Acts such as the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act, 1951.
    Question put and agreed to.

    Clause 22.—(COMPENSATION BY WAY OF PAYMENT OF COST OF WORKS.)
    Lords Amendment agreed to: In page 26, line 21, after "out" insert:
    "(over and above the ordinary maintenance and use of the land)."

    Clause 23.—(COMPENSATION BY REFERENCE TO THE DIMINUTION IN VALUE OF THE HOLDING.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 27, line 32, leave out "timber felling contract"
    1178
    and insert "order conferring working rights".
    Sir I. Horobin: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    This is another of the Amendments dealing with timber felling, which it assimilates to easements.
    Question put and agreed to.

    Clause 27.—(COMPENSATION IN RESPECT OF FORCED SALES.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 33, line 3, leave out "five" and insert "ten".
    Sir I. Horobin: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    This Amendment was inserted in another place at the request of the National Coal Board. Nobody else is concerned. It does not take away any rights from anybody else, but the Board has come to the conclusion that five days is too short a time for it to inspect property which is to be sold and it prefers a period of ten days. The Amendment does not damnify anybody else and we feel that we should agree with the Board in its request.
    Mr. Neal: I wonder whether this Amendment is as innocuous as the Parliamentary Secretary has made out. When forced sales are taking place the equipment and implements that are being disposed of are often difficult to sell. The surrounding farmers are probably in possession of the same equipment as that which the unfortunate farmer whose land is to be occupied for opencast mining has to dispose of. They might, at times, find difficulty in finding a customer for some of the things. There might sometimes be hardship for a farmer if he has to give ten days' notice, whereas if he gave five days' notice he might find a customer for the sale of his goods.
    Sir I. Horobin: I think the answer to the hon. Gentleman is that the Board has to pay compensation, and the compensation would be increased if, in fact, any damage had been done by the loss of a particularly convenient opportunity of sale. Therefore, the person selling cannot be damnified. It is only that the National Coal Board, which has quite a lot of things to do, may not always be

    1179
    in a position within the short period of five days to inspect a particular set of implements.
    Question put and agreed to.

    Clause 31.—(COMPENSATION IN RESPECT OF EASEMENTS AND SIMILAR RIGHTS.)
    Lords Amendments agreed to: In page 37, line 24, after "land" insert:
    "comprised in the order, over which the easement or right is exercisable".
    In line 29, leave out "in question" and insert:
    "to which the benefit of the easement or right is annexed".

    Clause 33.—(COMPENSATION IN RESPECT OF MINERALS.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 40, line 20, after "lease" insert:
    "or order conferring working rights."
    Sir I. Horobin: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    This is another of the series of Amendments, to which I have already referred, dealing with the right to work minerals under the Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Act, 1923.
    Question put and agreed to.

    Clause 34.—(PROVISIONS AS TO COMPENSATION IN SPECIAL CASES.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 40, line 39, after "thirty-one" insert:
    "or subsection (2) of section thirty-two."
    Sir I. Horobin: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    This Amendment and the next one to page 41, line 24, are purely technical. They deal with when the payment of compensation under Clause 32, dealing with injurious affection, becomes due. They are purely machinery.
    Mr. MacDermot: I should like to thank the Parliamentary Secretary for taking the opportunity to bring this Amendment forward in an acceptable form. It is a rather modest Amendment, for which I think I can claim some pride of paternity. There was an attempt made in the Committee, but the Minister had no difficulty in shooting down the claim. He produced a second version on Report, which I criticised, and that criticism has
    1180
    apparently been accepted, so that I think we can all agree that the point is now adequately covered.
    Question put and agreed to.

    Clause 35.—(TIME WHEN COMPENSATION ACCRUES DUE.)
    Lords Amendment agreed to: In page 41, line 24, at end insert—
    (d) under subsection (4) of section thirty-two of this Act, or".
    Lords Amendment: In page 41, line 33, leave out from "Act" to end of line 36 and insert:
    "in respect of a forced sale shall accrue due on the effective date of the sale, or, if that date was before the operative date of the order, shall be treated as having accrued due on the effective date of the sale".
    Sir I. Horobin: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    This, again, is an Amendment of which I think both the hon. Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. MacDermot) and ourselves can claim joint paternity. It provides, together with the next Amendment to line 47, that compensation in respect of a forced sale shall accrue due when the transfer of the property actually takes place. I think that both sides of the House will agree that this is an improvement.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to: In page 41, line 47, at end, insert:
    "(9) In this section 'quarterly payments' means payments calculated by reference to the usual quarter days and 'effective date', in relation to a sale, means the date on which the property sold, becomes the property of the purchaser."

    Clause 36.—(RECORD OF CONDITION OF LAND.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 42, line 36, leave out from beginning to "every" and insert "serve on".
    Sir I. Horobin: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the said Amendment.
    This Amendment fulfils an undertaking which I gave at an earlier stage in response to some observations from hon. Members opposite to require that records should be served under cover of the notice given in a prescribed form. I hope it will be acceptable.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to: In page 42, line 37, at end insert:
    "a notice in the prescribed form together with a copy of the record".

    Clause 37.—(CONSEQUENTIAL ADJUSTMENTS BETWEEN LANDLORDS AND TENANTS AND IN RESPECT OF MORTGAGES AND MINING LEASES.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 43, line 37, after "leases" insert:
    "or orders conferring working rights".
    Sir I. Horobin: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    This is another of the series of Amendments dealing with rights to work minerals.
    Question put and agreed to.

    Clause 40.—(CLAIMS FOR COMPENSATION PAYABLE BY BOARD.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 47, line 33, at end insert:
    "(4) References in this section to compensation under this Act do not include any compensation payable in accordance with any enactment applied by section thirteen or section sixteen of this Act, or any sum payable in accordance with any enactment applied by section forty-five of this Act."
    Sir I. Horobin: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    This is really a drafting Amendment, which deals with the method of claiming compensation under the Bill. Its effect is that it will not apply to claims for compensation under certain provisions of other Acts, which are applied by the Bill. These will be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of the Acts in question. We do not think it right that the complicated and somewhat novel procedure in this Bill should override provisions already laid down in other Acts.
    Question put and agreed to.

    Clause 42.— [SPECIAL PROVISIONS AS TO PROPERTY HELD FOR RELIGIOUS PURPOSES.]
    Lords Amendments agreed to: In page 48, line 4, at end insert:
    "Provided that this section shall not apply to any compensation payable by virtue of section twenty-two of this Act."
    In line 23, leave out from "(b)" to "by" in line 25, and insert:
    1182
    "by virtue of the operation in relation to that land of section twenty-four or section thirty of this Act, compensation is recoverable from him."

    Clause 43.— [PROVISIONS AS TO MORTGAGED LAND AND OTHER SPECIAL CASES.]
    Lords Amendment: In page 49, line 14 at end insert:
    "(3) Where under subsection (2) of section thirty-two of this Act a person is entitled to compensation as the owner of any land, and his interest in that land is subject to a mortgage and the mortgagee is, to the extent of that interest, in possession of the land or of the rents and profits thereof, the compensation shall be paid by the Board to the mortgagee, and shall be paid or applied by him as mentioned in the last preceding subsection."
    Sir I. Horobin: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    This also arises on Clause 32, dealing with injurious affection, and simply provides that when a mortgagee is in possession of land, the annual compensation will be payable to him.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Lords Amendment: In page 49, line 16, leave out "other than any annual compensation" and insert:
    "not being annual compensation or compensation under section twenty-two of this Act"
    Sir I. Horobin: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    This Amendment and the next Amendment, to line 29, are designed to make it clear that the cost of works compensation under Clause 22, when land is subject to a mortgage, shall be payable to the person who carried out the works and not the mortgagee. That is obviously fair.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to: In page 49, line 29, leave out from "compensation" to "would" in line 30 and insert:
    "falling within subsection (3) of this section".
    In line 34, leave out from beginning to "by" in line 36 and insert:
    "by virtue of the operation in relation to that land of section twenty-four or section thirty of this Act, compensation is recoverable from him."
    Lords Amendment: In line 40, at end insert:
    "(5) Where any compensation falling within subsection (3) of this section is payable in right of an interest in land which is subject to a settlement, or is otherwise held in such a manner that the person entitled to that interest would not be competent to give an effective discharge for the proceeds of a sale thereof, that compensation shall be paid by the Board to the person who would be competent to give such a discharge.
    (6) In his section 'annual compensation' means any such compensation as is mentioned in subsection (2) of section thirty-five of this Act."
    Sir I. Horobin: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    This is a technical Amendment defining the person to whom terminal compensation shall be paid in the case of settled land.
    Question put and agreed to.

    Clause 51.—(INTERPRETATION.)
    Lords Amendments agreed to: In page 55, line 4, leave out "includes any interest in land" and insert:
    "in relation to any land, includes any interest in or right over that land (including any such right inuring for the benefit of the public or of a section thereof)."
    After Amendment last inserted, insert:
    "'land' includes land covered by water"
    Lords Amendment: In page 55, line 8, leave out "other natural" and insert "similar"
    Sir I. Horobin: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    This Amendment and the new subsection (6) of this Clause, which we shall come to shortly, are designed to meet a point raised by those interested in minerals. It appears that there is a possibility that the definition of minerals in the Bill would not cover minerals in waste heaps. It is obviously the intention of the Bill that they should be so covered, and we want to avoid any possibility of doubt.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Lords Amendment: In page 55, line 29, at end insert:
    "'order conferring working rights' means an order made under Part I of the Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Act, 1923."
    5.0 p.m.
    Sir I. Horobin: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    This is another of the Amendments dealing with rights to work minerals, to which I have already referred.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Lords Amendment: In page 55, line 43, at end insert:
    "'restoration', in relation to land, includes rehabilitation, and 'restore' shall be construed accordingly;"
    Sir I. Horobin: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    This was an Amendment inserted in another place because it was felt that it should be made plain in the Bill itself that restoration includes rehabilitation of land. It is purely for greater certainty.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Lords Amendment: In page 56, leave out lines 16 to 20.
    Sir I. Horobin: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    This Amendment merely removes the definition of "timber felling contracts". I have already explained that, now we are putting them under easements, this is no longer necessary.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Lords Amendment: In page 56, line 33, leave out from "means" to end of line 39 and insert:
    "any of the following rights, that is to say, any right to take game or fish or other sporting right exercisable in respect of that land, any right to fell and remove trees standing thereon, any right to take timber or other wood, water, turf or other materials therefrom, any right to work minerals thereon (otherwise than by virtue of a mining lease or of an order conferring working rights), and any right to depasture cattle or other animals thereon, except any such sporting or other right which—

    (a) subsists only as a right incidental to the ownership of the land in question, or to some other interest therein, or to a right to occupy that land, or

    (b) is exercisable by virtue of a licence granted otherwise than for valuable consideration;

    and any right over land which constitutes an easement or similar right in relation thereto, if apart from this subsection it would not constitute an interest in that land, shall be treated for the purposes of this Act as constituting an interest therein."
    Sir I. Horobin: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

    1185
    This is more of an operative Amendment. In the first place, this definition brings in certain sporting rights, mainly in Scotland, I understand, which do not themselves constitute an interest in land and which were, therefore, previously excluded. It is obviously right that they should be included. Secondly, it is the operative Amendment dealing with timber felling contracts, which assimilates them to easements.
    Mr. J. T. Price: This may be a formal matter, but, if for no more than curiosity on my part, I should like to have a little more information about where grouse moors and coal mining rights might go hand in hand. This is just the sort of thing which their Lordships would poke into a Bill like this. To allow it to go by unnoticed would be unworthy of this House.
    I have enjoyed many days walking over grouse moors, where I was not in pursuit of game but was enjoying fresh air in certain wild parts of the country where I have always claimed the right to go, whether it is legal or not. Perhaps that is a rather doubtful thing for a Member of this House to say, but this has been my way of looking at these matters. Since we are asked now formally to endorse this recommendation, I should like to know what grouse moors some noble Lord had in mind which might be included within terms of compensation when these highly involved and technical matters are being decided.
    Sir I. Horobin: I do not think that the matter is of world-shaking importance.
    Mr. Price: Neither do I.
    Sir I. Horobin: The point is simply that, not for the first time, the law of England differs from the law of Scotland in this matter. Certain rights in England, because they would constitute, technically, an interest in land, would attract compensation. Precisely the same rights in Scotland, because they do not technically constitute an interest in land, would not attract compensation. I am sure that every Scottish Member would rise in wrath if we did not put the matter right. We have, on this occasion, simply attempted to say that precisely the same people should be compensated in the same way for the same things, on which
    1186
    ever side of the Border they live. This seems perfectly reasonable.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Lords Amendment: After Amendment last inserted, insert:
    "(4) For the purposes of any provision of this Act, in so far as it refers to the state or condition in which land was at a time specified in that provision, regard shall be had to all matters relevant to the state or condition of the land at that time, including (but without prejudice to the generality of this subsection) the characteristics of the soil (whether on or below the surface), the presence of any minerals in or under the land, the growth of trees, hedges or other vegetation thereon, and any buildings, structures, apparatus or other works which were on, in, under or over the land at that time; and any reference in any provision of this Act to the state or condition in which land would have been, or might reasonably have been expected to be, in circumstances specified in that provision, shall be construed accordingly."
    Sir I. Horobin: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    This Amendment is put down simply for clarification, to make sure that in those places where compensation is related to the state or condition of the land minerals are included. We think that that was the case anyway, in fact, but, as the point was raised in another place, this Amendment was put down for greater assurance.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Lords Amendment: In page 57, line 5, at end insert:
    "(6) For the purposes of this Act waste heaps and other deposits resulting from the working of minerals shall be taken to form part of the land on which they are situated, if apart from this subsection they would not be taken to form part thereof, and any reference in this Act to the working of minerals on, in or under land, or to underground or surface working, shall be construed accordingly."
    Sir I. Horobin: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    This is the Amendment I have already referred to, which deals with waste heaps and other deposits of minerals.
    Question put and agreed to.

    Clause 53.—(SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 60, line 27, leave out from "operation" to end of line 28, and insert:
    "on the thirtieth day of September, nineteen hundred and fifty-eight."
    Sir I. Horobin: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    This Amendment is made necessary as a result of the co-operation of hon. and right hon. Members opposite. When this complicated Measure came in, we were not sure that we should get it before the Recess. Now that it looks as if we shall get it this afternoon, it has been thought better to propose this Amendment, partly to give a little more time so that it should not come into operation in the middle of the holidays, and partly for convenience, to have it on quarter day so as to make the mechanics of it more simple for accountancy purposes. It has no other effect but to delay slightly what would at present be the date for the operation of the Bill, although it will still be earlier than we had thought when we first introduced it.
    Question put and agreed to.

    Third Schedule.—(PROVISTONS AS TO COMPENSATION BY WAY OF PAYMENT OF COST OF WORKS.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 68, line 1, leave out the Third Schedule and insert new Schedule.
    1. In this Schedule—

    "compensation" means compensation under section twenty-two of this Act;

    "former use", in relation to any land, means the use for which it was used immediately before the operative date of the order in question;

    "proper cost", in relation to any work, means such cost as is reasonable, having regard to the prices of materials and rates of remuneration for services current at the time when the work is carried out;

    "the Tribunal" means the Lands Tribunal.

    2.—(1) The Board shall not be required to pay compensation in respect of expenses incurred in carrying out any work unless

    (a) not less than the prescribed length of time before the work was begun, the person incurring the expenses gave to the Board, in the prescribed manner, notice in writing containing adequate particulars of the work, together with a statement of the time when it was proposed to carry out the work and an estimate of the cost of the work, and

    (b) at all reasonable times after the service of that notice, that person afforded to the Board reasonable facilities to inspect the land to which the notice related, in so far as he was in a position to afford such facilities.

    (2) In the following provisions of this Schedule "the applicant", in relation to a notice under this paragraph, means the person who gave that notice.
    3. Where a notice has been given under the last preceding paragraph, the Board, within the prescribed time after the giving of that notice, may serve on the applicant a counter-notice, stating—

    (a) that the Board object to the work specified in the applicant's notice, or to such one or more items thereof as may be specified in the counter-notice, and

    (b) that they object thereto on such one or more grounds as may be specified in the counter-notice, being one or more of the grounds mentioned in the next following, paragraph.

    4. Subject to the next following paragraph, the said grounds, in relation to any work specified in a notice under paragraph 2 of this Schedule, are the following, that is to say,—

    (a) that the work could not reasonably be regarded as work falling within paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of section twenty-two of this Act;

    (b) that the work is likely to be ineffective, or is by its nature unsuitable to the land in question, or is proposed to be carried out in an unsuitable way;

    (c) that the estimated cost of the work is grossly disproportionate to any prospective increase attributable to the work in the value of the land;

    (d) that the work, in a case where the former use of the land in question was agricultural, would not be appropriate to the use of that land for agriculture, or, in any other case, would not be appropriate to the use of that land for its former use;

    (e) that the work would not be required but for dilapidation, deterioration or damage which has occurred since the end of the period of occupation and is attributable to default on the part of the owner or of an occupier of the land;

    (f) that the work, if carried out at the time specified in the applicant's notice, would be premature;

    (g) that the work, if carried out at the time specified in the applicant's notice, would not have been carried out at the first reasonable opportunity after the end of the period of occupation, or within a reasonable time after that opportunity arose.

    5.—(1) In so far as a notice given under paragraph 2 of this Schedule (in this paragraph referred to as "the current notice") specifies any work (in this paragraph referred to as "the new work") in a case where the applicant has previously given one or more notices under that paragraph specifying similar work which he proposed to carry out in respect of the same land, the last preceding paragraph shall apply in relation to the new work with the substitution, for sub-paragraph (c) of that paragraph, of the following sub-paragraph (in this paragraph referred to as "the substituted subparagraph (c)")—
    "(c) that the aggregate cost of that work and of all relevant work specified previous notices relating to the same land is grossly disproportionate to the aggregate increase attributable to all such work in the value of the land".
    (2) In the substituted sub-paragraph (c) the reference to the aggregate cost of the new work and of all other relevant work specified in previous notices relating to the same land is a reference to the aggregate of—

    (a) the estimated cost of the new work, and

    (b) the estimated cost of any similar work specified in any previous notice given by the applicant which is still outstanding on the relevant date, and

    (c) the proper cost of any similar work specified in any previous notice given by the applicant in respect of which a claim for compensation has been allowed before the relevant date or is still outstanding an that date.

    (3) In the substituted sub-paragraph (c) the reference to the aggregate increase attributable to all such work as is therein mentioned in the value of the land is a reference to the aggregate of—

    (a) the prospective increase in that value attributable to the new work, and

    (b) the prospective increase in that value attributable to any similar work specified in any previous notice given by the applicant which is still outstanding on the relevant date, and

    (c) the increase in that value attributable to any similar work specified in any previous notice given by the applicant in respect of which a claim for compensation has been allowed before the relevant date or is still outstanding on that date.

    (4) For the purposes of sub-paragraphs (2) and (3) of this paragraph

    (a) a previous notice specifying similar work shall be taken to be outstanding on the relevant date if—

    (i) such a notice has been given before the relevant date and has not been withdrawn, and

    (ii) either the Board have not before that date served a counter-notice objecting to that work, or, if they have served such a counter-notice, that abjection has before that date been withdrawn or determined by the Tribunal not to be well-founded, and

    (iii) no claim for compensation has before the relevant date been made in respect of expenses incurred in carrying out that work;

    (b) a claim for compensation in respect of any work shall be taken to have been allowed before the relevant date if before that date—

    (i) a claim for compensation has been made in respect of expenses incurred in carrying out that work, and

    (ii) it has been agreed by the Board, or determined by the Tribunal, that compensation is payable in respect of those expenses, whether the amount of compensation so agreed or determined to be payable was the amount claimed or a different amount;

    (c) a claim for compensation in respect of any work shall be taken to be still outstanding on the relevant date if at that date—

    (i) a claim for compensation has been made in respect of expenses incurred in carrying out that work, and

    1190

    (ii) that claim has not been withdrawn, and it has not been determined by the Tribunal that no compensation is payable in respect of those expenses, but

    (iii) it has not been agreed by the Board, or determined by the Tribunal, that compensation is payable in respect of those expenses.

    (5) In this paragraph, "similar work", in relation to the new work, means work directed to the same aspect of restoration as the new work; "previous notice" in relation to the current notice, means a notice given under paragraph 2 of this Schedule before the date on which the current notice was given; and "the relevant date" in relation to the current notice, means the date on which the Board serve a counter-notice objecting to the new work, or the date on which the time for serving such a counter-notice expires, whichever is the earlier.
    (6) In the following provisions of this Schedule (except where the contrary is expressly provided) any reference to subparagraph (c) of the last preceding paragraph, in relation to work to which that paragraph applies in accordance with sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph, shall be construed as a reference to the substituted sub-paragraph (c), and any reference in this Schedule to the grounds mentioned in the last preceding paragraph shall be construed accordingly.
    6. For the purpose of determining whether an objection on the grounds mentioned in subparagraph (c) of paragraph 4 of this Schedule is well-founded, the estimated cost of any work shall be taken to be such amount as may be agreed, or determined by the Tribunal, to be a fair estimate of the cost of the work, whether that amount is equal to, or greater or less than, the estimated cost of the work as stated in the applicant's notice specifying that work.
    7.—(1) In sub-paragraph (e) of paragraph 4 of this Schedule, the reference to default on the part of the owner or of an occupier of the land shall be construed in accordance with the following provisions of this paragraph.
    (2) In relation to agricultural land, the reference to default on the part of the owner shall be construed as a reference to failure on his part to manage the land in accordance with the rules of good estate management, and the reference to default on the part of an occupier of the land shall be construed as a reference to failure on the part of such an occupier to fulfil his responsibilities to farm the land in accordance with the rules of good husbandry.
    (3) In relation to any other land, the reference to default on the part of the owner shall be construed as a reference to failure on his part to deal with the land in a proper and due course of management, and the reference to default on the part of an occupier of the land shall be construed as a reference to failure on the part of such an occupier to maintain and use the land in a reasonable manner.
    (4) Sections ten and eleven of the Agriculture Act, 1947 (which prescribe tests for determining good estate management and good husbandry) shall apply for the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) of this paragraph.
    (5) In the application of this paragraph to Scotland, for the reference to sections ten and eleven of the Agriculture Act, 1947, there shall be substituted a reference to the Fifth and Sixth Schedules to the Agriculture (Scotland) Act, 1958.
    8. Where a notice has been given under paragraph 2 of this Schedule, and the applicant has incurred expenses in carrying out any of the work specified in that notice, and claims compensation in respect of those expenses,—

    (a) if the Board have not served a counter-notice under paragraph 3 of this Schedule in respect of that notice, they shall not be entitled to object to that claim on any of the grounds mentioned in paragraph 4 of this Schedule;

    (b) if the Board have served such a counter-notice, they shall not be entitled to object to that claim on any of the grounds mentioned in paragraph 4 of this Schedule, except in so far as the claim relates to items which were specified in the counter-notice and the objection is on grounds which were so specified in relation to those items.

    9.—(1) Where a notice has been given under paragraph 2 of this Schedule, and the Board have served a counter-notice objecting to the work specified in the notice, or to one or more items thereof, the applicant, before beginning to carry out any item to which such an objection relates, may require the question whether the objection is well-founded to be referred to the Tribunal.
    (2) If on such a reference the Tribunal determines that the objection is not well-founded, and the applicant incurs expenses in carrying out any of the work to which the objection relates and claims compensation in respect of those expenses, then (in addition to any grounds on which the Board are precluded by the last preceding paragraph from objecting to that claim) the Board shall not be entitled to object to that claim on any of the grounds which were the grounds of that objection.
    (3) If on such a reference the Tribunal determines that the objection is well-founded, and the applicant incurs expenses in carrying out any of the work to which the objection relates, and claims compensation in respect of those expenses,—

    (a) if the objection was on the grounds mentioned in any of subparagraphs (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) of paragraph 4 of this Schedule, no compensation shall be payable in respect of those expenses;

    (b) if the objection was on the grounds mentioned in subparagraph (f) of the said paragraph 4, no compensation shall be payable in respect of those expenses by virtue of the notice referred to in subparagraph (1) of this paragraph, but without prejudice to the service of a further notice under paragraph 2 of this Schedule in respect of the work in question;

    (c) if the objection was on the grounds mentioned in sub-paragraph (g) of the said paragraph 4, the expenses shall be disallowed by virtue of this sub-paragraph in so far as (but no further than) they were
    1192
    greater than they would have been if the work to which the objection related had been carried out at the first reasonable opportunity after the end of the period of occupation.

    10.—(1) If, in a case where a notice has been given under paragraph 2 of this Schedule, and the Board have served a counter-notice objecting to the work specified in the notice, Or to one or more items thereof,—

    (a) the applicant incurs expenses in carrying out work to which the objection relates, without having required the question whether the objection is well-founded to be referred to the Tribunal, and claims compensation in respect of those expenses;

    (b) on a reference to the Tribunal with respect to that claim the Board maintain the objection; and

    (c) on that reference the Tribunal determines that the objection is well-founded,

    the provisions of heads (a) to (c) of subparagraph (3) of the last preceding paragraph shall apply (subject to the following provisions of this paragraph) as they appy in the circumstances mentioned in that sub-paragraph.
    (2) Where the objection was on the grounds mentioned in subparagraph (c) of paragraph 4 of this Schedule (otherwise than in a case falling within paragraph 5 of this Schedule) so much of the preceding sub-paragraph as relates to the maintenance of the objection, and to a determination that the objection is well-founded, shall apply as if, in the said sub-paragraph (c), the reference to the estimated cost of the work were a reference to the proper cost of the work.
    (3) Where the objection was on the grounds mentioned in the substituted sub-paragraph (c), within the meaning of paragraph 5 of this Schedule, so much of sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph as relates to the maintenance of the objection, and to a determination that the objection is well-founded, shall apply as if, in the said paragraph 5, any reference to the relevant date were a reference to the date on which the question whether compensation is payable in respect of expenses incurred in carrying out the new work (within the meaning of that paragraph) falls to be determined by the Tribunal, and the objection had been formulated accordingly.
    11.—(1) Subject to the next following subparagraph, expenses incurred in carrying out any work shall not be treated as having been reasonably incurred as mentioned in paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of section twenty-two of this Act, if the work was begun more than fifteen years after the end of the period of occupation.
    (2) The preceding sub-paragraph shall not apply to any work required for making good damage caused by the settlement of soil replaced in the course of restoring the land or any other damage to the land caused by subsidence which is attributable to anything done in the exercise of rights conferred by the compulsory rights order in question.
    12. Where it is shown that the expenses incurred in carrying out any work exceeded the

    1193
    proper cost of the work, any claim for compensation in respect of those expenses shall (without prejudice to any other grounds on which the claim may be liable to be disallowed, wholly or in part) be disallowed to the extent of the excess.
    13.—(1) Except in so far as objection is made to any work on the grounds mentioned in sub-paragraph (c) of paragraph 4 of this Schedule, and subject to the provisions of this Schedule relating to any such objection, expenses incurred in carrying out any work shall not be disallowed (wholly or in part) on the grounds that the proper cost of that work (or of that work together with any other work) is greater than any Increase attributable thereto in the value of the land.
    (2) Subject to the preceding sub-paragraph, nothing in the preceding provisions of this Schedule shall be construed as precluding the Board from maintaining any objection to a claim for compensation, in so far as the objection is on any grounds other than those mentioned in paragraph 4 of this Schedule.
    Sir I. Horobin: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    I feel that I should apologise to the House, not for the first time, for introducing such a colossal Amendment at this very late stage. I did take the precaution of getting in touch with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. MacDermot) and his hon. Friends in order to reassure them, if I could, that there was no secret or hidden intention in it. It is very long, but I think that it deals with matters which are common ground.
    In the first place, the Amendment limits the Board's liability in time. We devoted a great deal of consideration in Committee to this very difficult matter. The whole object of cost of works compensation was to ensure that the money was paid when the work was done, and that all the work necessary was done. We were all agreed about that. On the other hand, the National Coal Board said, with much reason, that this was a continuing liability which might go on almost for ever, involving, perhaps, very small sums for extra application of fertiliser or whatever it might be. The Board said that it would be put to great expense and inconvenience if, perhaps twenty years later, it still had to pay out a few shillings for compensation.
    We have put a great deal of work into it. It was very difficult to find the right way out of the difficulty, but I think we have now reached a reasonable compromise in this Amendment. What it
    1194
    boils down to is that there will be, as it were, a guillotine which will fall after fifteen years, except in cases of compensation for subsidence. If subsidence takes place after deep mining, there is a continuing liability, and there seems to be no reason that the Board should not, however long afterwards, pay for subsidence which is clearly identifiable when there is no question of who is responsible for it. It is only fair that that should be so. For all other matters, there will come an end after fifteen years. Of course, the owner will obtain a rather larger sum in compensation, assessed by the valuer, when the Board gives up occupation, because any small sums which would hitherto have had to be paid to him will no longer be paid. The owner will not be damnified, therefore, but the Board will be saved a very great deal of more or less unknown liability.
    The second point dealt with in the Amendment arises from an undertaking given at an earlier stage, and here I am sure that we shall have the agreement of hon. and right hon. Members opposite who raised the matter very strongly. We must, if we can, find some way to check the reasonableness of procedures which are intended to be carried out under a cost of works arrangement before they are started. This is to the advantage of both sides. We have found here, I think, a fairly ingenious and satisfactory way of dealing with that. When the Board receives a notice, it can send a counter-notice to say that it considers that the works proposed are unreasonable. If the parties cannot come to agreement, they may go to the Lands Tribunal. I am sure that this arrangement will be much more satisfactory to the Coal Board and to the owner, than leaving things as they were, when the owner went and did some work, having no means of knowing whether the work would ultimately be found eligible for compensation.
    The third point dealt with is this. I did say that we would go carefully through the drafting of the old Third Schedule and make sure that there were no loopholes to enable quite unreasonable works to be done at the Board's expense. We have dealt with that in two respects. First, the Board can object now on the ground that certain works are premature. If a man really insists on doing some drainage works, and the Board simply

    1195
    says that it is a complete waste of money because what is done is bound to be broken in six months' time, that would be a sufficient ground for the Board to make objection. In all these cases, of course, the parties can go to the Tribunal if they cannot agree. We have then put in something which, I hope, will be a safeguard—it is really a matter of common sense—to provide that the Board can object if the expenditure is grossly disproportionate to the estimated additional value of the land. Again, the Lands Tribunal will be able to decide what expense is grossly disproportionate. We have always insisted that cost of works must not be limited to the amount that they add to the value of the land. That has been common ground between us from the start. Nevertheless, it may be reasonable to spend a certain amount in restoration and rehabilitation which will increase the value of the land. There must be some protection to ensure that ridiculous sums of money are not spent in making practically no improvement to the land at all.
    I think that that explanation, broadly speaking, deals with the matters in this long Schedule, but, having to make three main sets of improvements, it was simpler to take out the whole of the old Schedule and insert a new one rather than table a series of Amendments. With that explanation, I hope the House will feel that the new Schedule is an improvement to the Bill.
    Mr. Neal: There is a good deal in this long Schedule upon which I would not attempt to comment. The legal language is very complicated. Since we are in felicitous mood, however, I should like to thank the Parliamentary Secretary again for having included paragraph 11 in the Schedule. I think it was apt when the Parliamentary Secretary spoke about the guillotine falling at fifteen years, but there are exceptional circumstances where settlement takes place. Settlement takes place in deep mining when land has been restored long after the Coal Board has left the site. I am sure the farming community, in particular, will be apprised of the value of the Schedule in enabling them to claim after that period has expired.
    Mr. A. J. Champion: I should like to ask the
    1196
    Parliamentary Secretary whether he consulted the interests concerned before finally deciding upon the form of the new Schedule. I am bound to say that I regard the Schedule as a great improvement upon the Schedule which has been excluded. I like the paragraph in the new Schedule which covers the fifteen-year period.
    The only other point upon which I should like some assurance is this. Do I understand the Parliamentary Secretary to say that any settlement of the land after fifteen years—and I imagine that tile drainage will be most affected—will be covered by paragraph 11 (2)? If the hon. Gentleman can give me some satisfaction on that point, I shall be grateful.
    Sir I. Horobin: I think that the hon. Gentleman need have no fear. The object of the new Schedule is to take away what would have been an unlimited liability, but if subsidence takes place, and always assuming that it is proved to be due to opencast mining operations, the liability to do cost of works restoration remains.
    5.15 p.m.
    Mr. MacDermot: I also should like to welcome the new Schedule which goes a long way to meet the major criticisms which we had to offer in Committee on the substantial changes which were made by the Government to the compensation provisions of the Bill. The new Schedule does not go all of the way, but it certainly goes a good deal of the way.
    As the Parliamentary Secretary said, the new Schedule is inordinately long. I confess that I scrutinised it carefully to see whether I could find a way in which it could be shortened, but I found myself completely defeated. It is involved and very complicated. I think, however, that the Minister was justified in claiming that the provisions that have been put forward are ingenious and satisfactory. They are undoubtedly ingenious and I think that they cover all the reasonable contingencies in which the Board may want to lodge a precautionary objection to anything which the owner proposes to do by way of further cost of works. There is nothing to stop him doing the works, but he is put on notice and warned that if the objections which the Board might put forward are well founded he may not recover from the Board all, or in some cases any, of the cost of further works. If the owner does not like that, he can

    1197
    go to the Tribunal and get the matter cleared up before incurring the risk and expense of doing all those works. That is the major point which has been met.
    There is one point of detail upon which I should be grateful for a little clarification from the Minister. I conceive that one of the most frequent sources of dispute between the Board and the owner will be when the owner sends his estimate of the cost of works that he is proposing to do and the Board says, "We have no objection to the works as such, but we think that your estimate is excessive". This point is referred to in line 22 of the Schedule. As I read the Schedule, that is not one of the circumstances provided for in the sense that the Board can issue a warning at that stage. I had thought of trying to draft an Amendment to cover the point, but the objection which would be raised by the Government—and it seems to me to be a formidable objection—is that it is impossible to litigate in advance what would be the proper cost of doing the work, Labour costs and prices of materials may change.
    The point that I raise is this. The provision in line 22 which requires the owner before he does the works to let the Board have an estimate of the cost of work does not seem to be followed up anywhere in the Schedule. I can find no further reference to it. Am I right in thinking that once the estimate has been sent to the Board it can be buried and lost in the files of the Board and nothing further need happen about it at all? That would not be very satisfactory; and, as a matter of practice, if the Board does think that an estimate is excessive, will it give, as it were, unofficial warning and notice to the owner of that fact so that he will not be taken by surprise? Naturally, the owner would feel aggrieved if five years later the Board says, "We are prepared to pay compensation, but we think that your estimate is excessive and the cost of works done is excessive and we are prepared to pay only 80 per cent. of the sum that you are claiming."
    I agree that this is not a matter which can be litigated in advance, but I think that it would be helpful if the Minister could assure us that it is the intention of the Board to make known its mind when it receives an owner's estimate of the cost of works.
    Sir I. Horobin: I do not want to be dogmatic in my answer to the hon. Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. MacDermot). As I understand it, the original notice would contain an estimate. If the Board serves a counter-notice, as it can, saying, "This estimate is grossly disproportionate", that could be dealt with, but the Board will not pay until after the work has been done and it will pay only a proper amount. The Board would not pay upon receiving the estimate. The owner may say, "I propose to do certain works", and the Board would be perfectly entitled to say, "We think those works are unreasonable. Take it to the Tribunal." It would be open to the Board to say, "These works may have been all right, or at least the Tribunal held that they were, though we did not agree, but we are now going to say that we think you spent two or three times the proper cost." That, again, would leave it open either for the man to say, "I agree that it turned out like that, but I was anxious to get it done and I will not get all the compensation," or the matter can be referred to the Tribunal which will decide the proper cost. When the Tribunal decides the cost the estimate is irrelevant.
    Mr. MacDermot: That does not meet my point. Perhaps I may put it a little clearer to the hon. Gentleman. The provision in paragraph 4 (c) for the Board giving a counter-notice
    "that the estimated cost of the work is grossly disproportionate to any prospective increase attributable to the work in the value of the land"
    is not the estimate of the cost of the work in line 22. It is quite a different thing. The estimate of the cost of the work in line 48 is defined in paragraph 6. It is a notional figure. I am dealing with the man's actual estimate. Even if the work is perfectly reasonable and its proper cost is not
    "grossly disproportionate to any increase … in the value of the land"
    he may have obtained an estimate to do that work which is quite excessive. The cost might be unreasonably excessive.
    All I am suggesting is that as a matter of procedure if, when the Board receives the owner's estimate, it feels that it is an excessive estimate and is likely to lead, if the works are carried out on the basis of that estimate, to a dispute as

    1199
    to what is the proper cost, the Board should, as a matter of practice, give immediate warning of that fact to the owner.
    Sir I. Horobin: I think the hon. Gentleman is right that, in fact, as a matter of administration it would be sensible for the Board to issue a formal warning of that kind. All I was concerned to show is that the Board would not be damnified by the fact of the estimate. It would be concerned with whether the work was O.K. and, when done, whether the cost was proper. I agree that it might be that the Board would be wise to say, "If you are doing this work, we do not object, but we informally advise you that this seems a quite absurd estimate for doing the work and, in due course, we may well challenge you." I think that is a matter best left for informal action between the two parties.
    Question put and agreed to.

    Fourth Schedule.—(SHORT-TERM IMPROVEMENTS AND RELATED MATTERS FOR WHICH COMPENSATION IS PAYABLE.)
    Lords Amendment agreed to: In page 70, line 22, leave out "sheep on high ground" and insert:
    "hill sheep on hill land."

    Fifth Schedule.—(COMPENSATION IN RESPECT OF MINERALS.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 72, line 3, at end insert:
    "or order conferring working rights"
    Sir I. Horobin: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    This and the next Amendment are, again, two of the series of Amendments dealing with the rights to work minerals.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to: In line 6, after "lease" insert "or order".
    Lords Amendment: In page 72, line 17, after "using" insert "treating, converting"
    Sir I. Horrobin: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    This Amendment fulfils an undertaking on a small point. We desire to make
    1200
    sure that the definition of rights and facilities in paragraph 1 (3) of the Fifth Schedule covers the processing of minerals.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Lords Amendment: In page 75, line 25, at end insert:
    "(5) The preceding provisions of this paragraph shall have effect in relation to an order conferring working rights as they have effect in relation to a mining lease."
    Sir I. Horobin: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    This is another of the Amendments dealing with the rights to work minerals.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Lords Amendment: In page 77, line 37, leave out sub-paragraphs (4) and (5) and insert:
    "(4) If the entirety of the holding consists of land to which this Schedule applies, no compensation under section twenty-three of this Act shall be payable in respect of the holding.
    (5) If only part of the holding consists of land to which this Schedule applies,—

    (a) section twenty-three of this Act shall have effect in relation to the holding, but

    (b) subsections (2) and (4) of that section shall apply as if that land did not form part of the holding, and any reference in that section to values computed in accordance with any of paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of subsection (2) thereof shall be construed accordingly."

    Sir I. Horobin: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    This is a technical Amendment designed to eliminate a double payment. It deals with a person, other than a mineral operator, who is receiving compensation under the special Fifth Schedule provisions, and we have to make certain that he does not also obtain terminal compensation under the general provisions of the Bill which apply.
    Question put and agreed to.

    Sixth Schedule.—(APPLICATION OF COMPENSATION PROVISIONS TO SPECIAL CASES.)
    Lords Amendments: In page 79, line 18, leave out from "compensation" to end of line 24 and insert:
    "is not the person who was entitled to occupy the holding on the operative date (in this paragraph referred to as 'the original occupier')

    1201
    and is not a person who has become entitled to the relevant interest in the holding—

    (a) on or after the death of the original occupier, in accordance with the disposition of the original occupier's estate effected by his will, or the law relating to intestacy, or the combination of his will and that law, or

    (b) under an agreement which was made for valuable consideration by the person entitled to the compensation and was in force immediately before the operative date, or under a disposition creating or transferring the relevant interest in the holding in pursuance of such an agreement."

    Sir I. Horobin: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    This and the following Amendment go together and merely correct some technical defects in the wording relating to loss of profits compensation. There is no question of substance in them. They merely make the technical provisions rather clearer.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to: In line 27, at end insert:
    "(2) In this paragraph 'the relevant interest', in relation to a person entitled to compensation for any year in respect of a holding, means the interest in or right over the holding by virtue of which he is entitled to that compensation; 'will' includes a codicil; and 'disposition', where the reference is to a disposition creating or transferring an interest, does not include any provision contained in a will, but, with that exception, includes any conveyance, assignment, lease or other assurance."
    Lords Amendment: In page 80, line 31, at end insert:
    ("(2) For the purposes of this paragraph no account shall be taken of any opportunities of which the person in question has not availed himself (notwithstanding that they were opportunities of the kind described in the preceding sub-paragraph) in so far as they would have involved his engaging (whether as an employed person or otherwise) in a substantially different occupation from that in which he was engaged during the period preceding the operative date of the order.
    (3) Paragraph (a) of subsection (8) of section nineteen of this Act, and the last preceding paragraph, shall apply for the purposes of this paragraph as they apply for the purposes of that section.")
    Sir I. Horobin: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    This is a more important Amendment which I think will be generally acceptable. It deals with the thorny subject of litigation. It was felt in another place, and, indeed, the point was raised in
    1202
    general terms in Committee, that while we should follow the general law that a man who is receiving compensation should mitigate the loss as far as possible, it would be quite unreasonable that farmers should be told, "You ought to have taken up employment in a factory or something of that kind," and, therefore, should lose some of their compensation. This Amendment will protect them against that. Where they have mitigated the loss either by interest on compensation received or by taking another farming job, it is, of course, reasonable under the general provisions of the Bill that their compensation should be mitigated.
    This Amendment protects a man from being told, in effect, "You are a farmer. Your land has been taken and you ought to have become a waiter in Blackpool or something of that sort." I think most people would feel that this is a reasonable and proper safeguard to people who in any case have suffered very extreme inconvenience in having their land taken. I do not think I need go into the exact details of it, but I think that the principle will be generally acceptable.
    Mr. MacDermot: I confess that I do not share the Minister's enthusiasm for the Amendment. It is a departure from the accepted principles of compensation as they apply in a very wide sphere over many different kinds of Acts. It is a general principle of our law that for any kind of compensation which a person is to receive he has a duty, as the courts put it, to mitigate his damages. It applies in ordinary common law to persons claiming damage for personal injuries, in running-down accidents, as a result of motor accidents, or whatever it may be. It applies to the general law of compensation for compulsory purchase and in different spheres.
    If the person suffers damage and is entitled to be indemnified for that damage it is always accepted that he must take reasonable steps to mitigate the damage. In any particular case it is for the court to decide, having regard to all the circumstances, whether a measure which would be open to the man to mitigate his damages is one which can reasonably be demanded of him. It has not been thought wise or necessary to try to define what would be a reasonable step or to exclude from consideration some possible

    1203
    measures as being in all circumstances unreasonable.
    It is that which this Amendment tries to do, and, I think unwisely. What it tries to say, and, indeed, does say, is that no account at all shall be taken in determining what reasonable use the person might make, in order to mitigate loss, of any opportunities available to him, but of which he does not avail himself if they involve him in engaging in a substantially different occupation.
    5.30 p.m.
    The Parliamentary Secretary, to support his argument, gave some rather fanciful examples, for instance, that a farmer might be asked to go to work as a waiter at Blackpool. I do not imagine that in any circumstances any court would say that was reasonable. Let me give an example which may perhaps be a little nearer the point. I understand that what almost invariably happens when, because opencast coal operations come about, anyone in the locality loses his employment, is that he is able to obtain other employment at least as lucrative, if not more so, from the Coal Board in those opencast coal operations.
    The ordinary agricultural labourer, who may be a tractor driver, for instance, if there is not other agricultural work available for him in the neighbourhood, will get work driving a bulldozer, or whatever the vehicle may be, for the Coal Board. Whether in any case in particular it would be reasonable to ask a farmer to do the same thing as his labourers would do, namely, obtain employment from the Board, is something which would have to be looked at in all the circumstances of the case.
    Clearly, if one were dealing with an elderly man who had no mechanical skills and who would be out of his depth, as it were, in any employment which might be offered to him, or if that employment were to involve his working in any way which he would find highly objectionable and different from anything to which he had been accustomed all his life, knowing the general approach of the courts I feel quite confident that the courts would say, "We do not think it is reasonable to demand of him that he should accept that employment."
    Another and a younger man, perhaps with a smallholding, who is unable to
    1204
    continue his work as a result of opencast coal mining in the neighbourhood, may be offered a type of job well within his capacity. Is he to be entitled, as a result of this Lords Amendment, just to sit down and twiddle his thumbs and say, "No. I am not taking any work with the Coal Board, because that is substantially different employment from ordinary agricultural work. You are preventing me from earning my profit of £800 or £1,000 a year and you will pay me the full annual loss"? Is he just to sit at home and do nothing?
    That is not an extreme, fanciful example. That would be quite possible because of this Lords Amendment. I feel that the people who supported the Amendment, who urged it and obtained it, were allowing their imaginations to run away with them in thinking that the courts or authorities would be much more unreasonable than in fact they will be in giving effect to the ordinary provisions about reasonableness in the law of mitigation, and I feel that this Lords Amendment might be taken advantage of in a way which, I feel sure, no one in this House would wish.
    Sir I. Horobin: In, if I may say so, a cold-blooded, legal sense, there is an enormous amount to be said for what the hon. Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. MacDermot) has been putting to the House, but I think that in this case we have to be a little human. Let us take the actual situation he is putting. We are not dealing, as he says, with a labourer, but a farmer, an occupier. The Coal Board says to him, "We are compulsorily going to take away the place where you live, the place where your wife and children live. We are going to make life nearly intolerable for you for several years. But you can drive a tractor. We are not going to pay you much compensation because you can drive the tractor which is going to tear your farm to pieces."
    In law that is a logical proceeding by the Board, and I am glad to have it from the hon. Member, but surely in this matter we can be a little human. I think that in these circumstances it would be pretty cruel to tell people, "I am not going to pay you any compensation, or not nearly as much, because you can help to do the damage to your land." Logically there is an enormous lot to be said for what the hon. Member says.

    1205
    He is perfectly right, as always, in saying that this is the general law of the land, but many of us have felt that this opencast coal business is exceptional, and on balance, while, of course, for instance, the cash the man may have at the bank ought to be taken into account, we feel it would be unfair to the man to reduce the compensation we pay him for making his life a misery if he does not himself help to make his own life a misery. I think that the Lords Amendment should be supported.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Lords Amendment: In page 80, line 36, after "any" insert "improvements carried out on".
    Sir I. Horobin: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    This and the two following Lords Amendments all deal with the same point, which is quite a small one. They deal with tenant right to compensation and the question is whether that should be capital or income. For Income Tax purposes tenant right compensation is treated as annual income, and it therefore does not seem quite fair, as was provided in the Bill as originally drafted, to treat it as a capital payment when we work out mitigation of the annual loss to profits compensation. I think that if one branch, as it were, of the Government treats it as income another branch should not treat it as capital. I will not say that it does not occur. Anything is possible in tax law. However, I think most people will feel that this protection to the occupier is fair and equitable.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to: In line 36, after "holding" insert:
    "being improvements of a description specified in Part I or Part VI of the Fourth Schedule to this Act,".
    In page 81, line 6, at end insert:
    "(3) In this paragraph any reference to Part I or Part VI of the Fourth Schedule to this Act includes a reference to that Part as varied by any order made under section twenty-six or section twenty-eight of this Act."
    Lords Amendment: In page 81, line 32, leave out from beginning to "in" in line 33 and insert:
    "subsections (2) to (4) of section eighteen of this Act shall not apply, and for the purposes of that section, and for the purposes of paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of section nineteen
    1206
    of this Act and (where applicable) for the purposes of subsection (3) of the said section nineteen, the annual value of the land for any year shall be determined".
    Sir I. Horobin: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    This Lords Amendment and the next two all deal with the same point. They all deal with the rather awkward question of land, such as building land, which is not normally let from year to year and therefore becomes difficult to calculate for compensation. We propose, under these Lords Amendments, to make regulations dealing with this special case. The Regulations originally were intended to be made on the basis that we just take out the existing provisions altogether and put in new ones for this class of land, but in doing the preliminary work of drafting the Regulations it has been found it can be done much more conveniently by incorporating a notional value for that purpose. The Regulations will in due course come before Parliament. These Lords Amendments enable that to be done. This is purely a technical point dealing with a special class of land which cannot come under the normal procedure.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to: In line 36, leave out sub-paragraphs (2) and (3).
    In page 82, line 16, leave out "section seventeen or section eighteen" and insert:
    "any of, the provisions of sections seventeen to nineteen."
    In line 17, leave out "section" and insert "provision".
    Lords Amendment: In page 82, line 18, at end insert:
    "13.—(1) Where any land to which section thirty-two of this Act applies in relation to a compulsory rights order is—

    (a) land which, immediately before the operative date of the order, was used for a purpose for which land would not normally be let from rear to year, or

    (b) land in respect of which, immediately before the operative date, there was in force permission granted tinder Part III of the Act of 1947 for the land to be used for such a purpose,

    subsection (3) of that section shall not apply, and for the purposes of subsection (2) of that section annual value shall be determined in accordance with regulations made by the Minister under this paragraph.

    1207
    (2) Sub-paragraph (4) of the last preceding paragraph shall apply for the purposes of this paragraph as it applies for the purposes of that paragraph."
    Sir I. Horobin: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    This is another which arises out of Clause 32 and deals with a point similar to that which we have just been discussing, namely, land which is not normally let from year to year. This is a purely machinery provision.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Lords Amendment: In page 82, line 30, leave out from beginning to end of line 4 on page 83, and insert:
    "Woodlands
    14. The Minister may by regulations make provision for modifying or adapting any of the provisions of this Act relating to compensation in respect of compulsory rights orders in their application to land which, immediately before the operative date of such an order, or the date of entry thereunder, was used as woodlands, or as woodlands of a particular description specified in the regulations."
    Sir I. Horobin: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    This merely gives power to the Minister to make Regulations dealing with compensation for woodlands. A number of questions have been raised about compensation for woodlands. They have been raised here and in another place.
    They obviously do not fit very conveniently into the normal provisions. Woodlands take a long time to grow. Very elaborate provisions could have been put into the Bill. Indeed, some people have suggested that a lump payment should be made in respect of woodlands when the Board gives up possession, but it has been felt that the only way to make satisfactory provision for this special and rather awkward case is to deal with it by regulations. In drafting those regulations, careful consideration will be given to a number of points made both in this House and in another place. Question put and agreed to.
    Lords Amendment: In page 84, line 27, at end insert:
    "Restricted lettings, and easements and similar rights
    18A. This paragraph applies to the following rights, that is to say,—

    (a) any right conferred by a letting of land, or a licence to occupy land, in pursuance
    1208
    of an agreement made (whether the agreement expressly so provides or not) in contemplation of the use of land only for grazing or mowing during some specified period of the year;

    (b) any easement or similar right over land.

    18B. For the purposes of the following provisions of this Act, that is to say, subsections (2) and (3) of section seventeen, subsection (2) of section twenty-one, subsection (1) of section twenty-nine, and the provisions of subsection (3) of section seventeen as applied by subsection (2) of section twenty-nine, any right to which the last preceding paragraph applies shall be disregarded; and, in relation to any land which is subject to any such right, those provisions shall apply as if that right had not been conferred, reserved or otherwise acquired, as the case may be.
    18C.—(1) Where in accordance with the provisions of section seventeen of this Act (as modified by the last preceding paragraph) any land constitutes a holding to which that section applies, and, during any year far which compensation is payable in respect of that holding by virtue of that section, any land comprised in the holding is subject to any right to which paragraph 18A of this Schedule applies, the provisions of the next following sub-paragraph shall have effect as to the assessment under section nineteen of this Act of profit or loss for that year in respect of that holding.
    (2) Any profit or loss required to be so assessed under subsection (1) of section nineteen of this Act, and (if the remainder of the holding referred to in subsection (3) of that section includes any of the land which is subject to the right in question) any profit or loss required to be so assessed for that year under subsection (3) of that section, shall be assessed on the basis of an occupation of the holding, or of the remainder of the holding, as the case may be,—

    (a) subject to that right, in so far as it would (if the compulsory rights order had not been made) have been exercisable during the year in question in relation to land comprised in the holding, or in the remainder of the holding, as the case may be, but

    (b) with the benefit of any rent which (if the order had not been made) would have been payable for that year in respect of the exercise of that right in relation to any such land, and

    (c) in all other respects, on the terms and in the circumstances specified in subsection (1) or subsection (3) of that section, as the case may be.

    (3) For the purposes of the last preceding subparagraph it shall be assumed that the manner and extent of the exercise of the right in question, during the year for which the profit or loss is required to be assessed, is such as it might reasonably have been expected to be during that year if the compulsory rights order had not been made.
    (4) Where the preceding provisions of this paragraph have effect in relation to the assessment of compensation for any year in accordance with section nineteen of this Act, and in respect of the right in question, in so far as it relates to land comprised in the holding, any rent is payable for that year (notwithstanding the compulsory rights order) to the person entitled to that compensation, the amount of that compensation (calculated apart from this sub-paragraph) shall be reduced by the amount of that rent.
    (5) In the preceding provisions of this paragraph any reference to section seventeen of this Act includes a reference to section twenty-nine of this Act, and any reference to section nineteen of this Act includes a reference to the provisions of that section as applied by section twenty-nine of this Act.
    (6) In this paragraph "rent" includes any sums payable in respect of the exercise of a right to which paragraph 18A of this Schedule applies.
    18D. Where the whole or part of the land comprised in a compulsory rights order is subject to any such right as is mentioned in sub-paragraph (a) of paragraph 18A of this Schedule, and in any year in which that right subsists, being any such year as is mentioned in subsection (2) of section thirty-one of this Act, the exercise of that right is prevented or injuriously affected by reason of the order or of anything done in the exercise of rights conferred by the order, the said subsection (2) shall have effect in relation to that right as if it were an easement to which that section applies.
    18E. Any agreement for the letting a land or the grant of a licence in respect of land, where, before the agreement was entered into, the letting or grant was approved by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for the purposes of section two of the Act of 1948 (which relates to the effect of certain lettings and licences to occupy agricultural land, but excepts lettings and licences approved by the said Minister from the operation of the section) shall be treated for the purposes of section seventeen of this Act as conferring a right to occupy the land to which the agreement relates, if apart from this paragraph it would not be treated as conferring such a right.
    18F. Where the whole or part of a holding to which section seventeen of this Act applies consists of land occupied under a letting or licence approved by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for the purposes of section two of the Act of 1948, and—

    (a) by the agreement under which the land was let or the licence granted a right to use the land for specified purposes was reserved to the person letting the land or granting the licence, as the case may be;

    (b) the exercise of that right is prevented or injuriously affected by reason of the compulsory rights order or of anything done in the exercise of rights conferred by the order; and

    (c) that right does not constitute an easement or similar right.

    1210
    subsection (2) of section thirty-one of this Act shall have effect in relation to that right as if it were an easement to which that section applies."
    Sir I. Horobin: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    I am afraid that this is a rather long and complicated Amendment, though it deals with some fairly simple points. First of all, it eliminates the possibility of double payment of compensation. When land is considered for the purpose of paying annual compensation to an occupier, the valuation is made on the assumption that the holding is free from encumbrances. If somebody is entitled to an easement or a right over that part of the holding he gets compensation too. Therefore, it is necessary to ensure that both are not paid for the same damage.
    Secondly, part of the land may be let under a mowing or grazing licence. Under the Bill as drafted the whole of the annual compensation goes to the occupier and the licensee gets nothing. That does not seem fair. We have put that right and given the licensee his proper compensation. I understand, and I confess I merely take this from my advisers, that there are short-term agreements approved by the Minister of Agriculture in some of which the owner retains certain rights to use the land. It is fair if he loses those rights that he should be indemnified, and we have assimilated those rights so that they come under the general provision for compensation for damage to easements or similar rights. These points are exceptions but there are cases of genuine loss and we have attempted to ensure that fair compensation is paid.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Lords Amendment: In page 85, line 29, leave out from "to" to "year" in line 30 and insert:
    "so much of the annual value for that year, or of the amount in question assessed by reference to that year, as (on a rateable apportionment of that value or amount as between different parts of that year) is properly atributable to that part of that"
    Sir I. Horobin: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment
    Here again we have attempted to meet a point raised by the Opposition at an earlier stage. I think that it was the hon.

    1211
    and learned Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. MacDermot), who led for the Opposition, who raised the point about what happens if land is taken just before harvest. At that stage I said that I thought there was no danger that there would be unreasonable compensation, but there appears to be some possible doubt. We thought it right to make it quite clear that the occupier will have only a proportionate amount for the period of the first year and will not receive an exceptionally large sum where the land has been taken while he is receiving his year's income out of it by reason of the fact that the harvest has been safely gathered in. I thought that the Bill, as originally drafted, covered the point but it is just as well to make quite sure by means of the Amendment.
    Mr. MacDermot: I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for taking the point, which is now well met, and I would remind him that I am not learned.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Lords Amendment: In page 85, line 36, at end insert:
    "20A.—(1) Where in the case of land to which section thirty-two of this Act applies in relation to a compulsory rights order, a person is the owner of that land for part, but not the whole, of a year, subsection (2) of that section shall apply as if any reference to a year included a reference to that part of a year.
    (2) The preceding sub-paragraph shall have effect without prejudice to the operation of sub-paragraph (3) of paragraph 19 of this Schedule, where the said sub-paragraph (3) is applicable; and sub-paragraph (4) of that paragraph shall have effect in relation to the preceding sub-paragraph as it has effect in relation to sub-paragraphs (1) to (3) of that paragraph."
    5.45 p.m.
    Sir I. Horobin: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    I apologise to the hon. and unlearned Member for Lewisham, North. This Amendment again arises out of Clause 32. It is purely technical and deals with a case where compensation is payable only for part of the year.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Lords Amendment: After Amendment last inserted, insert:
    "Concurrent compulsory rights orders
    20B. The Minister may by regulations make provision for modifying or adapting any of
    1212
    the provisions of this Act relating to compensation in respect of compulsory rights orders in their application to land which—

    (a) constitutes or forms part of the land comprised in a compulsory rights order, or, in relation to a compulsory rights order, forms part of a holding to which section seventeen or section twenty-nine of this Act applies, or is land to which section thirty-two of this Act applies, and

    (b) at any time after the operative date of that order, and before the end of the period of occupation thereunder, constitutes or forms part of the land comprised in another compulsory rights order, or, in relation to another such order, forms part of a holding to which section seventeen or section twenty-nine of this Act applies, or is land to which section thirty-two of this Act applies."

    Sir I. Horobin: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    The Amendment empowers the Minister to make regulations adapting compensation provisions in odd cases where part of a holding is comprised in one compulsory rights order and another part in another compulsory rights order. It is purely a piece of machinery. Rather awkward matters of detail arise in such a case. The Amendment has nothing to do with going twice over the same land. It deals with that case where one part of a farm happens to be in one area of working and another part in another area. It will be seen that there may be an overlapping of damage and this might produce an extremely complicated problem. The Bill is already sufficiently complicated and it has been thought wise to make this provision by regulation.
    Mr. MacDermot: Before we give one of the eight regulation-making powers for which the Minister is asking, I should like to point out that in this Amendment there is no kind of indication of the principles on which the Minister is to make the regulations or of the effect which he will try to achieve by making them. He tells us that a very complicated problem arises, but he does not tell us what he has in mind for solving it. I do not know whether he knows himself or, if he does, whether he can give us any idea of the object that it is hoped to achieve.
    Sir I. Horobin: We shall consult all the interests involved and all these regulations will have to be laid and debated. Broadly speaking, the effort will be merely to ensure that nobody fails to be paid at all and that nobody is paid twice.

    1213
    The difficulty arises because in our efforts to assist the occupier, the farm as a unit is the basis of compensation. Therefore, if there is a situation where one part of a farm is taken under a compulsory rights order we have to consider the effect on the whole farm. If another part of a farm is then taken we have again to consider the effect on the whole farm. It is clearly necessary to ensure that payment is not made twice or that there is not some similar unexpected and unreasonable consequence.
    Mr. Champion: The hon. Gentleman said that regulations will be laid and debated. Will that be done under the affirmative procedure or under the negative procedure? In the latter case, if objection were taken it would be necessary to pray against the Order.
    Sir I. Horobin: I think that it will be the negative procedure.
    Mr. Champion: Then we shall have to pray.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Lords Amendment: In page 86, line 2, after "lease" insert:
    "or order conferring working rights"
    Sir I. Horobin: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    This and the next four Amendments again deal with the point about the right to work minerals under the Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Act, 1923, and also with timber felling contracts, to which we have already referred.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to: In line 3, after second "the" insert "compulsory rights"
    In line 3, leave out from "thereof" to "the" in line 5.
    In line 9, leave out "timber felling contract" and insert "order conferring working rights"
    In line 9, after "the" insert "compulsory rights"
    Lords Amendment: In line 15, after "Scotland" insert:
    "for references to Part I of the Fourth Schedule to this Act there shall be substituted references to Part IV of that Schedule, excluding paragraph 21 thereof, and"
    The Lord Advocate (Mr. W. R. Milligan): I beg to move, that this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    This and the next Amendment are both Scottish adaptations following on the Amendments which have been accepted.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to: In line 17, at end insert:
    "and for references to an agreement for the letting of land, to the Minister of Agriculture. Fisheries and Food, and to section two of the Act of 1948, there shall be substituted respectively references to a lease, to the Secretary of State, and to section two of the Scottish Act of 1949."

    Seventh Schedule.—(ADJUSTMENTS BETWEEN LANDLORDS AND TENANTS AND IN RESPECT OF MORTGAGES AND MINING LEASES.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 89, line 1, leave out from beginning to "date" in line 7 and insert:

    "(1) Where the land comprised in a compulsory rights order consists of or includes the whole or part of an agricultural holding, section thirteen of the Act of 1948 (which relates to the removal of fixtures and buildings) shall have effect in relation to the holding subject to the following provisions of this paragraph.

    (2) In relation to the service of a notice by the tenant on or after the operative date of the order, in respect of a fixture or building on a part of the holding which is within the land comprised in the order, paragraph (b) of subsection (2) of that section (under which the tenant is required to give at least one month's notice of his intention to remove a fixture or building) shall apply with the substitution, for the words 'one month', of the words 'fourteen days'.

    (3) Where the tenant has given to the landlord notice under the said subsection (2) (or under that subsection as modified by the last preceding sub-paragraph) of his intention to remove a fixture or building on a part of the holding which is within the land comprised in the order, and that notice is given on or after the operative date of the order, or, if given before that date, expires on or after that"

    Sir I. Horobin: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    This Amendment and the next two Amendments deal with matters arising out of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1948. In effect, in order to give the tenant slightly more time, they reduce the period of notice to the landlord of the tenant's intention to remove certain fixtures from one month to fourteen days.

    1215
    It may surprise the House to know that in order to reduce the period from one month to fourteen days it is necessary to have three paragraphs. This arises out of the rather curious drafting at this point of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1948.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to: In line 11, after "The" insert "last".
    In line 11, after "effect" insert:
    "in relation to a notice served before the operative date of the order".
    In line 13, at end insert:
    "(3) In this paragraph any reference to section thirteen of the Act of 1948 includes a reference to the provisions of that section as extended by paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of section sixty-seven of that Act (which relates to market gardens)".
    Lords Amendment: In page 92, line 35, after "lease" insert:
    "or order conferring working rights".
    Sir I. Horobin: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    This and the next four Amendments all deal with the point about rights to work minerals.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to: In line 38, after "lease" insert "or order".
    In line 41, after "lease" insert "or order".
    In line 43, after "lease" insert "or order".
    In line 45, after second "the" insert "compulsory rights".
    In page 97, line 5, after "seventeen" insert "sixty-seven".
    In line 7, at end insert "sixty-five".

    Eighth Schedule.—(TENANCIES OF ALLOTMENT GARDENS AND OTHER ALLOTMENTS.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 97, line 36, leave out from "garden" to end of line 39.
    Sir I. Horobin: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    This is a technical Amendment to protect the rights of a person who is occupying an allotment used wholly or mainly for
    1216
    agriculture carried on by way of a trade or business. It is to the advantage of the holder of the allotment that he should be so included.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to: In page 98, line 12, after "Board" insert "to the tenant".
    Lords Amendment: in line 47, after "four" insert or section five".
    Sir I. Horobin: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    This Amendment extends the provision which provides compensation for losses on forced sales to allotments which are not allotment gardens. Under the Bill as drafted only an allotment garden attracts compensation. This is obviously a fair Amendment.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to: In page 99, leave out lines 18 to 20 and insert:
    "in respect of a forced sale shall accrue due on the effective date of the sale, or, if that date was before the operative date of the order, shall be treated as having accrued due on the effective date of the sale".
    In line 24, at end insert:
    "and 'effective date' in this paragraph has the same meaning as in that section".
    Lords Amendment: In page 100, line 4, leave out "section" and insert "sections twenty-two and".
    Sir I. Horobin: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    This and the next four Amendments are drafting Amendments designed to avoid double payment.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to: In line 5, at end insert:
    "(2) The said section twenty-two shall apply in relation to the holding as if any reference in that section to the condition in which land was immediately before the date of entry were a reference to the condition in which the land in question would have been, immediately before the date of entry, if the matters qualifying for compensation had not existed."
    In line 13, leave out "the last preceding sub-paragraph "and insert" this paragraph".
    In line 40, after "four" insert "or section five".
    In line 43, after "two" insert "or section four".

    Tenth Schedule.—(TRANSITIONAL. PROVISIONS.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 102, line 40, after "payable" insert:
    "by or on behalf a the Minister".
    Sir I. Horobin: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    This is really a drafting Amendment. It deals with the certification procedure and makes it clear that the Minister will only certify the payments which he himself has made. There are certain ex gratia payments made by the Board and, clearly, it would be inappropriate, if not impossible, for the Minister to certify them. So this Amendment is little more than a clarification of the procedure to ensure that the Minister does not have to put himself and the Coal Board to a great deal of trouble in certifying something which is really irrelevant.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to: In page 103, line 50, at end insert:
    "(2) Any reference in any provision of this Schedule to a sum paid on account of a prospective right to compensation of a description specified in that provision includes a reference to a sum paid in consideration of a waiver (whether total or partial) of a prospective claim to compensation of that description."
    Lords Amendment: In page 106, line 41, leave out "to" and insert" and serve on"
    Sir I. Horobin: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    This, together with the next five, are drafting Amendments, designed to attract the provisions of the Ninth Schedule dealing with serving notices and other documents. They are purely machinery Amendments.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to: In line 42, leave out from "is" to "a" in line 43 and insert:
    "a person to whom in accordance with the existing arrangements any periodical payments are payable"
    In line 44, leave out "he is entitled to those payments" and insert "those payments are payable to him"
    In line 46, leave out "to which he is entitled" and insert "which are payable"
    In page 107, line 14, leave out "to" and insert "and serve it on"
    In page 110, line 28, leave out "25" and insert "26"
    Lords Amendment: In line 34, at end insert:
    "28A. In relation to any land falling within paragraph 24 of this Schedule, the provisions of section twenty-four or section thirty of this Act, where applicable, shall have effect subject to the modification specified in paragraph 27 of this Schedule"
    Sir I. Horobin: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    This Amendment, which again is very nearly a drafting one, is designed to make it clear that a tenant of land now under requisition, and derequisitioned after the commencement of the Act, will be entitled to compensation from his landlord under Clauses 24 to 30 for any of his improvements. At present, under the requisition procedure, the unfortunate man does not get anything. Under the new procedure in this Measure, of course, he will do so. Therefore, unless we make this Amendment here for the next couple of years there will be some unfair disparities. For instance, one man may be getting compensation for exactly the same thing under the new procedure which another man will not get because it was taken up under requisition procedure. That would be unfair, and therefore by this Amendment we shall assimilate the compensation payable under the requisition procedure for the short period it will still be in operation to that under the provisions of the Bill. I am sure this Amendment will commend itself to everybody.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Lords Amendment: In line 47, at end insert:
    "Depreciation of other land in same ownership
    30A.—(1) The Minister may by regulations make provision for the payment of compensation in respect of land which, at such time as may be prescribed by the regulations, is land wherein the interest of the owner is held by a person who is also the owner of land requisitioned for opencast operations.
    (2) Ony such provision made by regulations under this paragraph shall be such as the Minister may consider appropriate for securing that compensation is payable thereunder, in respect of land to which the regulations apply, in cases, and according to principles, corresponding as nearly as may be with the cases in which, and the principles according to which, compensation is payable under section thirty-two of this Act in respect of land to which that section applies."
    Sir I. Horobin: I beg to move, That this House does agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    This Amendment arises out of Clause 32, injurious affection, and provides that land which is so adversely affected, where the land is under requisition, shall again, broadly speaking, be treated in the same way as the land under a C.R.O. It is similar to the point we have just dealt with. For the future we are assimilating the compensation for injurious affection of the two cases, those under C.R.O. procedure and those remaining under requisition, which is clearly desirable.
    Mr. Neal: May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary a question? We are told that the Minister may, by regulations, make provision. We thought, when this Bill was introduced, that it would dispense with the use of Defence Regulations, yet here in this paragraph, and in subsequent pages this phrase is repeated five times. In recent years this House has continually expressed its objection to more and more delegated legislation, and I want to hear what the hon. Gentleman has to say in this regard. This might have been done by statutory provision instead of by the Minister making regulations.
    6.0 p.m.
    Sir I. Horobin: With the leave of the House, Sir, may I say to the hon. Gentleman that, frankly, I think there is something in the point, but the comparison is not fair, as I am sure he will agree. In getting rid of Defence Regulations we are getting rid of the major power to take away a man's land from him. These are small matters of calculation. They are purely marginal. The Bill has set out in great detail—some of us think in almost too much detail—exactly how the main compensation Clauses shall work. We then find that from time to time there are small matters—this is a very small matter, for instance—where, because of
    1220
    the technical complications, a new Schedule and possibly a new Clause would be required.
    That would overburden the Bill. This is nothing like the Defence Regulations which could take away a man's land. We are here dealing with a very small matter. We have laid down how compensation shall be paid for injurious affection in 99 cases out of 100, but it happens that between now and 1960 there will be certain cases where the land will be held in requisition and then be given up. This is a transitional matter. Those who have followed the passage of the Bill will not be surprised that what is clearly laid down for the general case becomes very complicated for small, marginal and transitional cases.
    Rather than hold up the Bill and produce another terrible Schedule five or six pages long, it is better that the Minister should have power to make regulations for adapting in the small and transitional cases the provisions which have been clearly laid down in the general case. I would rather not have all these regulations, but if it is a choice between having the Bill before the Recess or not, then having these regulations is a small price to pay.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to: In page 111, line 15, after "apply" insert:
    "in relation to any time after the commencement of this Act and before the terminal date"
    In line 19, at end insert:
    "in relation to any such time"
    In line 23, after "land" insert:

    "(a) no sum shall be payable in respect of that land by virtue of paragraph (6) of the said Regulation fifty-one A. but

    (b)"

    Lords Amendment: In line 42, at end insert:
    "34A.—(1) Where at the commencement of this Act—

    (a) any land already requisitioned for opencast operations is land which, if it were comprised in a compulsory rights order which became operative immediately after the commencement of this Act, would (within the meaning of the Fifth Schedule to this Act) be land to which that Schedule applies, and

    (b) in respect of that land any sum has been paid (whether by the Minister or by the Board) on account of any prospective right to compensation under the said Regulation fifty-one A.

    1221
    the Minister shall, as soon as may be after the commencement of this Act, issue a certificate specifying the amount and date of payment of that sum and the person to whom it was paid.
    (2) Any certificate required to be issued in respect of any land in accordance with the preceding sub-paragraph shall be served on any person who, at the date of issue of the certificate, would (within the meaning of the Fifth Schedule to this Act) be the mineral operator in relation to that land if the land were comprised in such a compulsory rights order as is mentioned in the preceding sub-paragraph.
    (3) The Minister shall serve on the Board a copy of any certificate issued under this paragraph.
    34B.—(1) The provisions of this paragraph shall have effect with respect to any sum specified in a certificate issued under the last preceding paragraph.
    (2) So much (if any) of that sum as was paid in respect of compensation which (apart from paragraph 32 of this Schedule) would have accrued due after the commencement of this Act under paragraph (4) or paragraph (5) of the said Regulation fifty-one A shall be set off against any compensation becoming payable, in respect of any of the land to which the certificate relates, under paragraph 4 or paragraph 5 of the Fifth Schedule to this Act.
    (3) So much (if any) of that sum as was paid in respect of a prospective right to compensation under paragraph (6) or paragraph (7) of the said Regulation fifty-one A shall be set off against any compensation which may become payable by virtue of the operation, in relation to any of the land to which the certificate relates, of any provisions of the Fifth Schedule to this Act in accordance with paragraph 33 or paragraph 34 of this Schedule.
    (4) For the avoidance of doubt it is hereby declared that subsection (3) of section forty of this Act applies to any dispute about what proportion of any sum specified in such a certificate was paid as mentioned in subparagraph (2) or subparagraph (3) of this paragraph."
    Sir I. Horobin: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    This is a longish Amendment, but it deals with a small and non-controversial matter. It is designed purely to eliminate the possibility of double payments arising from the fact that we are dealing with a situation which has continued for a long time and for which the Coal Board has made special arrangements from time to time.
    It appears that in the past the Board has sometimes paid lump sums in settlement of prospective rights, both for annual and terminal compensation. It would clearly be inequitable to make the Board pay all over again, without taking
    1222
    into account the fact that it had reached an agreement and had paid a lump sum in settlement. This will not damnify the man concerned, who will be entitled to the same sum in total, but the ex gratia lump sum already paid will be taken into account. That is obviously fair to the Board and it is obviously unreasonable that a man should be paid twice. That is all the Amendment does.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Lords Amendment: In page 112, line 7, at end insert:
    "35A. The provisions of the Eighth Schedule to this Act shall not have effect in relation to any land which, at the commencement of this Act, is land already requisitioned for opencast operations, whether that land is subsequently comprised in a compulsory rights order or not."
    Sir I. Horobin: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    This deals with an odd case which we have discovered. It will be remembered that as drafted the Bill provided what was a mutually acceptable way of dealing with allotment holders, which was that their tenancies should terminate and that they should be wholly compensated. However, it appears that there are a few odd cases of persons who held allotments when the land was originally requisitioned and who continue to receive small payments, with the intention of going back to the allotment when the land is derequisitioned. It would seem rather foolish to turn them out and to make extremely difficult calculations as to what their compensation for disturbance would have been five, six or ten years ago.
    All the Amendment does is to say that in those odd cases the existing situation shall continue and when the Board gives up possession at the end of its requisition, the allotment holders shall be entitled to go back to their allotments.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Lords Amendment: After Amendment last inserted insert:
    "Concurrent requisitions
    35B. The Minister may by regulations make provision for modifying or adapting any of the provisions of this Act relating to compensation (including any such provisions contained in this Schedule) in their application to any land in circumstances corresponding (by reason that two or more parcels of land are at the same

    1223
    time land requisitioned for opencast operations) to the circumstances for which, in relation to compulsory rights orders, provision can be made by regulations under paragraph 21 of the Sixth Schedule to this Act."
    Sir I. Horobin: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    Mr. MacDermot: Hon. Members should note the fact that this last series of Amendments contains no fewer than four new powers for the Minister to make regulations. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Neal) mentioned, the Bill was intended to replace with a statutory code the provisions which had been applied under the Defence Regulations. Consistently through its passage, we have taken the view that the Bill was far too complicated and that the Government have attempted to introduce refinements into the law of compensation which we thought superfluous to any Bill, but which were quite out of place in what was, in effect, a temporary Measure, something catering for a situation which will last only ten to fifteen years.
    Quite extraordinary refinements have been introduced and their result has been further complications. At every stage, still further complications have been found and new problems have arisen and we have had to have lengthy Amendments to deal with them. The Bill has now returned from another place with twenty-four pages of Amendments to it. On the last two pages, we find a series of problems for which the Government are unable as yet to provide solutions because they are so complicated that to deal with them would require very lengthy additions to the Bill. The Government's answer to that has been to give the Minister power to make regulations to cover those matters.
    This is an illustration of what results when overmuch refinement is brought to bear on what should be kept as a fairly straightforward problem. I hope that when hon. Members opposite find themselves, as they undoubtedly shortly will, on these benches, we shall not hear complaints from them if we find it necessary in pursuing our Measures to take powers to make regulations. I hope that we have heard the last of that, at any rate
    1224
    from the hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who at present grace the Front Bench opposite.
    Mr. T. Brown: I support what my hon. Friend has just said. For two and a half hours we have been discussing Amendments submitted from another place. Those Amendments give the Minister eight new powers to make regulations. I have been in the House for more than sixteen years and I have seen much legislation, but I have never seen anything like this. It is complicated, confusing and extremely difficult for the ordinary layman to understand.
    I do not know what the regulations will be. I wish that I could alter the procedure of the House so that we could debate regulations. The trouble about using regulations when we are faced with complications and complexities is that regulations are subject to an affirmative Resolution of both Houses and cannot easily be debated. I sometimes wish that I had the opportunity to make regulations.
    I was rather surprised to hear the Parliamentary Secretary say that these were only small matters. The preservation of woodlands in industrial areas is not a small matter for us. Because we have not had the appropriate regulations, for sixteen years we have had no power to prevent the devastation and destruction which has occurred. During the passage of the Bill, we have sought every opportunity to protect our woodlands.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: We passed that about eight pages ago.
    Mr. Brown: I was straying from the path. I know that other hon. Members want to debate other Bills which interest them.
    I hope that the Minister will be ultra-cautious and very considerate when he has to make regulations dealing with the woodlands in the industrial north and that he will see that the regulations are rigidly enforced to prevent the opencast authorities from causing devastation and destruction similar to that which we have experienced for the last sixteen years.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to: In line 33, at end insert:
    "Depreciation of other land in same ownership
    39A. In sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 30A of this Schedule, the reference to land requisitioned for opencast operations shall include a reference to land requisitioned as an opencast storage site; and the power to make regulations under that paragraph shall be exercisable accordingly."
    After Amendment last inserted insert:
    "Concurrent requisitions
    39B. In paragraph 36 of this Schedule, the reference to two or more parcels of land which are at the same time land requisitioned for opencast operations shall include references—

    (a) to two or more parcels of land of which one or more are land requisitioned for opencast operations and the other or others are at the same time land requisitioned as opencast storage sites, and

    (b) to two or more parcels of land both or all or which are at the same time land requisitioned as opencast storage sites;

    and the power to make regulations under that paragraph shall be exercisable accordingly."
    In page 113, line 13, at end insert:
    "PART V
    PROVISIONS AS TO WOODLANDS
    41A. Without prejudice any exercise of the power conferred on the Minister by paragraph 14 of the Sixth Schedule to this Act, the Minister may by regulations make provision for modifying or adapting any of the provisions of this Act relating to compensation (including any such provisions contained in this Schedule) in their application to land which—

    (a) at such time as may be prescribed far the purposes of this sub-paragraph (either generally, or in relation to any particular provision of this Act, or in relation to land of any description specified in the regulations) is or was land requisitioned for opencast operations or land requisitioned as an opencast storage site, and

    (b) at such time as may be so prescribed for the purposes of this sub-paragraph, is
    1226
    or was land used as woodlands, or as woodlands of a particular description specified in the regulations."

    Title
    Postponed Lords Amendment, in the Title: In line 7, leave out "and".
    Sir I. Horobin: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    This and the next Lords Amendment to the Title are consequential as they relate to the working facilities under the Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Act, 1923.
    Mr. Ross: I understand that the Title will now read:
    "… mortgages, milling leases and orders conferring working rights …"
    I am in considerable difficulty about that, bearing in mind that the term "mortgage" is not the legal term which is used in Scotland. As it is always qualified wherever else it appears, I wonder how it has got into the Title without having been qualified. Since we are making an Amendment of the Title, why do the Government not make it clear that there is no such thing in Scottish law as a mortgage? I believe that it is called "heritable security."
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: We can amend the Title only to bring it into line with the Amendments which we have passed. We cannot do anything more with it.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Postponed Lords Amendment, in the Title, line 7, after "leases" insert:
    "and orders conferring working rights,"
    agreed to.

  LANDLORD AND TENANT (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) BILL
  Lords Amendments considered.
  LANDLORD AND TENANT (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) BILL

    Clause 2.—(OBLIGATIONS AND RIGHTS OF PERSONS HOLDING OVER.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 4, line 28, after "and" insert:
    "(without prejudice to the liability of any person in respect of any other damage or dilapidations)"
    6.8 p.m.
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland (Mr. William Grant): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    This is a drafting Amendment. These words were inserted in the English provisions, and this Amendment is merely to bring the Scottish provisions into line with those and to make sure that there is clarity, if that is possible, in the law as it will be after the Bill is passed.
    Mr. James McInnes: It is all very well for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to indicate that the proposed Lords Amendment is already incorporated in the English provisions and that this is merely a matter of bringing the Scottish provisions into line with the English provisions. Nevertheless, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman take the opportunity precisely to explain why, apart from a desire to be on a par with England, it is necessary for this provision to be included?
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I am sorry. I was trying to save time, but I do not seem to have been very successful. The reason for the original Amendment in the English Clause was that we intended to make clear that liability for damages and dilapidations which had occurred before the Measure applied to the premises concerned should be governed by the tenancy agreement at that time. As it happened, in the English Clause that provision was made. We are merely making the same provision in subsection (5), to ensure that when dilapidations and damages have occurred before the Measure applies they shall be governed by the tenancy agreement in force at that time, and not by the provisions of this Measure.
    I hope that I have met the hon. Member's point. I am sorry that I did not
    1228
    make it clearer, but I was merely trying to save time.
    Mr. William Ross: This is the point that I was making. The Solicitor-General has made quite clear what he has in mind, but he has not justified the need for the insertion of this parenthetical phrase. He seems to think that there is some doubt what the subsection means at present, and that these words will clarify it. Statutes are already sufficiently vague and loaded with words. If we are going to go out of our way at this late stage to put in more, there should surely be a specific purpose in so doing. I understood the Solicitor-General to tell us that he was doing this because some doubt might arise as to the responsibility for damage and dilapidation which took place prior to this temporary tenancy.
    I ask him to read the subsection. It says:
    "the occupier shall be treated as exclusively responsible for all internal decorative repairs, and the owner as exclusively responsible for all other repairs, being in each case repairs required to make good damage or dilapidations occurring during the application of this Act to the dwelling-house."
    Where on earth is there any obscurity or vagueness which means that we have to put in this additional sentence
    "(without prejudice to the liability of any person in respect of any other damage or dilapidations)"?
    Why should the Solicitor-General of Scotland, whether or not advised by the Lord Advocate, suggest that we must put in these words because they are in the English subsection and because the position is not clear? The position in Scotland is quite clear. There is no dubiety about it. The right hon. and learned Gentleman should have asserted himself on a matter of principle like this and should have said that we do not want all this legal verbiage—unless he is looking after the interests of his own fraternity.
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland rose—
    6.15 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker: The right hon. and learned Gentleman can speak only once, unless he asks leave of the House.
    Mr. Ross: I was giving way to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, Mr. Speaker, because I thought that he had something of importance to say.
    Mr. Speaker: I thought that the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) had finished his speech.
    Mr. Ross: No, Mr. Speaker. I saw the right hon. and learned Gentleman rising, and I gave way.
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I was not sure whether I was rising by leave of the House or by way of an intervention in the hon. Member's speech, Mr. Speaker, but I want to make it quite clear that these words were inserted not for the benefit of lawyers but for the opposite reason. I agree with the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) that the subsection as drafted is reasonably clear, but as he has pointed out on many occasions, if we can make a thing clearer, let us do so. That is what we are trying to do now.
    Mr. Ross: That is the point I was making. The Solicitor-General says that he has been trying to clarify the matter, but he has not. If the situation is perfectly clear he does not require any additional words. If he puts them in people will think that they must have some meaning, and all sorts of obscure meanings will be read into them. The Solicitor-General intervened to say that he agreed that the matter was perfectly clear, and by doing so he has given away his whole case.
    Why on earth has the Scottish Office allowed this thing to be done? It is no great credit to the legal department of the Scottish Office that it should have had these words foisted upon it, probably by the Minister of Housing and Local Government, asserting once more his strange and mysterious influence on the Scottish Housing Department. I do not think that the subsection needs these words. They do not add to the clarity of the Clause.
    Question put and agreed to.

    Clause 4.—(SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 7, line 18, at end insert:
    "(1A) In proceedings for the recovery of possession of a dwelling-house in which a suspension of execution is granted or refused under section three of this Act (including any application under that section arising out of the grant of such suspension) the court shall not have power to make an order for costs except—
    1230

    (a) where a suspension of execution is refused or revoked in pursuance of paragraph (b) of subsection (6) of that section; or

    (b) where it appears to the court, having regard to the conduct of the parties respectively in and in connection with the proceedings, that there are special reasons for the making of such an order."

    Mr. G. R. Mitchison: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, in line 5, after "costs", to insert "against the occupier".
    It might save time and be for the convenience of the House if I indicated now that, having considered the matter, my hon. Friend and I do not propose to move the Amendment, in line 11, leave out from "that" to "such" in line 12, and insert:
    "it is reasonable to make".
    We think that it would really make little difference.
    Returning to the Amendment to which I am speaking, the Lords Amendment is intended to remove the court's power to make any order for costs except in two cases, one where a suspension of execution is refused or revoked on grounds applicable under previous Rent Acts, and the second
    "where it appears to the court, having regard to the conduct of the parties respectively in and in connection with the proceedings, that there are special reasons for the making of such an order."
    One has to remember that the present practice of the courts, as the Minister told us in earlier discussions of the Bill, is to make no order for costs in cases under the Rent Acts, and it seems probable that that practice would be applied in this type of case.
    The question, therefore, is how far we should go in removing the court's power to make an order for costs. The Amendment we propose would prevent the courts making an order for costs against the occupier, but it would leave the owner or the former landlord in exactly the same position as at present, that is to say, in most cases there would be no order for costs.
    The reason why an exceptional provision of this sort is required, and was suggested during the Second Reading debate, is quite clear. When the Bill was introduced the Minister indicated its purpose

    1231
    in words that I do not desire to improve upon for present purposes. He said:
    "The Bill is before the House for the single purpose of aiding the small number of decontrolled tenants who, by next October, may not have succeeded in making fresh arrangements although they have done their best."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th April, 1958; Vol. 586, c. 1168.]
    There was no intention in the Bill to do anything but help tenants who were, in effect, being turned out of their houses—some of which they may have occupied for a long time—as a result of the Government's main Rent Act.
    There is no need today to discuss how many of them there will be; there is no need to refer again to the feelings which, as the right hon. Gentleman well knows, hon. Members on this side of the House still entertain in relation to the Rent Act in general and the operation of the eviction part of it in particular. The one point we have to consider is the position of those remaining hardship tenants who are threatened with eviction and have to depend upon the Bill, limited in character as it is, for some measure of temporary protection. The plain fact is that whatever we put into the Bill we cannot get over the fact that many of these tenants—and I would say most—are really frightened of going to court at all. To some extent they are merely frightened of the courts, but their particular reason is that they are frightened of costs, the scope and amount of which they are extremely apt to exaggerate.
    When the Bill was being discussed previously hon. Members on both sides of the House had this point very much in mind. The practical task is to give these people the limited protection afforded by the Bill without allowing their fear of the courts to make that protection nugatory, because if it persists the result will be that a tenant who might, even under the terms of the Bill, have succeeded in getting some temporary relief if he went to court, will not go there and will either be turned out or will come to some harsh and unconscionable bargain with the landlord, with whom in normal circumstances he would have been unable to agree.
    That is the practical thing that we all want to do. Accordingly, the Lord Chancellor in another place, speaking for the Government in regard to the Clause which we are now discussing in the form
    1232
    of a Lords Amendment, after referring to the practice of the courts at present and saying that it presumably be followed in these cases, said
    "that is not sufficient. We must make sure that in a Bill which we all desire should prevent hardship no one should be frightened out of a remedy for that hardship through fear of costs."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords. 15th July. 1958; Vol. 210, c. 1103.]
    I entirely agree, but the hardship to which the Lord Chancellor was referring was the occupiers hardship and not that of the owner. Whatever may or may not be the owner's hardships, they are nothing to do with the Bill. The Bill is intended simply to give temporary relief to occupiers.
    I agree that we must be fair to landlords or owners—call them what we will. Personally, I have always taken great care, in talking about the main Act and this Measure, to make it quite clear that hon. Members on this side of the House do not think that all landlords are bad, or that all tenants are good. We recognise that landlords also have their difficulties. But that is not the point we are now considering. What will happen in all these cases is that, having failed to agree with the tenant, the landlord will go to the court to get an order to turn the tenant out. That is background. There can be little or no discussion about that prima facie right.
    The question will be whether the tenant can get the order suspended. In the majority of these cases there is likely to be considerable discussion on the facts. At an earlier stage the right hon. Gentleman explained that costs did not matter so much from the point of view of the tenant, because what the tenant would have to show would be purely fact.
    6.30 p.m.
    I cannot go quite so far as that. After all, the tenant has to prove questions regarding what is and what is not reasonable on what I should have thought to be at the least mixed fact and law. We agree that the tenant will have to discharge a considerable burden of proof in relation to facts and there may be questions—I do not say there will—of external evidence. There may even be questions of expert evidence. Really, in a balanced case, where it is a question of whether the tenant has done all that he should to find somewhere else to go, where it is also a question of whether a particular

    1233
    proposal was one which was reasonable and the refusal of which was therefore unreasonable, and on questions of greater hardship, too, those are matters which will be involved.
    We may very well think, assuming a good and honest landlord and a good and honest tenant, that there will be real debates, and that the case will go on for a good deal longer than a single day. That is not out of the question. And the effect of the Clause as produced by the Amendment we are now discussing is that in any litigation of that sort the tenant can never recover costs from the landlord, if we assume, as I have assumed for this purpose, that on the whole they are two reasonable parties, and the differences between them are matters which are arguable and balanced and are not in any way instances of unfair or unreasonable behaviour on either side. So, far from protecting the tenant, in the normal and reasonable case he will be bound to pay his own costs.
    I cannot accept the proposition that in that type of case any hon. Member would recommend a tenant to act by himself. No doubt he would have to in some cases, but we are trying to extend the facilities for legal aid. We have been told time and again by the Minister that in other matters, not really of any greater importance to him than this, the tenant should get the best advice he can. It seems in line with what has been said on those matter that the tenant would be well advised in such a case to get the local solicitor or some other suitable person to represent him.
    It cannot be right that we should contemplate a state of affairs where the tenant could be deprived of the possibility of representation in that way or that, however right and successful he may be, he cannot get his costs back from the landlord. I am not talking about unreasonable cases or special reasons—I am coming to that in a moment—but in the ordinary type of case we should not deprive the court of the power to make an order against the owner.
    There is here a provision which will protect the landlord against a wholly unreasonable tenant and which will, of course, enable the tenant to recover costs from a wholly unreasonable landlord. That is the special circumstances provision which I read out just now. But one
    1234
    has to remember that these cases of "special reasons"—whether those particular words are used or not—are apt to be very strictly construed by the courts. We all remember special reasons in relation to depriving motorists of their right to drive for a period of time. There are similar cases under a provision in the Bankruptcy Acts, and there is another case in the criminal law. Those words, or similar words, occur in quite a number of places and they always lead to a strict construction. It would be taking up the time of the House unduly to argue—as should be prepared to argue—that they are bound to lead to a strict construction.
    Therefore, while recognising that the words are there, that they are some measure of assistance, we contend that they do not really meet the case which we have in mind. I suggest that if we are to have this provision at all, it must be limited to the special protection being given to the occupier and not to the owner.
    I hope that no hon. Member opposite will say, "Well, this is most unfair. This shows that you are prepared to deny to one man what you are only too ready to give to another." I hope that will not be said, because anyone advancing that type of argument would seem to me to forget entirely the real purpose of the Bill, and the real, human fact that in these cases it will be the occupier who will be frightened out of the remedy which we want to give to him because of fear of the courts and fear of costs. This special provision ought to be given—as indeed in another place the Lord Chancellor indicated it should—to meet that fear and that fright, and not to provide a special protection for landlords who are already sufficiently protected under the existing practice of the law.
    I hope that hon. Members opposite who, in earlier stages of our discussions on the Bill, were very appreciative of the difficulties about costs, will now look at the real, human facts of the matter—as, to do them justice, I think they have tried to do previously—and will agree with me that this Amendment ought to be introduced.
    Mr. Niall MacDermot: I beg to second the Amendment to the Lords Amendment.

    1235
    I hope that the Minister will feel able to accept this Amendment because it is designed to give better effect to what is, or what was, declared the intention of the Government Amendment in another place. As the matter was explained there, it was recognised that there was a real danger that tenants would be afraid to try to exercise their rights under the Bill, because of the risk that if they did so and lost the day, they might be saddled with a heavy burden of costs.
    It was said in answer to that, "Well, in the vast majority of cases of this kind it is the practice of the courts to make no order as to costs." But it also was recognised that it provides small comfort to tell that to a tenant who is in such a state of fear, because he will still be in a state of fear thinking that his case will be the hundredth, and that the ninety-nine other cases will not include his. So it was said, "What, in effect, we will do is to give statutory effect to what has become the practice of the courts." So we find that the Government Amendment provides that, as a general rule, there will be no order at all as to costs, but that if there are special circumstances, and special circumstances having regard to the conduct of the parties in and in connection with the proceedings, there may be an order for costs. So far, so good.
    But what is not provided for in the Lords Amendment, and to which our Amendment is directed, is the way in which there can be further oppression offered to the tenant, namely, where we get the case of a tenant who knows that if he is going to take the point that he thinks he is entitled to a suspension of the order, it may raise difficult questions of fact which will have to be litigated, and at some expense. The tenant may feel very confident about his case, but may say, "I cannot afford to incur all the legal costs of bringing these proceedings. I cannot afford to engage solicitors, counsel and expert witnesses, and so on, to prove that I am entitled to an extension of six months or nine months, or whatever it may be."
    As the Lords Amendment stands, there will be no possibility of recovering those costs from the landlord even if the occupier is successful, unless two conditions are satisfied. There must be
    1236
    special circumstances. There may be no special circumstances from the point of view of the law. Secondly, there must have been something in the conduct of the landlord to cause the court to make the order against him.
    That would put additional fear into the minds of the tenant against exercising his rights under the Bill and his right to obtain an order. He would be entitled to an order for costs only where he had succeeded on the real issue of whether he should have an extension or not. His right should be preserved to obtain an order from the landlord in those circumstances.
    The Minister said at an earlier stage he felt that the success of the Bill would be judged by the extent to which tenants came to new agreements with their landlords. That could have a doubtful connotation if the Bill were weighted too heavily in favour of the landlords, making them able to bring undue pressure upon tenants. Many new agreements may be entered into in those circumstances, but the Bill would not do what it was intended to do, go some way to restore the balance between landlord and tenant.
    I have been very interested in reading a pamphlet recently put out by Conservative lawyers on the constitutional and legal position of trade unions. It is an interesting statement of Tory principles which I have not found before in Tory legislation. A passage in this pamphlet reads:
    "The sanctity of contracts freely negotiated is a principle that has bitten deep into the English concept of a free country. It has however long been recognised by Tories that a just application of the doctrine demands that when agreements are made between citizens certain overriding conditions should prevail. If these conditions do not exist, far from justice resulting, grave injustice may occur. The most essential of those conditions is that the parties when contracting should be, broadly speaking, on equal terms"
    To try to go some way to restoring that balance and enabling the parties to be on equal terms, we have put forward the Amendment, which will preserve the tenant's ordinary right to costs if he is successful, while not putting him in peril of having to pay the landlord's costs merely because he has done that which he is invited to do by the Bill, namely, apply to the court for temporary relief by the suspension of the order for possession.
    6.45 p.m.
    Mr. David Weitzman: The Amendment from another place improves matters considerably. It deals with costs which oppress the occupier, but it does not go far enough. I should like to give the Minister a practical illustration of its effect.
    Suppose an owner brings an action for recovery of possession against an occupier. Assume that it was quite clear that the occupier was perfectly ready to enter into an agreement for three years. He was not able to obtain occupation anywhere else, yet the owner has brought the action for possession. The owner fails and there is, in the words of the Amendment, a suspension of execution.
    In that case it would be wrong that the owner should not have to pay costs because the owner has brought before the court the occupier, somebody of little means, the sort of person whom the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned. The occupier is the person who suffers hardship and therefore has to be protected. He has had to incur costs in meeting the demand made upon him by the owner. Is it not right in that case that the owner should pay costs?
    This contingency has been carefully guarded against in the Lords Amendment. The owner should pay the costs, but he is protected from paying costs in the ordinary way. It is not a case where the learned judge looks at the circumstances and says, "This is a case where I ought to use my discretion. I will not award costs against the owner, although he has failed". By virtue of this provision in the Bill the owner is protected. I start with the proposition that an order for costs ought reasonably to be made against the owner who brings proceedings for recovery of possession and fails.
    On the other hand, costs ought not to be against an occupier. This is the purpose of our present Amendment. Why is there a distinction between the two? The distinction is this. From a practical point of view we are dealing with two different classes. The owner brings an action for possession against the occupier, who is a person of little means and who has suffered hardship. In the case of the occupier failing he ought not to pay the costs. That does not mean that he
    1238
    does not pay in some cases. The exception provided for is if the occupier has done something wrong, if his conduct is blameworthy in some way. In these cases there may well be a special reason, and under the proviso the learned judge may order the occupier to pay costs.
    We should contrast the two different cases in that way, and appreciate that the real point is that the occupier should be protected against any liability for costs. The owner is already sufficiently protected. The Amendment which is now proposed to the Lords Amendment will fully meet the position. The court will not have power to make an order for costs against the occupier, except in the special circumstances set out in paragraph (b) where he is in default. It ought to have power in the ordinary case to make an order for costs against the owner, as well as in the special case provided for in paragraph (b). In those circumstances, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to approach this matter from a practical point of view. If he does so, he will find that the proper solution is to be found in adopting the words of the Amendment moved by my hon. and learned Friend.
    Mr. Graham Page: The hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) referred to cases where application is made for the possession order and a suspension is granted as being cases in which the owner lost because the suspension was granted. One must remember that the owner has obtained the order for possession for which he has asked, and to that extent he is the successful litigant.
    I would not base a particular argument on that, but it seems that what hon. Members opposite have in mind all the time is a picture of the wealthy landlord and the very poor tenant. That may be perfectly true in a number of cases, but it is not always true. There is the poor landlord endeavouring to get possession of premises. The hardship provision in this Clause recognises such a case. We ought always to be hesitant about relieving any litigant of the costs of fighting an action. We have seen the sort of difficulties which arise in granting legal aid certificates. The benefit to be achieved from legal aid overcomes those

    1239
    difficulties, but undoubtedly there are litigants who say in effect, "Let us have a shot at it; we have nothing to lose".
    I believe that any sort of statutory provision we bring in to relieve people of the costs of litigation ought to be studied very carefully I am not at all wedded to this Lords Amendment, but if it is to go into the Bill—here I take up the challenge of the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison)—the provision should go in for both parties. The hon. and learned Member put the case of the tenant being frightened to take action because of the costs, but the same might apply to the landlord. He might be scared of taking action because of the costs. I should have thought we could have left this entirely to the discretion of the court. Then the sort of case put by the hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North would be well met in justice by the second paragraph of the Lords Amendment and the provision for special reasons. If a landlord takes a tenant to court and has no justification for so doing, the court will see that he pays the sanction in costs.
    Mr. Weitzman: Is the hon. Member saying that if the owner fails in an action that automatically means that there is a special reason for the court to grant costs?
    Mr. Page: I am not sure what the hon. and learned Member means by saying "fails in an action". That is where there is a difficulty. The landlord may succeed in getting an order for possession but that order is suspended. He has achieved something because he has got the possession settled for a certain period of time. The tenant is coming before the court asking for a concession by asking for the suspension of the possession order. I should have thought that in nearly all these cases the right thing for the court to do would be to make no order for costs, but let each party pay its own costs. There would be some sort of sanction against frivolous litigation and not a penalty against either the landlord or the tenant going to the court and asking for his rights to be settled. If the Amendment to the Lords Amendment is accepted, it will bear hardly on landlords who have not got the funds for litigation, and there are many who have not got those funds.
    Mr. Barnett Janner: I have listened with great interest to the points made by the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) and I am not convinced. He is a practising solicitor. I think he will find in the course of his personal experience in dealing with a number of these cases that the real difficulty is experienced by the person who has been in a house for a considerable time and is then faced by the fact that an Act which he never expected to be passed has been passed.
    The occupier is in a different position from the landlord. If it were a fact that the landlord, when bringing proceedings, had weighed up the position, he would not have an extension of the period of execution made against him in the court. In other words, if he wants to take an action it is up to him to take it at the right time, so that if he brings the facts before the court he can convince the court that it should grant an extension and not give the tenant the right to have execution suspended.
    The hon. Member was not right when he said that the landlord has not failed in his action if suspension is given, because the very fact that suspension is given is in itself an indication that the landlord has brought his case at the wrong time. It is rather important to remember that. It is not just a question of a concession. The occupier has to prove that there are reasons why the order should be suspended. Therefore, when he takes his action the owner has failed if execution of the order is suspended.
    In my view, the occupier is in a very much worse position than the owner. It means everything to him. Some of us have seen the desperate manner in which in consequence of this Act occupiers have gone to the courts in order to ascertain what they should do. They have to find somewhere to go. I am not exaggerating; this is my experience and, I am sure, the experience of many others in practice. These people do not know what to do and they are desperate. They are placed in such a position that they cannot go elsewhere. They have nowhere to go. If the order is suspended, at some time it is intended that its execution shall no longer be suspended. An occupier should be given the opportunity of

    1241
    bringing his case before the court without the additional fear that even if he is successful he is not to have his house.
    A man can be ruined by an action of that sort. The question of hardship is one on which courts have been engaged for a considerable period of time. Cases have extended over several hours and have sometimes gone on from one day to another. It requires the best possible skill to get a case properly presented to the court so that the court can make up its mind as to whether the ground of hardship is greater in one direction or the other.
    7.0 p.m.
    The Amendment says that the occupier should not be deprived of getting costs in the event of his being successful. It is very late in our consideration of this Bill, but I appeal to the Minister to realise that he is dealing with the lives of men and women and not merely with houses. Consequently, it is highly important that some kind of protection should be given to those who have a case. Of course, if it is a frivolous case that is entirely different, and obviously the judge would not grant the costs. If it is a case in which the person who is successful is the occupier, this is a very small concession to make, but a very important one for the occupier. It would entitle him to his house.
    I hope that in the circumstances the Minister will consider the matter from the point of view which has been so very well put by my hon. and learned Friends, and to which I have made my feeble addition. I hope that he will ignore the imperfect way in which I have put the matter, and that he will assist occupiers who are really desperate and do not know what to do.
    The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Mr. Henry Brooke): In dealing with this Amendment, I must first say a word or two about the background of the Lords Amendment which hon. Members opposite seek to amend, because the whole matter hangs together. It is entirely concerned with the question of costs, which was debated at various stages when the Bill was before this House. A fear was expressed, not from one side of the House only, that occupiers might be deterred from seeking the suspension of an order for possession by fear of the costs in which they might be involved. An order
    1242
    for costs might be made against them, so the argument ran, and it would be wiser for them to play for safety and not to oppose the landlord.
    On Report stage, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Marlowe) moved an Amendment which I was not able to accept. He forcibly argued that as the owner was bound to succeed on the claim for possession, even though the execution of the order might be suspended for a period under this Measure, the court might automatically consider the owner entitled to an order for costs. The Government did not take that view. I expressed my opinion to the House that the courts would almost certainly act as in comparable cases under the Rent Acts and make no orders as to costs. I still believe that would be the position even if this Lords Amendment had not come to us.
    I promised at that time that I would carefully examine the arguments and discuss the whole position with the Lord Chancellor, who has great experience of the county courts and their working. The outcome was that we came to the conclusion that, while it would be the general practice of the courts, in the absence of any provision such as this, probably to make no order for costs at all, on balance there would be an advantage in putting the matter beyond doubt and removing the possibility—this was the important point—that some occupiers might be frightened out of even seeking the relief which the Bill holds out to them through fear that they might have to pay the owners' costs as well as their own.
    It is solely to still those fears that this Lords Amendment has come to us and, as I think the House appreciates after this debate, its effect will be that in the great generality of cases there will be no order as to costs. Under this Lords Amendment, the court is left with sufficient discretion to enable it to deal with the cases where one party or the other has been guilty of irresponsible conduct; irresponsible conduct, either in bringing the proceedings, or in the handling of them or, perhaps, in involving the other side in additional expense—for instance, by an adjournment that ought never to have been necessary.
    The Amendment also excludes the case where the court refuses to grant or revoke a suspension on the same grounds on

    1243
    which possession of a controlled dwelling could be given under the Rent Acts. Therefore, I do not think that there is any question between us that the courts would and should be guided in any case by their practice in Rent Act cases.
    The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) has moved this Amendment, which seeks to draw a distinction between the action of the owner and that of the occupier, and I must frankly say that I cannot accept that we should recognise such a distinction. His Amendment appears to me to be based on the assumption that the owner will be acting in some way less reasonably than the occupier in making application to the court—
    Mr. Mitchison: No.
    Mr. Brooke: Yes, that is the distinction. Unless it is assumed that some distinction exists, there is no case whatever for the Amendment—
    Mr. Mitchison: The right hon. Gentleman quite rightly put the reasons for the Amendment that has come from the Lords as relating to the occupiers' fears. Why should that Amendment give an additional right to the owner?
    Mr. Brooke: The approach of the Government is different from that of the learned Gentleman. We on the Government side proceed on the basis that this is a straight conflict of right and that, in the normal case, each side should bear its own costs and should not be expected to bear the costs of the other. We are not convinced by the arguments that have been adduced by the other side that there should be assumed to be some difference in the reasonableness of the actions of the two parties.
    In fact, there is no ground for believing that in any one of these cases either party will be acting unreasonably. The mere fact that the owner has applied to the court is no indication that he is unreasonable. He may have the strongest possible ground for so applying. That being so, I fail to see the slightest ground for establishing, by the hon. and learned Gentleman's Amendment, any difference in the treatment of the two parties before the court. On those grounds, I must invite the House to reject his Amendment.
    Mr. Weitzman: Before the right hon. Gentleman sits down, will he not say something about the difference in status of the persons; and remember that when he introduced the Bill he said that it was to protect people of small means from suffering hardship?
    Mr. Brooke: If I may speak again, Mr. Speaker. Let us, if we possibly can—even at this late stage—get out of our heads that there are two classes of persons—the wealthy owners and the poor occupiers—and that all belong to one class or the other. That was my principal point of criticism of the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman). He spoke of the owner bringing an action for possession as belonging to one category and, against that, he drew the picture of the occupier of little means.
    In many cases, of course, the owners will be of little means. It is well worth remembering that the big property company is never likely to succeed under the fourth test in Clause 3, because how a property company will be able to establish greater hardship I do not know. But there may well be cases where an individual owner is a person not of large means at all. However, there is no need for us to argue about that here. It will be argued before the courts.
    I must say that I think we have come right back to what has been the fundamental weakness of the Opposition's case in all these debates; the false assumption that the occupier is always a poor man, of small means, and that he deserves a greater degree of sympathy on that ground than does the owner, who is assumed to be a man of considerable substance. Believe me, Mr. Speaker, that is not a true account of the position.
    Mr. Weitzman: But does not the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that the owner of small means gets the benefit of the Clause as being a person in special circumstances entitled to costs? Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman's argument has no validity at all.
    Mr. Mitchison: By leave of the House, Mr. Speaker. The right hon. Gentleman having completely misunderstood, or misstaited, the arguments that were addressed to the House; and having forgotten the purpose of his own Bill, we shall divide the House.
    Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Lords Amendment:—
    The House divided: Ayes 166, Noes 204.

    Division No. 206.]

    AYES

    [7.12 p.m.

    Ainsley, J. W.

    Hayman, F. H.

    Popplewell, E.

    Albu, A. H.

    Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)

    Prentice, R. E.

    Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

    Herbison, Miss M.

    Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

    Awbery, S. S.

    Holman, P.

    Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

    Bacon, Miss Alice

    Houghton, Douglas

    Probert, A. R.

    Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)

    Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)

    Proctor, W. T.

    Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S. E.)

    Howell, Denis (All Saints)

    Pursey, Comdr. H.

    Beswick, Frank

    Hoy, J. H.

    Redhead, E. C.

    Blackburn, F.

    Hubbard, T. F.

    Reeves, J.

    Blenkinsop, A.

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

    Reynolds, G. W.

    Blyton, W. R.

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Rhodes, H.

    Boardman, H.

    Hunter, A. E.

    Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

    Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

    Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

    Ross, William

    Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S. W.)

    Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

    Royle, C.

    Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

    Janner, B.

    Shurmer, P. L. E.

    Brockway, A. F.

    Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.

    Silverman, Julius (Aston)

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

    Jeger, George (Goole)

    Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

    Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

    Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech (Wakefield)

    Skeffington, A. M.

    Brown, Thomas (Ince)

    Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

    Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)

    Burke, W. A.

    Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

    Slater, J. (Sedgefield)

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

    Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

    Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

    Kenyon, C.

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Castle, Mrs. B. A.

    King, Dr. H. M.

    Sparks, J. A.

    Champion, A. J.

    Lawson, G. M.

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Coldrick, W.

    Lewis, Arthur

    Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

    Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)

    Logan, D. G.

    Stonehouse, John

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

    Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

    Stones, W. (Consett)

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    McAlister, Mrs. Mary

    Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)

    Cullen, Mrs. A.

    McCann, J.

    Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

    Darling, George (Hillsborough)

    MacColl, J. E.

    Sylvester, G. O.

    Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

    MacDermot, Niall

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

    McInnes, J.

    Taylor, John (West Lothian)

    Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

    Deer, G.

    McLeavy, Frank

    Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

    de Freitas, Geoffrey

    MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

    Timmons, J.

    Diamond, John

    Mahon, Simon

    Viant, S. P.

    Dodds, N. N.

    Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

    Warbey, W. N.

    Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)

    Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.)

    Watkins, T. E.

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

    Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

    Weitzman, D.

    Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

    Mason, Roy

    Wheeldon, W. E.

    Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)

    Mayhew, C. P.

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Fernyhough, E.

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Willey, Frederick

    Finch, H. J.

    Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

    Williams, David (Neath)

    Fitch, Alan

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    Mort, D. L.

    Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)

    Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.

    Moyle, A.

    Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)

    George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Car'then)

    Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

    Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

    Gibson, C. W.

    Oliver, G. H.

    Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)

    Gooch, E. G.

    Orbach, M.

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

    Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

    Oswald, T.

    Winterbottom, Richard

    Grey, C. F.

    Owen, W. J.

    Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

    Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

    Palmer, A. M. F.

    Woof, R. E.

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

    Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

    Yates, V. (Ladywood)

    Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

    Parker, J.

    Younger, Rt. Hon. K.

    Hamilton, W. W.

    Pearson, A.

    Hannan, W.

    Peart, T. F.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)

    Pentland, N.

    Mr. Simmons and

    Mr. Short.

    NOES

    Agnew, Sir Peter

    Bishop, F. P.

    Conant, Maj. Sir Roger

    Alport, C. J. M.

    Black, C. W.

    Cooke, Robert

    Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William

    Body, R. F.

    Cooper-Key, E. M.

    Armstrong, C. W.

    Bonham Carter, Mark

    Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

    Ashton, H.

    Bossom, Sir Alfred

    Corfield, Capt F. V.

    Atkins, H. E.

    Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)

    Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

    Baldwin, Sir Archer

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

    Barber, Anthony

    Braine, B. R.

    Cunningham, Knox

    Barlow, Sir John

    Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Currie, G. B. H.

    Barter, John

    Bryan, P.

    Dance, J. C. G.

    Batsford, Brian

    Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

    D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

    Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

    Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)

    Deedes, W. F.

    Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

    Cary, Sir Robert

    Digby, Simon Wingfield

    Bennett, Dr. Reginald

    Channon, Sir Henry

    Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

    Bidgood, J. C.

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    Doughty, C. J. A.

    Biggs-Davison, J. A.

    Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

    Drayson, C. B.

    Bingham, R. M.

    Cole, Norman

    du Cann, E. D. L.

    Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

    Duthie, W. S.

    Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

    Pitt, Miss E. M.

    Elliot, R. W. (Ne'castle upon Tyne, N.)

    Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

    Pott, H. P.

    Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Powell, J. Enoch

    Farey-Jones, F. W.

    Joseph, Sir Keith

    Price, David (Eastleigh)

    Fell, A.

    Kerr, Sir Hamilton

    Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

    Finlay, Graeme

    Kershaw, J. A.

    Profumo, J. D.

    Fisher, Nigel

    Kimball, M.

    Rawlinson, Peter

    Fletcher-Cooke, C.

    Kirk, P. M.

    Redmayne, M.

    Foster, John

    Lambton, Viscount

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Gammans, Lady

    Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.

    Renton, D. L. M.

    Garner-Evans, E. H.

    Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

    Ridsdale, J. E.

    Gibson-Watt, D.

    Linstead, Sir H. N.

    Rippon, A. G. F.

    Glover, D.

    Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)

    Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

    Glyn, Col. Richard H

    Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby

    Roper, Sir Harold

    Godber, J. B.

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

    Goodhart, Philip

    McAdden, S. J.

    Russell, R. S.

    Gower, H. R.

    Macdonald, Sir Peter

    Sharples, R. C.

    Graham, Sir Fergus

    McKibbin, Alan

    Shepherd, William

    Gram, Rt. Hon. W. (Woodside)

    Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

    Spearman, Sir Alexander

    Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)

    McLaughlin, Mrs. P.

    Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

    Green, A.

    Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Lancaster)

    Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)

    Gresham Cooke, R.

    Maddan, Martin

    Storey, S.

    Grimond, J.

    Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)

    Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

    Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

    Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

    Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

    Studholme, Sir Henry

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Markham, Major Sir Frank

    Summers, Sir Spencer

    Hare, Rt. Hon. J. H.

    Marlowe, A. A. H.

    Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

    Harris, Reader (Heston)

    Marshall, Douglas

    Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

    Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

    Mathew, R.

    Temple, John M.

    Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

    Mawby, R. L.

    Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

    Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

    Maydon, Lt.-Comdr, S. L. C.

    Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

    Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

    Medlicott, Sir Frank

    Thompson, R. (Croydon, S.)

    Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.

    Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.

    Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

    Henderson-Stewart, Sir James

    Moore, Sir Thomas

    Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)

    Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.

    Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

    Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

    Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)

    Nabarro, G. D. N.

    Tweedsmuir, Lady

    Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

    Nairn, D. L. S.

    Vane, W. M. F.

    Hill, John (S. Norfolk)

    Neave, Airey

    Wade, D. W.

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham)

    Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

    Hobson, John (Warwick & Leam'gt'n)

    Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. & Chr'ch)

    Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)

    Holland-Martin, C. J.

    Noble, Michael (Argyll)

    Wall, Patrick

    Holt, A. F.

    Nugent, G. R. H.

    Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

    Hope, Lord John

    Oakshott, H. D.

    Webster, David

    Hornby, R. P.

    O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)

    Williams, Pau (Sunderland, S.)

    Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

    Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence

    Osborne, C.

    Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

    Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

    Page, R. G.

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Hughes, Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.

    Partridge, E.

    Woollam, John Victor

    Hurd, A. R.

    Peel, W. J.

    Hutchison, Michael clark (E'b'gh, S.)

    Peyton, J. W. W.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry

    Pickthorn, K. W. M.

    Mr. Brooman-White and

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Pike, Miss Mervyn

    Mr. Hughes-Young.

    Lords Amendment agreed to.
    Lords Amendment: In page 7, line 40, after "Scotland" insert "'costs' means expenses".
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    This is merely a question of the translation from Anglo-Saxon into Gaelic.
    Question put and agreed to.

  SLAUGHTERHOUSES BILL
  Lords Amendments considered.
  SLAUGHTERHOUSES BILL

    Clause 3.—(REPORTS ON SLAUGHTERHOUSE FACILITIES.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 8, leave out lines 3 and 4 and insert:
    "of any one or more classes or descriptions".
    7.20 p.m.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. J. B. Godber): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    We could perhaps consider this Amendment and the following one which deals with an exactly similar point.
    These Amendments are really drafting Amendments which are intended to clarify the position. Clause 3, as I am sure hon. Members will remember, refers to the date on which the report shall be submitted. The purpose of the Amendment is merely to clarify it; it does not change the intention in any degree.
    Mr. Frederick Willey: I am rather surprised to see this Amendment on the Order Paper. We gave this Bill a very thorough examination in its passage through this place and I did not think that there was an opportunity for further Amendment, but I would like to congratulate the Government on their ingenuity, and accept this as a drafting Amendment.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to: In line 17, leave out from "premises" to "being" in line 19 and insert:
    "of any one or more classes or descriptions.".

    Clause 4.—(GRANT OF NEW SLAUGHTERHOUSE LICENCES AFTER SUBMISSION OF REPORT.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 11, line 11, after "licence" insert:
    "after the submission of their report aforesaid, being an application to which subsection (5) of section three of this Act does not apply and".
    Mr. Godber: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    1250
    This Amendment and the two following Amendments have as their purpose the removal of a procedural defect. They are, therefore, to some extent, largely drafting. What we are seeking to do is to prevent certain applications being considered twice over. Clause 3 (6) provides that application for new licences received during the two months' period allowed for making representations to the Minister about the local authorities slaughterhouses report must be considered by the Minister before he accepts the Report. He has the power to direct, that they shall be deemed to be included in the report.
    If the Minister does that, they have a right to a licence in exactly the same way as any other slaughterhouse. What we have not provided for until now is the procedure to be followed if the Minister decides not to give such a direction. It would be pointless, if the Minister decided that there is no case for the application, for it to have to come up again under Clause 4. We provide for that in these Amendments.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to: In line 23, at end insert:
    "(2A) Where in the case of an application of which a copy has been forwarded to the Minister by a local authority under subsection (5) of section three of this Act, being an application for the grant of a new slaughterhouse licence, the Minister determines not to give such a direction as is mentioned in subsection (6) of that section, he shall direct the authority to refuse the application forthwith, and the authority shall comply with that direction."

    Clause 6.—(SPECIAL GROUNDS FOR, AND APPEALS AGAINST, CERTAIN REFUSALS.)
    Lords Amendment agreed to: In page 13, line 35, after "Act" insert:
    "or under subsection (2A) of that section".

    Clause 7.—(SAFETY, HEALTH AND WELFARE OF PERSONS EMPLOYED IN SLAUGHTERHOUSES AND KNACKERS' YARDS.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 13, line 43, at end insert:
    "or
    (e) the confinement of such animals as aforesaid while awaiting slaughter at other premises, in a case where the place of confinement is available in connection with those other premises, is not maintained primarily for agricultural purposes within the meaning

    1251
    of the Agriculture Act, 1947, or, as the case may be, the Agriculture (Scotland) Act, 1948, and does not form part of premises used for the holding of a market in respect of such animals."
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Hare): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    This Amendment makes it clear that the Factory Acts of 1937 and 1948 will apply to lairages other than those on agricultural or market premises. It corrects a drafting weakness to which the right hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) drew attention on the Report stage, and the matter was also raised in another place by the noble Lord, Lord Farrington.
    My hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary at the time of the Report stage said that he would consider the matter and he gave an assurance that if there was any element of doubt in the existing wording we would clear it up. There may be some doubt. I personally think that my hon. Friend was right in saying that lairages were included. As there is some doubt, we have suggested that this Amendment would clear away any possible vestige of uncertainty which there may be in the matter, and we have given the right hon. Member for Blyth the benefit of the doubt.
    Mr. Willey: We are much obliged to the Government. Although there is no issue of principle in this, slaughterhouses are not defined in the Factory Acts and we were anxious, and I think that the Government shared our anxiety, that all the processes of slaughtering should be covered. We were satisfied with regard to subjecting the meat to processing, but we were not altogether satisfied on lairages. The Government have met us now, and I am very glad that they have removed any doubts which there may have been.
    Question put and agreed to.—[Special Entry.]

    Clause 10.—(GRANTS FOR MEAT INSPECTION AT SLAUGHTER-HOUSES.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 16, line 26, leave out "is likely to be" and insert:
    "it appears to him should be regarded as"
    Mr. Godber: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    1252
    This is purely a drafting Amendment. I think that it speaks for itself.
    Mr. Willey: I rise only to say that we agree that this improves the language. This Bill had a Second Reading in November, went to another place in April and we agree that it is now more intelligible, but we regret that it has not been as improved as it might have been.
    Question put and agreed to.—[Special Entry.]

  AGRICULTURE BILL
  Lords Amendments considered.
  AGRICULTURE BILL

    First Schedule.—(MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 17, line 29, at end insert:
    "14A. In section fifty in subsection (3), the following paragraph shall be inserted at the end—
    'In this subsection "the prescribed period" means the period prescribed by the Lord Chancellor by order made by statutory instrument (which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament); and the power to make orders under this subsection shall include a power, exercisable in the like manner, to revoke or vary any order made thereunder.'"
    7.30 p.m.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. J. B. Godber): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    This Amendment is envisaged to enable the Lord Chancellor to prescribe the period under Section 50 (3) of the 1948 Act by order and not by regulation. There are several Amendments of this type which we are bringing forward. They are designed to tidy the matter up, so that when the Lord Chancellor seeks to bring in an order he can introduce a comprehensive one, and not have to bring in a number of individual regulations. There is no issue of principle; it is a matter of convenience.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to: In page 18, line 1, leave out from beginning to end of line 4.
    Lords Amendment: In line 7, at end insert:
    20A.—(1) The provisions of paragraph 24 of the Sixth Schedule (under which a special case may be stated for the opinion of the

    1253
    county court where any question of law arises in the course of an arbitration under the Act of 1948) shall apply in relation to a question as to the jurisdiction of an arbitrator as they apply in relation to a question of law arising in the course of an arbitration.
    (2) The provisions of the Sixth Schedule relating to the fixing and recovery of the remuneration of an arbitrator and the making and enforcement of an award as to costs, together with any other provision thereof applicable for the purposes of or in connection with those provisions, shall apply where the arbitrator has no jurisdiction to decide the question referred to him as they apply where the arbitrator has jurisdiction to decide that question."
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Hare): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    This is, I am afraid, a rather technical Amendment to deal with a rather complicated point, but I will try to explain it as clearly as I can. At present the Sixth Schedule to the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1948, which provides for the conduct of arbitrations on agricultural tenancies, enables the arbitrator to obtain a ruling from the county court on a question of law arising out of the case. But this is not wide enough to enable the arbitrator to get a ruling on the question whether he has any jurisdiction in the case—that is, whether it is a case in which he can properly give a decision.
    This can be important. It might be argued, for example, by one side or the other that the holding was not an agricultural holding at all, or that a notice had been served on someone said to be the tenant in a case where it was claimed that a joint tenancy existed. In such cases it is convenient for the arbitrator to get a decision from the county court immediately on this point before he deals with other issues. I suppose it could be asked why in such cases the Minister appointed the arbitrator. The answer is that if application is made to the Minister to appoint an arbitrator in a case which seems, on the facts presented to the Minister, to be one on which he can properly act, the Minister must appoint the arbitrator.
    The second matter dealt with by this Amendment is to provide that where an arbitrator is appointed and it is then held by the court that he has no jurisdiction, he can still award costs and have his own remuneration fixed. This is obviously necessary. Otherwise an arbitrator might
    1254
    put in a great deal of work on the case and then find that he could not have any fee paid to him for his work and costs could not be awarded.
    We have discussed this rather complicated point with the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and they support us. I understand that there was support on both sides in another place when this subject was mentioned. I hope the House will agree that this is a desirable Amendment.
    Mr. Frederick Willey: I assure the right hon. Gentleman that there is equal accord in this House. I am not only impressed by the agreement of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, but I have looked into the point and I think it is necessary to take this step to safeguard the position of the arbitrator.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to: In line 25 after "Lord Chancellor" insert:
    "and for the reference to regulations there shall be substituted a reference to orders,"

    Second Schedule.—(ENACTMENTS REPEALED IN CONSEQUENCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 23, line 39, column 3, at end insert:
    "In section seventy-three, in subsection (3), paragraph (c)."
    Mr. Godber: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    Due to an oversight, this point was not included previously. It is merely a drafting Amendment in the list of enactments which have been repealed.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Lords Amendment: In page 25, line 10, leave out from beginning to end of line 18.
    Mr. Godber: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    This Amendment is consequential on action taken at an earlier stage when we rewrote Clause 26, which I am sure gladdened the heart of the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey), who feels strongly about this matter.
    Mr. Willey: We welcome the action of the Parliamentary Secretary in Standing Committee, and we gladly accept the consequences.
    Question put and agreed to.

    Fourth Schedule.—(TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 27, line 31, at end insert:
    "A1. Where, by virtue of any provision of the First Schedule to this Act, any functions of the Minister under an enactment referred to in that provision fall to be exercised after the coming into operation thereof by the Lord Chancellor, the Agricultural Land Tribunal or an arbitrator, anything done in the exercise of those functions, in so far as it has effect immediately before the coming into operation of that provision shall, subject to the provisions of this Schedule, continue to have effect thereafter as if done by the Lord Chancellor, the Agricultural Land Tribunal or an arbitrator, as the case may be, under the said enactment as amended by this Act."
    Mr. Godber: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    This and the next Amendment go together. We are here inserting this provision in place of paragraphs 5 and 6 on page 29 of the Bill. Those paragraphs make certain provisions relating to the powers of the Minister in the transitional stage in relation to the 1948 Act. We were advised that they did not fully cover all the circumstances that might arise and we have, therefore, used this different form which gives a wider cover. There is no point of principle at stake.
    Mr. Willey: I agree with the Parliamentary Secretary that it is wiser to make a general provision. I believe that these are the last of the Amendments dealing with England, and I hesitate to trespass on Scottish affairs—
    Mr. Godber: There is one more English Amendment.
    Mr. Willey: I thought that Amendment was consequential. I have nothing further to say until we reach it.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to: In page 29, line 8, leave out from beginning to end of line 13.
    Lords Amendment: In page 29, line 44, leave out from beginning to end of line 4 on page 30, and insert:
    "9A. Without prejudice to the generality of paragraph A1 of this Schedule, regulations
    1256
    made by the Minister under section twenty-six or section fifty of the Act of 1948 in force immediately before the passing of this Act shall continue in force thereafter and shall be treated as orders made by the Lord Chancellor under the said section twenty-six, or, as the case may be, the said section fifty, as amended by this Act."
    Mr. Godber: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    This is the last of the Amendments before we reach the Scottish ones, and I look forward with warm anticipation to what the hon. Member for Sunderland, North will say about this very satisfactory Bill. This is merely another of the small points providing for orders in place of regulations, and this Amendment is exactly on all fours with the previous one dealing with this point.
    Mr. Willey: As the Parliamentary Secretary has indicated, this is a minor Amendment dealing with a matter with which we have already dealt. In fact, it is so minor that I hardly apologise for overlooking it.
    As this is the last of the Amendments dealing with the English part of the Bill, I should like to say that we on this side of the House are very disappointed that we have got from another place only very minor Amendments and that no attention has been paid to the fact that the industry generally is hostile to the Bill and that it is thoroughly unwelcome. For that reason, we are very disappointed.
    Mr. Speaker: That does not arise on this Amendment.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Lords Amendment: In page 30, line 25 leave out "Paragraph 1" and insert "Paragraphs A1 and 1".
    The Lord Advocate (Mr. W. R. Milligan): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    We now come to the most important Amendments on the Paper. I think this and the next Amendment in line 27 might be taken together. They are consequential and they are of Scottish application following on Amendments previously made.
    Mr. William Ross: I should have thought that we would have

    1257
    had a speech adequate to the description which the Lord Advocate has given to this Amendment, whereas he dealt with it in a rather slipshod manner.
    The following Amendment in line 27 states:
    "(1a) in paragraph A1 for references to the Minister and to the Lord Chancellor, the Agricultural Land Tribunal or an arbitrator there shall be substituted respectively references to the Secretary of State and to the Land Court or an arbiter;".
    It is a little confusing when we read words like that. When we are asked to substitute things, we are entitled to expect that there shall be an equivalent number of things for which there are to be substitutions. We find, of course, that the words are "references to the Minister"—that is the first thing—"to the Lord Chancellor"—that is the second thing—"the Agricultural Land Tribunal"—that is the third—and "an arbitrator"—that is the fourth. Then we are given respective terms to apply to those four, but when we read them we find that there are only three. I wonder exactly what is to apply here. It says:
    "there shall be substituted respectively references to the Secretary of State and to the Land Court or an arbiter."
    Does that mean that for "Minister" shall be substituted "Secretary of State" and for "Lord Chancellor" there shall be substituted "the Land Court"?
    For most important Amendments, I think the matter could have been a wee bit clearer. Is the learned Lord Advocate entirely satisfied with the wording? I assure him that, if this had come before the Scottish Grand Committee, we should probably have spent about five or six hours on it and given the matter the importance which the Lord Advocate himself said should be attached to it. Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman satisfied with this last-minute change which comes from another place? In my view, it is very loose use of the word "respectively", when, for four things,
    1258
    we are told that we must substitute only three new terms. I know that he will probably now give me a lecture on the conjunction "and", but I should be glad to have some explanation from him.
    The Lord Advocate: By leave of the House, Mr. Speaker, I should like to satisfy the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), who is usually so helpful on drafting matters. If he will read the Amendment again, he will see that in the first and second line we have the words
    "to the Minister and to the Lord Chancellor"
    and we then have a comma, after which we go on with the other two parties. I think that it is perfectly clear, but we are interested to hear the hon. Gentleman.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to:
    In page 30, line 27, at end insert:
    "(1a) in paragraph A1 for references to the Minister and to the Lord Chancellor, the Agricultural Land Tribunal or an arbitrator there shall be substituted respectively references to the Secretary of State and to the Land Court or an arbiter;"
    In line 42, leave out from beginning to end of line 48.
    In page 31, line 12, at end add:
    "14A. Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph 36 of the First Schedule to this Act, the regulations made by the Secretary of State under section twenty-seven of the Scottish Act of 1949 in force immediately before the day appointed for the coming into operation of section three of this Act shall continue to have effect for the purposes of any proceedings consequent upon a notice to quit in a case where the tenant served on the landlord a counter-notice under subsection (1) of section twenty-five of that Act before that day."

  INSURANCE COMPANIES BILL [Lords]
  Considered in Committee; reported without Amendment; read the Third time and passed, without Amendment.

  SPECIAL ROADS
  7.45 p.m.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. G. R. H. Nugent): I beg to move,
  That the Special Roads (Classes of Traffic) Order, 1958, dated 22nd July, 1958, a copy of which was laid before this House on 22nd July, be approved.
  I think it would be for the convenience of the House, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, if we also debated the Motor Vehicles (Speed Limit on Special Roads) Regulations, 1958. The Questions could then be put separately at the end.
  Mr. Ernest Davies: We have no objection.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think that that would be for the convenience of the House.
  Mr. Nugent: The Order and Regulaions we are considering are the Instruments necessary to provide for the use of the new motorways, of which we shall see the first sample in this country in November on the Preston bypass. The Preston bypass is a short length of motorway of about eight miles, which is the forerunner of what I hope will be a network of major routes in this country, motorways which will provide the country with a first-class basic network of roads.
  Mr. J. A. Sparks: Before he proceeds, will the Minister tell the House what lanes of traffic are provided for on this stretch of the road? I understand that there are to be two lanes only. Perhaps he will confirm that.
  Mr. Nugent: I was intending to give a brief description of the motorway. I thought that that would be helpful, and, indeed, I should be very glad to do it forthwith if that would assist.
  The design of all motorways is intended to provide a road which will be safe for large volumes of traffic to travel fast in safety. The design, therefore, provides for no intersections except in the service areas, which on full, complete motorways will occur roughly every twelve miles, where clover-leaf intersections will be provided. Otherwise, the two carriage-ways
  1260
  will be completely separate. There will be no direct intersections at all. There will be either bridges over existing roads or tunnels underneath. There will be cuttings through the hills and causeways through the valleys to eliminate any steep gradients, corners and so on, so that the roads really will be safe for fast travel.
  On the Preston motorway, which is the one we are immediately considering, there are two carriageways each laid out with two lanes only, but provision has been made for adding a third lane if and when the volume of traffic justifies building it. The total width of the road can consist of three lanes, plus hard shoulders on each side sufficient for vehicles to drive on to in the event of breakdown or stoppage. It is an essential feature, of course, that nothing shall be allowed to stop on the road itself and that it shall be really safe for fast travel.
  I believe that some hon. Members recently paid a visit to the London—Birmingham motorway now in course of construction, and there saw what a splendid conception a modern motorway is and what a wonderful contribution it can make to both the commercial and the recreational, personal traffic of the country. These motorways really will make a tremendous contribution to our traffic system as we proceed to build them.
  Our policy in this matter is to try to keep both regulations and restrictions to a minimum. We feel that we are here providing roads where drivers can proceed at the safe speed of their vehicles, according to their own judgment, and that therefore the right approach in the first place is to make the minimum of regulations and restrictions, giving the hard-pressed driving community of the country, both commercial and private, an opportunity to drive in freedom and safety. But we realise that there is a good deal to be learned. We have no experience of motorways in this country. We have, of course, the benefit of a good deal of experience abroad, and some of us have seen motorways in other countries. We know what benefit they bring, but none of us knows just how our own drivers will react to them.
  My right hon. Friend and I feel, therefore, that the right approach is to use the Preston bypass as a useful experiment before we come to the far more important

  1261
  London-Birmingham motorway which we expect to be opened in the autumn of next year.
  The House will have noticed that the Statutory Instruments now before it are for short duration only and end in August of next year, our idea being that we shall then have had some nine months' practical experience of how traffic moves on the Preston bypass. With that experience, on top of the collective wisdom in the Department, which is embodied in these Instruments, we believe that we shall be in a position to make regulations for the future that will then cover the London-Birmingham motorway and others that are to come. I am sure that the House will see that in these regulations we have left ourselves full scope to learn by experience, and if experience teaches us that modifications should be made, my right hon. Friend will be the first to learn by it.
  The Order deals with the classes of vehicles which are to be excluded from the motorway, and the thought behind it is to exclude from the motorway classes of vehicles which, by their nature, are unlikely to be able to conform to the average speed of the general flow of traffic on the motorway. We believe that if these slower vehicles were allowed on the motorway, they would inevitably interfere with the general flow of traffic, and therefore cause a danger. It is for these reasons that we have excluded such vehicles as the ordinary pedal cycle and the small moped of under 50 c.c., because they would not travel fast enough to be able to join in the general flow of traffic.
  The other classes of vehicles present no serious issue or problem until we come to the difficult problem of the abnormal indivisible load. We are all familiar with these horrifying vehicles travelling on the roads, and there is probably none of us who has not sat for hours behind one of them hoping to get a chance to pass, and none of us who would not be very glad indeed to see them travelling on some different road to that on which we are travelling ourselves. My right hon. Friend and I have given long and careful consideration to what was the right regulation to make for these motorways.
  What we had to have in mind was that here we are building roads which will allow fast, safe travel, so that drivers
  1262
  can proceed along them in the confidence that they will not encounter other vehicles, except those travelling at similar speeds and in the same direction, will not have to meet intersections, sharp corners, sharp rises and so on. One has to use one's imagination about the effect of abnormal indivisible loads travelling along such a road—one of these vast loads perhaps occupying a whole lane, or as much as a lane and a half, which some could occupy, the largest traveling at a very low speed—only four or five miles an hour—which might constitute a really serious danger to the general flow of traffic.
  Therefore, the eventual conclusion of my right hon. Friend and myself was that we should start by excluding these loads from the motorway. I say "start" because, as I said earlier, it is the wish of my right hon. Friend and myself that we should learn by experience on the Preston bypass, because my right hon. Friend has power, under the 1949 Act, to use his discretion to allow loads to proceed on the motorways despite this prohibition. Our intention is that we shall permit abnormal indivisible loads to proceed experimentally on the motorway and see how they get on, so that we shall learn by experience whether, in fact, they do cause serious impediment and danger to traffic, as we apprehend they may, or whether traffic sorts itself out better than we anticipate.
  Mr. Sparks: May I ask the hon. Gentleman if he is relating his remarks to a situation in which there is a carriageway which provides for only two lanes of traffic? If, in fact, three lanes were provided, does he think that that would overcome his objection?
  Mr. Nugent: It obviously does make a considerable difference. On this particular motorway, there are two lanes of traffic, and, obviously, all the objections to the large abnormal indivisible load moving along it are intensified where there are only two lanes, as opposed to three. On the other hand, were there three lanes, these objections might be less, but we have felt that the right approach to this problem is to start with a general prohibition and to use this opportunity to experiment by allowing certain loads to use the Preston bypass, by observing them closely and seeing how they get on.
  Mr. R. Gresham Cooke: Before my hon. Friend leaves that point, would he say what is the procedure for abrogating these Instruments now laid on the Table of the House? He talks about exceptional loads going on the Preston motorway. Would he use a special movement order for that purpose, and, if so, is my right hon. Friend referring to very large vehicles, say, of 30 feet or more?
  Mr. Nugent: Of course, we shall have to deal with what applications come to us. As my hon. Friend knows, when manufacturers wish to move these loads, they apply to the police. Where they are of very large size, which come into a special category, they need special permission from my right hon. Friend, while the smaller size loads only have to be notified to the local police. I should hope that we may have experience of both, but clearly we cannot have these loads moving up specially to the Preston bypass. We shall have to make use of such experience as comes our way and allow, in special circumstances, experiments to take place on the Preston bypass.
  Mr. C. W. Gibson: I do not understand the point which the hon. Gentleman is making. I understand that extremely wide and long roads can be dealt with already under the present Regulations by the police and the Minister. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that heavy vehicles with very large loads will be allowed on these motorways, or is he barring altogether what are called abnormal indivisible loads?
  Mr. Nugent: What we are doing here is to allow the ordinary commercial load—naturally, that is the main purpose and justification of building motorways—but to prohibit all loads beyond the size of the normal commercial vehicle and coming into the category of the abnormal indivisible load. There are two categories of these vehicles, one which could be dealt with by the police themselves, and a second category which, in any event, would require the permission of my right hon. Friend. Our intention is, as far as we have applications during the next nine to twelve months, to allow some of these to go on the Preston bypass under observation, as an experiment and to see how they get on.
  Mr. Ernest Davies: Would the hon. Gentleman tell us what is the demarcation line between the normal commercial load and the abnormal indivisible load? I think there is some confusion as to the actual tonnage involved, or the length and width of the vehicle. If he could enlighten the House in this regard it would be very helpful.
  Mr. Nugent: I will make myself better informed. My recollection is that for most vehicles the dimensions are 8 ft. in width as the standard width. [An HON. MEMBER: "8 ft. 6 ins."] In certain circumstances, the overhang is taken into consideration. I will make myself better informed as to the exact dimensions which cover the ordinary commercial load and at what stage they come into the abnormal indivisible load category and require special treatment.
  In the meantime, to complete what I was saying, we feel that it would be dangerous to allow the abnormal indivisible load to travel on this motorway, at least until we have practical experience of it. We feel that it would be dangerous to the other traffic which is moving on the road and, therefore, we prefer to do it only experimentally so that we may learn by experience.
  The size of load which requires a special order with the permission of my right hon. Friend is a width exceeding 20 ft. and a weight exceeding 150 tons. These are the loads of which we are particularly apprehensive, because, usually, they travel very slowly and, obviously, could be a serious danger. During the course of my speech, I will give the House details of the other demarcation line between normal and special loads.
  Turning to the question of speed limits, once again we gave careful thought to whether there should be a general speed limit on vehicles. We concluded that it would be wise to start without a speed limit. These roads are built for safe, fast travel and the right plan seems to us to be to allow drivers to use their own judgment as to the safe speed for their vehicles and to let traffic move smoothly and rapidly along the road.
  The only vehicle on which we thought there should be a specific speed limit is the vehicle which is towing either a two-wheel trailer or a close-coupled four-wheel trailer. We thought it advisable

  1265
  to make this regulation, because normally this class of trailer tends to sway about when reaching a higher speed, and usually its braking system is only on the overrun principle and it does not have the hydraulic brakes of the four-wheel commercial vehicle. Therefore, these trailers are not too safe at high speed. Other than that, we thought that the right plan was to start without speed limits in the hope and belief that the average driver is careful and responsible and that drivers generally will respond to the freedom that we propose to give.
  Once again, however, we shall have to learn by experience and I hope that our faith in the good sense of drivers will be justified. Obviously, if people use these roads as race tracks, they will make them a danger, not only to themselves, but to everybody else. It is right to put on record that we are doing this with our eyes open but feeling that here is an opportunity for people to travel faster in safety. We hope and believe that they will have the good sense to do this in a responsible way. I feel sure that all the motoring organisations will use their best influence to get over to the motoring public their responsibilities in travelling on this road.
  In that context, I should like to refer to another aspect which is not covered in the Regulations. Obviously, there are many other matters which could be covered in Regulations, but we felt that the right approach was to keep them to a minimum and to cover the remainder of the driving behaviour on these roads by a supplement to the Highway Code defining the mode of conduct which drivers should follow when using motor ways. That would cover such matters as maximum safe speed and, what is very important, lane discipline.
  One of the weak spots in the driving conduct of our countrymen is that they are not good at lane discipline. It is of vital importance that they should observe lane discipline and should observe the good conduct of driving in such matters as overtaking. All these matters we propose to cover in a supplement to the Highway Code. We propose to deal with this in the first instance by publishing what may be described as a schedule of advice, which we shall have ready in the next month or so, covering all these paints. We then propose, again,
  1266
  to learn by experience on the road and at a suitable time during the experimental period we will codify this advice. Then, we must bring it before Parliament before it can become a supplement to the Highway Code itself.
  Mr. Percy Collick: The hon. Gentleman said that it is the Minister's intention to issue a supplement to the Highway Code in which the maximum speed on these roads will be incorporated. If that be the case, one of the arguments which will be advanced will concern speed. Does the Joint Parliamentary Secretary not think that he should have laid the supplement before the House at the same time as we are considering these Regulations? It is the most important issue of the whole lot.
  Mr. Nugent: No. I am sorry if I misled the hon. Member. I was intending to say that this advice, as it will be in the first place, and, later, a supplement to the Highway Code, will give general advice on speed and that drivers should have regard to the nature, weight, and so on, of their vehicles, but that it will not attempt to lay down what should be the maximum speed. Our whole approach is that we should not have a speed limit and that we should leave it to the individual judgment of drivers to decide the safe maximum speed at which they can drive. We hope that that will prove to be right.
  My right hon. Friend and I make this experiment conscious that it contains an element of danger. We shall watch it extremely closely. We are doing it because we believe that having no speed limit will give vehicles the opportunity to find their own speed limit and that drivers will do it in safety and in a responsible manner. If, on the other hand, we are wrong and experience proves that drivers do not do this, we shall have no alternative but to consider imposing a maximum speed limit. In the first place, however, we feel that we should try to proceed without it.
  I am now better able to answer the question I was asked earlier about the dimensions of a normal load and the point at which it becomes an abnormal indivisible load. The normal maximum width is 8 ft. with an allowance for overhang of, I believe, 9 in. on either side, or 18 in. altogether. The maximum

  1267
  normal weight is different for each class of vehicle, varying from 3 tons for a private car up to a considerable weight. The load varies according to the class of vehicle. The significant dimension is the 9 ft. 6 in. width including the overhang. When a vehicle exceeds that width with its load, it gets into the class of the abnormal indivisible load. There is then the intermediate stage at which application to the police will be necessary and, after that, application to my right hon. Friend. In the first place, however, for experimental purposes, we shall allow no indivisible loads whatever on the motorway except by permission of my right hon. Friend.
  To conclude my remarks about the supplement to the Highway Code, this document will be comprehensive in dealing with all aspects of driving conduct which we think are necessary. It will, I hope, have not only the support of this House, but the active support of the motoring organisations, so that drivers generally will give it close attention. Incidentally, the existing Highway Code, which is an admirable document—if everybody did what it said, the roads would be very different—is today paid too little attention. I hope that we shall be able to take the opportunity of the supplement to give a new boost and authority to the existing Highway Code.
  I think I have said enough to indicate to the House our general approach to this matter. We feel that we should keep Regulations to a minimum and that we should use this first experience with the Preston bypass as an experimental period during which we can learn whether our first thoughts are right. If they are not, we can modify them before we come to the far more important London to Birmingham motorway. If at the end of that time we find it necessary to make modifications, we shall certainly make them. In the meantime, we propose that there shall be no speed limit, that we should not allow the abnormal indivisible load and that we should proceed in the light of the general advice that our forerunner of the supplement to the Highway Code will give. We believe that that is the best basis for starting this very important development. I hope that the House will feel that the Statutory Instruments are soundly based and that it will give its
  1268
  support to what is a very important road development.
  8.12 p.m.
  Mr. Frank McLeavy: I think that we are quickly approaching the time when we shall make history with regard to the roads. We are all looking forward to the opening of the Preston motor road and to it being followed by the opening of the major motor roads which are now in course of construction.
  In debating these Statutory Instruments it is important that we should consider whether there has been adequate time for consultation and discussion with the parties who are usually consulted upon matters such as these. It is common knowledge that it is the practice of all Ministries to take the fullest advantage of consultation with the various industries and trade unions affected so that the Minister may be apprised of their viewpoint and will be able not only to enter into further discussion with them upon the points that they raise, but so that he can get a better balanced picture of the views of both sides of industry.
  The Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Harold Watkinson): I thought that a number of hon. Members might have views on this matter and would raise specific points. If there is time and if it is the will of the House, I propose to answer them at the end of the debate.
  Mr. McLeavy: I should like to deal with the time-table of discussion with the industries and trade unions which are concerned with the conditions laid down in these Statutory Instruments. So far as my information goes, my own trade union, the Transport and General Workers Union—I assume that other sections of industry were advised at the same time—received a letter from the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation on 7th July intimating that he intended to lay these two Statutory Instruments before the House. The Minister requested a reply not later than 21st July. I understand that the union sent a reply on 18th July setting out its considered opinion upon the provisions contained in the two Statutory Instruments. We were rather surprised that four days later, on 22nd July, the Minister found himself able to lay the Statutory Instruments. I submit to the Minister and to the House that

  1269
  it was hardly possible to give adequate consideration to the points raised by the trade union and by industry in such a short period.
  I know that the Minister is anxious to get these Statutory Instruments through because of the opening of the Preston bypass before reassembling after the summer Recess. But I cannot understand why communications could not have been sent by the Minister long before 7th July to get the views of the trade unions and other organisations upon the Statutory Instrument in order to allow for opportunities of representation and discussion with the Minister. He still would have had time to lay the Statutory Instruments before the House tonight.
  I believe that it is vitally important that the utmost consultation should be held with the trade union movement and with the employers' side of industry, and that the Minister and Parliament should err upon the side of allowing too long rather than too short a time for these discussions. We in the Transport and General Workers Union feel that it was hardly possible for the Minister to consider the points raised by our union in reply to his letter of 7th July. Certainly there was not time for further correspondence between the Minister and the union on the points raised. We think it is unfortunate because of the special circumstances of these two Statutory Instruments.
  I agree with the Joint Parliamentary Secretary that these are temporary provisions. Be that as it may, they are provisions which may well set the type of conditions and regulations which may be applied to the whole of our motorways in the years to come. We should have started with moderation rather than give the motoring industry absolute freedom, and say, "All of you be good boys or we might have to do something". It would have been far better if the Minister had taken the view with regard to this experimental eight-mile motor road that he could give some slight relaxation of the existing speed limit in order to try to experiment. But the Minister has thrown wisdom to the winds; he is simply banking upon the motorist playing his part and not exceeding what would be regarded as a reckless speed.
  I want, first, to deal with the question of the class of traffic which will use the Preston bypass. The view of the Transport
  1270
  and General Workers Union upon the matter is that, since a number of vehicles carrying abnormal and indivisible loads are already under the control of the appropriate authority in the matter of loading, it is unreasonable to exclude them from the use of the bypass. I agree with that point of view. I see the Minister smiling, but this is a serious point. The conception of these motor roads is that they shall allow motor transport to proceed more speedily than it can on the existing winding roads of our countryside.
  It is intended that the large amount of money that we are spending upon the construction of these motorways—and I supported the policy right through—should be of assistance not merely to the private motorist but to the industrial life of the nation. It is intended that these motorways should assist manufacturers to deliver their goods from one point to another at a cheaper rate per mile than is possible with the congested conditions of our roads today. From that point of view it is important that we should examine the question of these very large, uncomfortable and bulky loads.
  I know that if we have them on this experimental motor road they will be a nuisance to some of the other traffic which wants to move more speedily, but does the Minister seriously suggest that after we have constructed a link system of motorways throughout the country we can legitimately prohibit for all time the use of these motorways by this type of transport? From the point of view of public safety it is far better that it should go where it can move easily along these new motorways than that it should have to go winding round the streets, lanes and highways of Britain, going miles out of its course in order to avoid low bridges, costing a tremendous amount of money and labour, and involving expenditure in the police force by way of the provision of motor-cyclists and policemen to guide it along hundreds of miles of roadway. It seems fantastic that we should think of excluding such traffic from the motorways, and I urge the Minister to reconsider the matter. It is not fair or equitable to the industries concerned, and it certainly is not making the best use of our motor roads.
  I turn now to the Motor Vehicles (Speed Limit on Special Roads) Regulations, 1958. The Minister seems to be

  1271
  making an extraordinary decision here. In opening the debate the Joint Parliamentary Secretary gave us his views about the freedom that we were giving to the private motorist by these Regulations. He talked about motorists travelling at a safe speed, according to their own judgment. What nonsense that is. He knows quite well that to talk in terms of a speed limit according to one's own judgment is merely asking for trouble. The judgment will depend upon, the type of individual driving the vehicle, and it may well be that we shall have serious accidents on the Preston bypass as a result of these Regulations.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister, however, say, "If that happens, this is an experimental period and we can bring in Regulations relating to speed." That seems to be approaching the question from an entirely wrong angle. It would have been infinitely better if we had started moderately by allowing a slightly extra speed above the existing legal limit and said, "We will review the position in the light of this experiment and, if necessary, bring forward other Regulations based upon our experience on this road," rather than introduce proposals of this character, without any knowledge of what might transpire on these sections of road.
  There are other points to which I am sure the Minister has not given adequate consideration. There is the question of the capacity of certain types of vehicles to go at unlimited speeds; the question of braking capacity, and the general type of vehicle and its loading. All these factors must be taken into consideration if we are properly to examine the position.
  It is all very well for people who are used to driving an ordinary motor car to talk about heavy transport vehicles being able to travel at any speed they like without any danger to the general travelling public or to themselves. No one today is satisfied that the braking facilities of transport vehicles are adequate or that they are capable of meeting the strain of unlimited speed. If some transport vehicles happened to be following a stream of private cars going at 50, 60, 70—shall we rejoice, and say 100 miles an hour?—along the Preston bypass and something went wrong in front,
  1272
  are we satisfied that the drivers of those vehicles, which might be carrying heavy loads of steel or something of that kind, would have sufficient braking power to prevent a collision with the vehicles in front and avoid causing great injury and even loss of life?
  I do not think that the Minister has given adequate thought to these matters or that he has troubled to have the consultations he ought to have had with people who could advise him. I am referring not only to the manufacturers, but to the men who drive these vehicles. Their opinion is very important. They are regarded as the best drivers in the country. Through their trade union representatives they make representations to the Minister. We are entitled to an assurance that the right hon. Gentleman has had adequate consultations with the trade unions concerned. My information is that his consultations have been confined to a letter addressed to the unions. So far as I know, there has been no attempt to obtain the views of the men who drive the vehicles so that the Minister can form an intelligent appreciation of the points which arise over this question of abolishing the speed limit.
  I say, frankly, that to start an experiment by having no speed limit at all is asking for trouble and setting about the whole matter in the wrong way. Even at this late hour, I wish to plead with the Minister to be realistic. I ask him to withdraw these Regulations and to have further consultation with all sides of industry and any section of the community capable of advising him. If we are to have temporary Regulations, as appears to be necessary, lot them be based on a policy hammered out after the closest and most intensive consultation with everyone concerned.
  I have always supported the building of these motorways. It will be a tremendous thing for Britain when we have a network of motorways throughout the length and breadth of the land. It is equally important, although these Regulations are of a temporary nature, that we start moderately and right and are in a position to increase the facilities and the speed rather than that we should start at a point at which it may be necessary to scale down. I hope that the Minister will pay serious attention to the

  1273
  views expressed tonight. The unions feel strongly that there has been inadequate consultation on this vital matter. The welfare of our drivers may be at stake because of the abolition of the speed limit. We feel it to be wrong and unfair to the men concerned and unfair to the general public that provision has not been made on a more sensible and equitable basis.
  8.35 p.m.
  Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: I shall not start by answering in detail the most extraordinary speech of the hon. Member for Bradford, East (Mr. McLeavy). He spoke to us as though no one had ever seen a motorway before or had any experience of it. I will allude to some of the points he made during the course of my speech.
  I wish to start by congratulating my right hon. Friend on being in a position to make these Statutory Instruments at all. Great Britain started very late in the construction of motorways. After the war, when other countries in Western Europe were building new motorways or extending existing ones, we confined ourselves to passing the Special Roads Act of 1949 and making a few plans. That is all that happened for a considerable number of years. But in recent months great progress has been made and considerable stretches of special roads have been completed, or are nearing completion.
  As was mentioned by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, a number of hon. Members recently had an opportunity of seeing a considerable portion of the London—Birmingham motorway under construction. A number of hon. Members have also seen the motorways under construction in Western European countries. With other hon. Members, I have seen roads under construction in Western Germany, Holland, Belgium, Austria, and West Berlin. Hon. Members who have seen those roads, and our own roads, will agree that the British motorways are of a very high standard. I have no hesitation in saying that our motorways, when they are completed, will be the best in Western Europe. I cannot compare them with those in America because I have not seen the American roads, but I expect that our roads would compare very favourably with those in America.
  1274
  A special road is of no use unless there are special restrictions on its use, and all the officials in the countries of Western Europe which I have mentioned are agreed on one thing as it applies to conditions in Western Europe, including this country. Since the main towns are comparatively close together, much closer together than on the American continent, the main use of a motorway is to maintain a steady flow of traffic at a fast pace which is also an even pace, and it is particularly important that the flow should be steady rather than any particular pace. The Dutch officials went so far as to produce a table showing not only the saving in time achieved by having motorways, but also the saving in maintenance costs per vehicle by not having to apply the brakes or change gear at frequent intervals. That answers some of the remarks of the hon. Member for Bradford, East.
  In this connection it is obvious that if we have on the motorway a large vehicle which will obstruct the passage of overtaking vehicles the advantages of not applying brakes or changing gear will not appertain. Thus, apart from the question of danger, it militates against the advantages of the road to have indivisible loads blocking up the roadway and causing vehicles to brake in order to pass round them.
  Mr. Sparks: Does not that apply in the reverse direction? If we take those vehicles off the existing highway we reduce the amount of braking by vehicles on the road, but what we gain on the swings we lose on the roundabouts.
  Mr. Wilson: Not at all. These roads cost £¼ million per mile and it is a waste of money to build them if we are to fill them up with traffic carrying large indivisible loads which will cause other vehicles to brake. Further, the hon. Member for Bradford, East seemed to think that the existence of these vehicles on motorways would not be unduly dangerous, but experience in Western Europe is that accidents on motorways nearly always occur when several lines of traffic are diverted into one.
  Some hon. Members may recollect actually seeing a very bad accident in Holland where, for the purpose of repairing a highway, the authorities had diverted two main lines into one, with the

  1275
  result that seven cars collided with each other. Having large indivisible loads on the motorway and causing a line of traffic to pass out of its line is likely to cause an accident which might be a multiple accident of a very serious character.
  Mr. McLeavy: Was not the accident very largely due to the fact that there was no speed limit?
  Mr. Wilson: No, no. The reason was that the road had been converted from a double two-lane road into a single two-lane roadway.
  Mr. Gresham Cooke: I saw the accident and my impression was that it was caused because two roads taking traffic in opposite directions had been thrown into one.
  Mr. Wilson: That was true, but the same principle applies where two lines in the same direction are thrown into one. It means increased danger.
  I do not think anybody has raised objections to the limitation of the use of motor cycles on the motorways. It would be very undesirable to have mopeds and very light motor cycles of that kind on the motorway. It is right to expect that a good number of vehicles will have to be excluded if full use is to be made of the motorways.
  With regard to the two-wheeled trailers, my impression is that those vehicles are very often caravans pulled by rather small private cars which are not very suitable types for towing that type of vehicle. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] The Minister has been rather generous in permitting a speed of 40 m.p.h. to these vehicles. It seems to be ample. I would again say to the hon. Member for Bradford, East, that on European motorways very large vehicles pull trailers of equal weight and travel at 60 m.p.h. and more. Recently, the Germans have proposed to put on a speed-limit, not for reasons of safety, but because these very heavy vehicles are knocking the autobahnen to pieces as they pass along them. I think the speed limit is 55 m.p.h. for a large vehicle with a large trailer.
  Dutch or German experience is nothing which we could take as conclusive. Conditions in any country are bound to be different from others, especially when we remember that the German officials
  1276
  themselves are the first to admit that the British standard of driving is higher than the German standard. Nevertheless, we should pay some attention to Continental experience, especially Western European, where conditions are much more likely to be similar to our own than they would be in America.
  I suggest to British industry that it is much more important to them to have heavy goods vehicles and the private cars of business executives passing freely at a fast pace from place to place than that motorways should be obstructed by the occasional use of heavy indivisible loads, thereby very much reducing the usefulness and safety of the motorways.
  In the long run, I am sure industry would benefit by keeping heavy indivisible loads off the motorways. I am certain that industry and the trade unions would benefit by allowing an unrestricted speed on the motorways. We have seen that in many countries unrestricted speed can be undertaken by drivers without undue strain and that it gives them a greater degree of productivity, thereby providing an opportunity for greater earnings. It is to the general benefit of industry to have a speeding up of passenger and goods traffic on our roads. I hope these experimental Regulations will be a great success, as I am sure the motorways will be.
  8.46 p.m.
  Mr. Thomas Oswald: I rise to add my protest against the undue haste of the Minister in laying these Statutory Instruments. I do not want to risk being asked to refrain from repetition and in consequence I shall not go over the data which has been given by previous speakers. The short period allowed is inadequate for the interested parties to examine the proposals.
  Under the Order which we are discussing certain classes of traffic are to be prohibited from using the new eight-mile stretch on the Preston bypass. In fact, abnormal and indivisible loads are not to be permitted to traverse that highway. The Minister already has power under the new Motor Vehicles (Authorisation of Special Types) Orders to direct and divert such vehicles to prevent undue traffic congestion because certain parts of existing highways are incapable of taking

  1277
  those abnormal loads. It is common knowledge that additional powers are wielded by various local authorities and the police in certain regions. They are entitled to route, or reroute, abnormal loads and not to permit them along certain stretches of roads where bridges may not be of sufficient strength to bear those loads. They can direct them into other channels.
  The purpose of new, better and wider roads is to procure an even flow of traffic and to prevent congestion on existing roads. For years I have stressed in this House and in Scottish Grand Committee the necessity of a nation-wide roads programme. I have always based my argument and submissions on the outmoded and outdated road system we have in this country. It is important to note that the smooth transportation of raw materials and finished products to and from our docks and factories is of the utmost importance to the economy of the country. Added overhead costs already mentioned, because of delay in keeping road vehicles on the move, continually mount against industry.
  Abnormal loads are regularly transported along the highways. It must be in the knowledge of the Minister that such things as ships' engines, ships' boilers, electrical transformers, oil refinery plant, building material and other huge loads cannot be taken by rail. Such plant requires to be manœuvred, and that is very important. At the moment it requires to be manœuvred through very narrow streets, round roundabouts and across bridges whilst all other vehicular traffic is either stopped, slowed up, or diverted. The passage of such loads causes obstruction all the way from the loading point to the unloading point. Tremendous inconvenience is caused to other road users, including the public using passenger vehicles to go about their normal business.
  The British Road Federation is on record protesting against the proposal of the Minister. Every hon. Member has had a memorandum from the Federation this week including a letter sent by the Federation to the Minister. In it the Federation points out that such heavy loads are almost entirely industrial loads and that the cost of transporting such loads could be cut if they were partly, if not wholly, routed on motorways. I
  1278
  recognise that the Minister has power to authorise that. Praise has already been given to the engineers responsible for the planning and laying down of this new motorway because it has been designed with gradients, sight lines and camber far in advance of anything in the way of roads at present in this country.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. G. Wilson) that we are very many years behind other countries in our road programme and I welcome the introduction of new motorways. This experimental roadway is only a dual carriageway. I recognise the difficulties and problems, but it seems fantastic that we should impose these Regulations on a dual carriageway. We must recognise that we want even wider roads, with three lanes on either side, if we are really to get speedy transportation of merchandise. Abnormal loads are not often carried. It is not as though they were carried with the same continuity as a bus service from Westminster to Kings Cross; there is not a ten-minute service.
  It is rare that we have really abnormal loads, but the Minister is not debarring the transportation of military vehicles. The huge tanks of the present day are being transported as indivisible loads. Huge guns can be transported. The Royal Air Force has what are commonly called "Queen Mary wagons", and will be permitted to use those vehicles without restriction. It is against the restriction on those indivisible and abnormal loads belonging entirely to industry that we are really protesting.
  As an experienced bus driver, commercial lorry driver, van driver, tramcar driver and private motorist, I think that I can claim to know something about the roads and those who use them, and I can say that even if one of these abnormal loads were proceeding on the new motorway at a slow speed, the traffic would be overtaking the driver and not coming towards him. The motorist, therefore, would have every opportunity of seeing the width of the load, the flags it bears to warn oncoming traffic that it is an abnormal load, and he would take the necessary precautions when passing him.
  If the new road system is to mean anything at all, the Minister should remember that the existing bottlenecks cause traffic obstruction, and take immediate steps to eliminate those portions of the route

  1279
  where vehicles and loads of exceptional dimensions cause difficulties. It is on that note that I leave the Special Roads Order. I ask the Minister to reconsider it, to lift the ban on certain types of vehicle, to allow them to use the new motorways, and so create an even flow of traffic on all roads.
  On the speed-limit Regulations I will speak only briefly, as I know that many other hon. Members wish to participate in this debate. These Regulations abolish the speed limit on the motorway; but for certain types of vehicle increase the speed limit from 20 m.p.h. to 40 m.p.h.—double. The plea of all road users is that they wish to make up time lost in traffic delays. The motorist, whether he be road commercial, road passenger, in the distributive trades, in private business or driving for pleasure hopes to get an average speed over a given distance.
  The traffic police are continually charging motorists with contravention of the Traffic Acts, and speeding is by far the most predominant charge. The main reason for breaking the law is the driver's desire to catch up on time lost by traffic congestion, and delays caused at railway crossings, open canal bridges, traffic signals and police-controlled traffic points.
  The Minister and his predecessors have regularly inaugurated campaigns asking motorists and pedestrians to have more care on the roads, and there can be no doubt that, in many cases, the plea has been fully justified. The statutory speed limit is observed generally by road users, although everyone knows that many drivers exceed the limit, and are, in fact, a menace not only to themselves but to every other person in their vicinity. It could be argued, of course, that if we have a maximum speed limit it is always being exceeded, but that, in my view, is no excuse for the abolition of the speed limit. One might as well argue that because some men drink to excess, one should abolish all the licensing laws and let everyone else drink to excess.
  I should like to stress that when we take off a maximum speed limit we give the opportunity to every Tom, Dick, and Harry who so desires to run his vehicle at its utmost speed, irrespective of the vehicle's capabilities. One thing that we must consider is that most motor vehicles manufactured in Great Britain purely for domestic use, as against those manufactured
  1280
  especially for export, are built to specification and are not, to my mind, capable of braking within a reasonable distance when they exceed the specification speeds.
  I should like to ask the Minister—and in view of the short space of time he gave to the interested authorities to consider his Regulations, I very much doubt whether he can answer in the affirmative—whether the motor trade, as such, was in any way consulted about the abolition of the speed limit. It should be remembered that it will take some time for the motor manufacturers to re-tool their establishments so as to equip the vehicles with sufficient braking power to enable them to pull up in reasonably short distances when travelling at excessive speeds—
  Mr. G. Wilson: What does the hon. Gentleman suppose happens to British vehicles when they go abroad, and travel on the motorways in Europe—where there is no speed limit?
  Mr. Oswald: If, as he claims, the hon. Gentleman has seen many of the Continental ways, he will know that many British vehicles are left far behind on the autobahnen in Germany, and in Holland and Belgium. When we are exporting vehicles, we build to a specification for the country to which they are being exported, and they are very different from the specification for our domestic vehicles used purely for commercial purposes. I want to stress that the vehicles that will use the motorways are built to British specification, and will be incapable of pulling up quickly, particularly if the road is slippery, oily or wet. Only those who have driven heavy commercial vehicles with a terrific load behind them can recognise and appreciate the problem of attempting to pull up a vehicle, even in the case of some article falling from the vehicle in front where the following driver has either to brake or swerve his vehicle to clear the obstacle.
  There is another point which I wish to stress. It has already been mentioned, but I want to consider it still further. One of the gravest dangers to the men operating in the vast transport industry in this country is that of braking, especially if they are carrying what might be called "loosely tied" goods on their vehicles. I am thinking of vehicles carrying tramway rails and steel rails for

  1281
  railways and workshops, especially on an articulated vehicle when the driver, through no fault of his own, has to brake suddenly. It must be remembered that these rails can be propelled right through the back of the cabin and can decapitate the driver, almost before he is aware that something has gone wrong in front.
  I would emphasise that in many instances when a man is driving a vehicle pulling a trailer behind it he has not the same control over the trailer as he has over the vehicle. If, by abolishing the speed limit, we are to permit every driver to drive on a motorway as and how he pleases, then, instead of being in the position of getting speedy transport of people and their goods, we are likely to get more hold-ups because of the number of accidents.
  Accidents which I have seen on the Continent have been caused because every one is travelling at speed and it is almost impossible for the driver of a vehicle following to pull up in the event of anything going wrong. The bursting of a tyre of a vehicle in front may cause any amount of trouble to the drivers of following vehicles.
  Let us remember that the roads in Great Britain are not yet at a stage when we can have safe long-distance travelling. The Minister has been a little premature in trying to base these Regulations on an experimental stretch of eight miles on the Preston bypass. I recognise that the Minister has good intentions for the future, but I ask him to think again and at least to put some limit on the speed of certain of the vehicles which will use this motorway, having regard to the fact that many of the men employed in the industry have to run to schedule.
  We are still negotiating between the trade unions and employers associations on the 30 m.p.h. running schedule. Both sides of the industry are protesting in no uncertain terms. They will say to the Minister that he is asking them, in the throes of these negotiations, to try to go into deeper water in trying to find schedule running times for the operators. Men are entitled to be rested, but if there is this additional speed-up, a man will have to cover as much as double mileage inside his normal driving period. I ask the Minister to review the situation, and I ask for further consideration of
  1282
  the views of those employed in the industry both on the industrial and the administrative side.
  9.10 p.m.
  Mr. R. Gresham Cooke: I think I can reassure the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Oswald) that every manufacturer of a vehicle or motor car today makes the braking specifications and the braking capacity of that vehicle up to the limit of the speed of which the vehicle is capable. We need have no doubts about that.
  I think we can congratulate the Minister on bringing forward these Statutory Instruments and on certain aspects of them, in particular for taking the small and vulnerable moped and autocycle off the motorway, and secondly, for having the courage to introduce these Regulations with no speed limit for vehicles generally. It seems to me that we must leave it to the responsibility of the driver to go at a proper speed according to the traffic conditions. It may be that in the middle of the day when the motorway is crowded with traffic the proper maximum speed would be about 50 m.p.h., but at 6 o'clock in the morning when the motorway is empty and the weather is fine it may be perfectly safe to travel at 100 m.p.h. in a sports car.
  We shall, I am sure, all consider with interest the driving code which my right hon. Friend will produce in due course, and no doubt we shall have some suggestions to make on it. The suggestion that springs to my mind at the moment is that in future driving codes we must induce drivers to pay more attention to their mirrors and to look behind them rather than just depend on giving signals. We might even go so far as to say that on a motorway if a driver switches from one lane to another and an accident is caused, it is the fault of the driver who switches lanes rather than of the driver who runs into him. Anyway, that is a point to be considered.
  I was shocked at the proposal that the heavy indivisible load should be banned from motorways. I understand that there are three classes of these loads. There is the load that is over 9 feet 6 inches wide but up to 75 tons, in respect of which the vehicle operator has to give two days' notice to the police. There is the load that is over 75 tons, in which

  1283
  case the operator must give six days' notice to the highway authority. Then there is the very heavy and large load of 150 tons or more and 20 feet wide which can only be moved by a special movement order of my right hon. Friend the Minister.
  I was trying to clear up this point earlier, and perhaps the Minister will confirm this point. I think that that is the type of vehicle that he had in mind when he said that he might allow some vehicles experimentally on the Preston motorway—
  Mr. Watkinson: Perhaps I can help by saying that there is no intention of banning abnormal indivisible loads at all for the purpose of experiment on this motorway. When we want to control the kind of load, it is necessary to make a prohibition order. There is no long-term ban.
  Mr. Gresham Cooke: I take it that the special movement order which the Minister makes would overrule this Regulation.
  I have been putting the case for motorways for over twenty years, and one of the arguments that I have used freely—and I think others probably have as well—is that the advantage of the motorway is that it will take this heavy traffic away from the little villages, towns and narrow roads. Nearly every week in this House and in another place objection is taken to these heavy abnormal indivisible loads. The suggestion made is that they ought to go by sea or by train.
  Mr. C. R. Hobson: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Gresham Cooke: It is all very well saying "Hear, hear", but they cannot go by sea because they generally originate in a place like Rugby which is about 70 miles from the sea, and they cannot go by train because they are too big for the tunnels. Therefore, they have to go by road, and it seems to me that the logical place for this heavy traffic is the motorway.
  If I had been speaking at Preston, as I might well have done if the Minister had asked me, in favour of a Preston bypass, I would have used this sort of argument. I would have said to the good people of Preston, "Your town is on the
  1284
  A.6, a trunk road, and in the six miles through Preston this A.6 road has no less than 1,898 crossings, one level crossing, four sets of traffic lights and several bottlenecks only 21 feet wide. It is intersected by the east-west route from Blackpool, with all that heavy traffic. It has a bad accident record. Now you, the people of Preston, are to have a beautiful motorway which will take this heavy through traffic away from the centre of the town". I think that that would have been applauded.
  I do not wish to discuss the special movement orders which the Minister makes in respect of the very heavy and very wide traffic, 150 tons and 20 ft. wide, but I wish to refer to what I call the normal indivisible load. I understand that there are 20,000 such movements throughout the year. Further, I understand that 90 per cent. of these indivisible loads are up to 12 ft. wide, and about 1,000 of them go through Preston each year. So that poor old Preston has about three such indivisible loads going through the town each day. But, as I say, the great majority are only up to about 12 ft. wide—not very wide.
  Is it practicable for these 12 ft. loads to go on the motorways? I believe that it is. Each lane of the carriageway is 12 ft. wide. In addition, there is 1 ft. of contrasted coloured material at the side of the road. Each dual carriageway, in each direction, is a 26 ft. road. We have 52 ft. of carriageway altogether. It surely must be safe for a 12 ft. vehicle, which normally goes fairly slowly and keeps to its own side, to use one of the carriageways on such a four-carriageway road. If necessary, let it have a police guide to take it through.
  The argument has been used—I think my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary used it—that there is the possibility of danger being caused by the relative speeds of the indivisible loads and other traffic, that people would be motoring very fast and might run into these heavy loads. But that already applies on the ordinary roads. If I motor down the A.5, I might quite easily be going at 70 or even 80 miles an hour and come upon one of these indivisible loads. I do not consider that the risk on the motorway will really be any greater than it is on the ordinary road. In fact, I think that it will be less hazardous to have this traffic

  1285
  on the motorway because the sight lines are better and one would be able to see farther ahead and take avoiding action in good time.
  This kind of traffic, of course, is very important. We are dealing not only with ships' boilers, and so on, but with reactors for the atomic energy programme, heat exchangers and the like. In Holland, a country comparable with our own, these indivisible loads are allowed an the motorways although they are two-carriageway motorways.
  Approaching the matter from the point of view of the public and the people of Preston, I ask the Minister to reconsider his decision and bring in an amendment to his Regulations in November when the motorway is opened. There is time to have second thoughts about it. I am satisfied that we could safely allow loads up to 12 ft. wide to go on the motorway, and I ask my right hon. Friend to consider that. It is a matter of great importance to our trade and industry, and it is a matter of considerable importance also to the ordinary public who live in towns like Preston and villages where motorways will pass. They ought to have the benefit of having all this heavy through traffic taken away from the places where they live.
  9.14 p.m.
  Mr. C. W. Gibson: Nobody in the House would wish to do anything or say anything which would discourage the development of motorways in this country. I am sure that we all hope that not only will the Preston motorway be finished quickly, but that all the others will be finished quickly in order that motoring will be mare comfortable and that industry and the country may benefit economically. Having said that, however, I cannot for the life of me understand why the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation has gone out of his way to be awkward with the interests which are involved, very largely economically, in this project.
  We have heard from the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) what certain powerful economic interests feel, and I have read the document which they have issued about barring indivisible loads. There have been others. It is equally true that the men—and there will be thousands on the roads every
  1286
  day and night driving the heavy lorries at, apparently, very much increased speeds—have been treated with contempt. It is no use writing to the official representatives of the lorry drivers on 7th July and asking for a reply by the 21st, and then issuing the Regulations on the 22nd. That is not consultation; that is treating the very important interests of the men, upon whose physical strength and work a good deal of the industry of this country depends, with contempt, for which, I am afraid, the Minister of Transport is becoming rather notorious.
  Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: Surely, what the Minister did was absolutely proper? We are introducing something which is only for a trial period, and is, as my hon. Friend indicated, a first example. Very rightly and properly, although not obliged to do so, my right hon. Friend asked all the interests concerned for their views with regard to this preliminary shot.
  Mr. Gibson: It may be for a trial period, but the trial period will last for a year. It is just nonsense, if the trial period is to last a year, to expect that either side of the interests involved, the manufacturers and the dealers or the unions representing the men who drive the vehicles, could possibly consider the Regulations and produce reasoned arguments about them within fourteen days.
  Mr. Rees-Davies: Well, we did.
  Mr. Gibson: All I can say to that is that they could not have had much consideration.
  What we are complaining about is that the Minister did not give the trade union mainly concerned with this industry a full and proper opportunity of considering these Regulations and their effect on the men who drive the lorries, on their health and on their hours and conditions of work. He did that at a time when he knew that they were still engaged in negotiations with the employers in the industry about raising the limit to thirty miles an hour. It seems to me that that is asking for trouble, and is certainly not fair to the men, who give their lives to the service of industry as some of them unfortunately do in reality, and without whose work the transport industry cannot get along. Unfortunately, in this country we have had long experience of

  1287
  the difficulties which have existed between both sides of the road transport industry, and I am afraid that this method of dealing with new Regulations is not going to help.
  I plead with the Minister to have another look at the matter. We cannot boldly double the speed limit for certain vehicles, as the Regulations do, and have unlimited speed for the vast majority of vehicles, without the men who have to do the work being entitled to an adequate say in the matter. We feel that there has not been adequate time to give real consideration to these proposals, that they have been rushed through, and that the Minister could have done this earlier, it he had liked to do so. He must have known that this new motorway would be ready for use by the end of the summer, and he must have known that many weeks ago. The discussions could have started then, and, quite frankly, do not know why they did not, I do not understand it.
  I think there is a legitimate cause for complaint about the action of the Minister of Transport in rushing this matter in the way he has done without giving all the interests concerned, and I am mainly concerned about the trade unions, a real opportunity of considering his proposals, putting forward their considered points of view, and being ready and willing to argue with him about them. There has been no time for that. All I can say is that if the Minister pushes this proposal through tonight, he will create more trouble, discontent and suspicion against himself in the minds of the men and women in the transport industry—and he has already done that very badly.
  9.20 p.m.
  Vice-Admiral John Hughes Hallett: I must apologise to the House and to my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary that I was unable to be present at the beginning of the debate. I have, however, been here long enough to realise that a large part of the debate has concerned the question of the so-called indivisible loads, or the juggernauts, as I prefer to call them. In this context, I am in full support of my hon. Friend.
  We should not show too much sympathy with these enormous loads which are taken about the roads. I am never
  1288
  entirely convinced that it is necessary to construct them in the places where they are made. I am sure that a replacement for the "Queen Mary" could be economically built in Croydon, but I do not think that we need have any sympathy with the subsequent difficulties that the manufacturers would experience in getting the vessel to the sea.
  I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will be firm in this matter and bear in mind that some of us at least feel that in certain cases these enormous loads are transmitted partly with a view to a form of free advertisement. There is no lack of notice about manufacturers and what they do as these loads move slowly along the roads.
  Mr. Gresham Cooke: May I give my hon. and gallant Friend the benefit of my experience? The reason why these things are made in the factories is that it is much cheaper to make them there than to take them in bits and pieces and assemble them at the ports.
  Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: None the less, I feel that if the Government are firm, it will be found possible in most cases to divide these indivisible loads.
  To my mind, the three things that matter about the Order are the question whether there should be an upper speed limit for these roads, the fate of bicycles, and the fate of mopeds. Concerning the speed limit, I still favour a realistic absolute upper speed limit on these new roads where otherwise the only limit to the speed at which one can drive would be the technical capacity of the vehicle. I suggested to my right hon. Friend privately some time ago that action should be taken to impose an upper speed limit of 100 m.p.h., which at that time would have been recognised as reasonable by even the most speed-minded person who uses the roads. I appreciate the reasons for the reluctance of my right hon. Friend to accept that suggestion, and I thank him for the courtesy with which he replied to my arguments. Be that as it may, it is now too late. Only last month I saw the dream motor-cycle being constructed designed to cruise at a speed of 105 m.p.h. I must say that if I could afford it, I should very much like to buy it.
  Mr. Rees-Davies: Would my hon. and gallant Friend be willing to be one of the

  1289
  traffic cops who would have to do 120 m.p.h. to catch those who exceeded the speed limit?
  Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: My hon. Friend is not displaying his usual imagination. When a new road is constructed, there would be no technical difficulty in building into it automatic speed recording devices.
  As I have said, the time for the 100 m.p.h. speed limit has passed. By the time that the great new motor road is opened—not the Preston bypass, but the first of the long roads, which, I understand, is due to come into operation at the end of 1959—I have not the slightest doubt that there will be cars on the market advertised to cruise at 150 m.p.h. and, what is more, that there will he fools who will go that speed. I am afraid that the principle of an upper speed limit will not be accepted now until an appalling succession of accidents have shocked public opinion.
  I now turn to what to my mind is the more important question about bicycles. I do not argue for bicycles having to share these roads, which would undoubtedly be extremely dangerous for them. I am speaking individually, and I know that the view that I am about to express is not shared by the organised bicycling clubs. They do not share it because their great fear has always been that cycle tracks will be established on all roads and they will be compelled to use them, as is the case on the Continent. I do not entirely agree with their point of view, but I feel that whenever a new motor road is constructed separate cycle tracks should be constructed alongside for compulsory use. I view with concern the precedent of excluding cyclists from these roads altogether. I understand that we are to have garages and restaurants, and so on, under a somewhat grand name at intervals along these roads. Why should the people who work in these places be forbidden to proceed to their place of work by bicycle? That is one point that occurs to me.
  Lastly, I should like to deal with mopeds. I view their exclusion from these new roads with mixed feelings. In a way I think that there is some injustice in banning them from the roads, although here again this problem could easily be met in future by having tracks for the exclusive use of both bicycles and
  1290
  mopeds. On the other hand, it seems to me—and this I regard as a slight ray of light in this Order—that the Government have now accepted the principle that mopeds should be classed as bicycles. A great many of us have pressed for this to be done for some time, as is done on the Continent. My right hon. Friend's own road safety committee went some way towards favouring the classification of mopeds with bicycles in regard to the age for riding them, and so forth. This has now been done on motor roads. Surely it is wrong to treat mopeds as bicycles on motor roads and to treat them as motor vehicles on the remaining roads. That would be very unjust and would be bitterly resented as time went on. Therefore, I very much hope that the Order laid before the House can be regarded as the first step to reclassify mopeds as ordinary bicycles.
  9.28 p.m.
  Mr. R. E. Prentice: I am very glad to be able to follow the hon. and gallant Member for Croydon, North-East (Vice-Admiral Hughes-Hallett). I speak as one of his constituents, and I can pay tribute to the fact that his prowess as a cyclist and motor scooter rider is well known in Croydon. I was particularly interested in his criticism of private enterprise for its anti-social tendencies in putting industries in the wrong places.
  I shall speak, like my hon. Friends, in a critical vein, but against the background that we are enthusiastic about the motorway projects. We think that they have come too late. We want them to be expedited, and we speak with enthusiasm about the building of these new roads. Also, we are not against experiment in laying down regulations for traffic. Obviously, when a new type of road is constructed for the first time, this is the moment to make constructive experiments. We do not wish to be accused of any conservative tendencies, whether the word is spelt with a small "c" or a capital "c". Although this is an experiment—and it has been said several times that the Instruments will run for only 12 months—we must consider that it is intended as a blueprint for the future, unless there are any serious snags in it. At least, that is the spirit in which it will be accepted by people who are interested in this matter. What is being

  1291
  laid down here is probably the pattern for future developments.
  It is, therefore, a great pity that the Minister should have started off on the wrong foot by issuing these Instruments without having proper consultations with the people concerned. I should have thought that it was a first principle of administration in this field that he would have had full consultation with the unions whose members work on the roads; the manufacturers' associations, concerned commercially with using the roads, and bodies such as the Automobile Association representing the motorists.
  Several of my hon. Friends have referred to the very short time given to the Transport and General Workers Union to make its comments. I submit that it was absurd to give it only fourteen days in which to do so. Even worse is the fact that after it had made its answer, on 10th July, it found that the Instruments were laid before Parliament four days later. This obviously led the union to conclude that the Minister was only pretending to consult it, and that in fact everything had been settled before its views could even be considered. It is not only the union which feels this way. Hon. Members will have received a circular letter from the British Electrical and Allied Manufacturers Association, in which the secretary says:
  "I am asked to express regret that the Minister before issuing such draft Regulations which affect the movement of heavy indivisible loads has not advised the heavy electrical and allied plant industry which is directly affected by such Regulations of his proposals."
  Apparently it had had no warning of what was involved in the Instruments.
  Turning to the point of view of the unions, I would say that two serious results arise from the failure to consult them. The first is that the men themselves are deprived of the right to be heard. We are talking about men whose livelihood depends upon the roads, who spend their working lives on the roads, and whose welfare and safety are affected by matters of this kind. They have a right to see that their representatives are fully and properly consulted before such Instruments as these are put into force. The second result is that the Minister, and therefore the country, are deprived of advice from the people who are best able to give it—the people with
  1292
  practical day-to-day experience of conditions on the road. That is maladministration, and I feel that the Minister has much to answer for on this point.
  I want to make one or two brief comments upon the Instruments. First, as to the classes of traffic, the important criticism levelled at the Minister is that he already has power to regulate the movements of these indivisible loads. This was explained very well to the House by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) in great detail. It seems to me that this gives the police a chance to discriminate between one load and another. Surely it is not right that the Minister or this House should lay down a general rule about indivisible loads. Surely the correct thing is for the people who want to move a load to notify the police, and for the police then to take into account the weight and width of the load, between which two places the load is to travel, and the alternative routes available. In many cases it may be better to keep loads off the motorway, but in other cases it may be better to put them on it.
  I was impressed by the example given by the hon. Member for Twickenham of the situation in Preston. He mentioned the fact that there were nearly 2,000 intersections on the existing road through Preston, as compared with the new motorway which will be practically uninterrupted. Surely the purpose of the new motorway, and those which are to follow it, is not only to provide a fast flow of traffic but also to relieve congestion on other roads. Therefore, in deciding whether a particularly heavy load should go on one road or another, the conditions on both roads must be weighed up.
  That should be done from a speed point of view; from an economic point of view—that is, how much would it cost the people to move it, remembering the costs of moving these loads affects prices and sometimes the prices of exports—and above all, from a social point of view, which is the most important. I should have thought that more than anything else this is a matter on which the people working in the industry should have given advice.
  I do not wish to be dogmatic about the exact figure which should be put on speed limits for the new roads, or what classes of vehicles should be involved.

  1293
  But the Regulations on this point already lay down certain classes of vehicles—very limited classes, trailers and so on—for which there will be a speed limit. I should have thought the right thing would be to extend that to heavy commercial vehicles, in general, and perhaps to make a number of classes. The hon. Member for Twickenham said that in these days when manufacturers build vehicles and work out the braking capacity and things of that kind, they do not have regard to a speed limit. They work to the speed limit of which the vehicle is capable. Surely that is not true of many vehicles still on the roads which were built some years ago. I am advised that in many cases they were constructed with a statutory speed limit in mind. Such questions as the maximum load or braking capacity were worked out with a speed limit in mind.
  I was impressed by the example given by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, East (Mr. McLeavy), who spoke about the danger of vehicles loaded with steel girders or some similar loads. Before I became a Member of Parliament I was a trade union official concerned with handling claims for damages brought forward by people injured in the course of their work. Less than two years ago I was concerned with a claim by the widow of a man killed in the kind of circumstances envisaged by my hon. Friend. The driver had to brake suddenly and the load of steel girders went through the cab of the vehicle and killed the driver. Where there are loads of that kind there must be strict control of the speed.
  Some hon. Members opposite have said, "Well, if the driver is a sensible man he will not go too fast." It might be said that if the employer is reasonable he will lay down a schedule to allow for a moderate speed. That may be so, and it may work in nine cases out of ten. But surely the law in this matter must allow for the unreasonable employer and the unreasonable driver and provision must be made both to protect them and to protect other road users from their possible folly. If everyone were reasonable in these matters we should not need a speed limit at all. With the terrible toll of life caused by road accidents, and the figures are creeping up all the time, surely we have to be extra careful about
  1294
  any measure liable to increase accidents. It seems to me that to put this reliance on people being reasonable and behaving sensibly is wrong. Where life is concerned the law itself has to enforce a reasonable standard.
  I believe that in both these Instruments the action of the Minister is open to criticism. There are counter-arguments, these are not easy matters on which to be dogmatic, but the very fact that these are complicated matters emphasises the principal point of criticism which has been advanced in this debate; that there should be full and detailed consultations with the people who have day-to-day experience of working on the roads. Failure to make provision for that is a serious omission on the part of the Minister.
  9.40 p.m.
  Mr. Norman Cole: The happy fact behind the regulations that we are discussing this evening is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Truro (Mr. G. Wilson) said, that we are within reach of seeing the opening of the first special road in this country. I am sure all of us who have seen the Preston bypass and the London-Birmingham motorway will congratulate the Minister and his Department and all those engaged in this work on their very great achievements. I am happy to think that part of the London-Birmingham road passes through my constituency of South Bedfordshire.
  I believe that the time has come when we have a contribution to make to road-building work throughout the world. We have something to show to other countries. It is perhaps worth considering that the time may be very near when we can ask road engineers from other countries to come here to see what we are doing in the building of modern special motor roads.
  I have been giving considerable thought and have been listening with very careful attention to what has been said about the indivisible load. We have talked a lot about it. I have one suggestion which the Minister of Transport might be good enough to consider. I appreciate his difficulties. It is not easy on two-lane roads like the Preston bypass, if we want to get the traffic moving at a good pace, to visualise what can be done. The suggestion made by my hon.

  1295
  Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) was that 12 ft. or so could be absorbed by the overlap of road on the inside of the inner lane. That might be a possibility.
  I want to make a suggestion. The present prohibition will extend to all vehicles with loads over 24 tons or 32 tons with trailer, irrespective of the speed at which those vehicles might travel. If the vehicles are not overlapping their lane there is no reason why vehicles coming behind should not be able to pass round and to proceed upon their way. A car on the motorway could pass one of these loads if the load did not have a width greater than one lane. A motorist should be able without difficulty to pass in those circumstances.
  It is not a question of such a load interfering with traffic proceeding in the same direction. Appreciating all the difficulties, I suggest that there is still time, because the motorway will not be ready for a time yet, to ask my right hon. Friend to consider that suggestion, that if indivisible loads are no wider than the lane they can easily be passed by other traffic.
  I would also ask my right hon. Friend, who has considerable contact with motoring organisations, that before he issues the early advice that the Parliamentary Secretary talked about, he should consult the motoring, transport and haulage organisations, and also that my right hon. Friend asks these organisations for the benefit of their experience and knowledge, gleaned in the first twelve months before drafting the addendum to the Highway Code to which the Parliamentay Secretary also referred.
  Members of those organisations will have been using this eight-mile stretch of the Preston bypass over the twelve months and will have gained considerable experience of some of the difficulties which nobody else will have had the same opportunity to gain. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will take that point into consideration.
  With the hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) and other hon. Members, I still believe that speed is the most constant factor in accidents. [Interruption.] I believe it is the most prominent factor, although I realise I may not speak for a majority opinion. I mean speed in the wrong place, in the wrong
  1296
  context and on the wrong occasion. It is not the only factor, but it is the greatest common and constant factor in accidents.
  I endorse what the Parliamentary Secretary said at the end of his remarks when opening this debate. Motorways are a new concept. We shall have 53 miles of new road completed by the end of 1959 from London to Birmingham, and I feel confident that there will soon follow more miles of new road right up into Yorkshire.
  This is a new concept, and I feel sure motorists who drive heavy vehicles or private motor cars will be aware that in this new facility there is not only a new quality of efficiency and ease of travel, but also many more dangers which perhaps do not exist on many roads we have at present. Let us face the fact that although a road may be slow and cause annoyance to anyone travelling on it, especially if he is in a hurry, he cannot travel at more than a certain speed, but on these new motorways, with one exception of vehicle, there is to be no speed limit. There will be all sorts of dangers which have not been experienced on our roads in the last 40 or 50 years. I endorse the plea of the Parliametnary Secretary to those using the new roads to go cautiously until more experience has been gained so that these roads may provide safer, more efficient and easier travel.
  9.47 p.m.
  Mr. A. E. Hunter: I am glad of the opportunity to make a few remarks. With all hon. Members, I welcome the new motorways. I am sure we all wish the Minister good speed in their construction.
  The general public are always uneasy when new Regulations are made which do not impose a speed limit on roads: I do not think the solution to our traffic problems can be found in more speed or that with more speed on motorways or other highways we are likely to prevent traffic blocks. We are operating a twentieth century invention, the motor vehicle, on roads which were constructed centuries ago, mainly for horse-drawn vehicles and not for motor vehicles. While we are waiting for the construction of new motorways and bypasses there are bound to be traffic jams, especially in big cities and towns.
  I do not feel that a solution is necessarily to be found in speed. I realise

  1297
  that on new motorways there will be no pedestrians, but only motorists driving buses, coaches, cars or other vehicles. By keeping pedestrians off motorways we shall not do away with accidents, however. Most motorists observe the courtesies of the road and the majority are as careful as possible. They recognise that a motor car can be a killing instrument and they drive with care. The Minister must realise, however, that a small number of motorists are inclined to take risks. When we have new well-constructed, motorways it is likely that a small minority of motorists will imagine they are on racing tracks at such places as Brooklands. That will make accidents likely. On the Preston bypass motor coaches and buses will be used by people going on holiday to Blackpool, and if some motorists use that road as a racing track there may be nasty accidents.
  Therefore, I hope that during the twelve months' experiment most careful attention will be paid to the problem of motorists who are inclined to go at speed with danger to others. I understand that the Americans call these roads toll roads and have a speed limit on them. They must have made a study of this problem to have imposed a speed limit. Western Germany were pioneers of motorways. They commenced without a speed limit. Now I understand a speed limit is imposed on commercial vehicles there. If Western Germany, after a long period of motor traffic on motorways, has imposed a speed limit, there must be some reason for taking that action. I ask the Minister to study this problem very carefully during the next twelve months.
  Road casualties must give every hon. Member very serious concern. In January of this year, 470 people were killed, as against 414 in January, 1957. In February, 1958, 368 were killed, but only 282 in February of last year. The March figures were 429 and 357 respectively. The same increases are shown in the figures of seriously injured. In the first three months of this year there were 13,248 seriously injured as compared with 11,813 in the same quarter of last year. The figures for the slightly injured were 42,794 in the first three months of this year, as compared with 36,294 in the first three months of last year.
  1298
  Each year more and more people are being killed and injured, and it is up to Parliament and the Government to pay great attention to this. The Minister is making these Statutory Instruments applicable for twelve months, but I hope that if he finds that accidents are taking place on these motorways he will amend the Regulations by imposing a speed limit, in the interests of road safety—for the protection of the travelling public, and for the motorist.
  9.55 p.m.
  Mr. Graham Page: I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Feltham (Mr. Hunter) and to develop a little further his remarks on speed, speed limits and road safety on the special motorways. This is probably the most important aspect of this debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Truro (Mr. G. Wilson) took his examples from the motorways in Western Europe, but the accident records there are not the sort we would wish to have here.
  The American turnpikes have had far greater success in reducing accidents, because restrictions are placed on the traffic using them. We have a report from Dr. Starks, of our own Road Research Laboratory, of an investigation of the American turnpike roads, and perhaps the House will bear with me if I quote from his report. We pay too little attention to the very valuable expert advice so frequently given to us on road safety matters by the Road Research Laboratory.
  In his report, Dr. Starks tells us:
  "On all existing toll roads there is a maximum speed limit ranging from 55 to 70 m.p.h. for passenger cars and from 40 to 60 m.p.h. for commercial vehicles. These maximum speeds are strictly enforced."
  Can we afford to discard the experience that the Americans have gained in the use of these special motorways and say that our drivers are so much more efficient and our cars so much more perfect than the American that we can do without a speed limit?
  I quote now from Captain Sheaffer, who is in charge of the police on the Pennsylvania turnpike. He expresses it in this way—and perhaps they are a little less squeamish in America than we are in speaking of road accidents. He says:
  "… we never get calloused to the sight of broken bodies, to the screams of the injured

  1299
  pinned in the wreckage, to the sickening smell of blood and death. And this is why we stop the speeding motorist; it isn't just to run up a record for arrests, for the best trooper is not the one who gives out the most tickets, but the one who gives the most help. Thus, the Pike's"—
  He means, of course, the Pennsylvania Turnpike:
  "fatality ratio has dropped to an all-time low for this year's first quarter—2·7 per 100 million vehicle miles …".
  That is a low accident figure. The national figure for America is over seven. Therefore, by means of a well-patrolled turnpike, with a speed limit, they have achieved an immense reduction in accidents.
  I am convinced that the special motorways can contribute to road safety, but they will not do so automatically. In his very valuable report, Dr. Starks sums it up extremely well. He says:
  "Many of the hazards which exist on other roads are absent on toll roads, but the very absence of these potential dangers, coupled with the good driving qualities and long sight distances, creates other hazards. Speeds are usually higher and are often sustained for comparatively long periods of time, and monotony, fatigue, and lack of driving skill and judgment are important factors which contribute to accidents."
  It will be seen that although by means of these special motorways we do away with certain accident factors, at the same time we create others. By statistics, of course, one could prove that a special motorway would reduce accidents by some 70 per cent. or 80 per cent. If we take a comparable road in this country and cut out all its intersections and, therefore, deduct all the accidents happening at them; if we cut out all the accidents to cyclists and to pedestrians, we can get a statistical reduction of about 75 per cent. of the accidents on that road and thus one might say that the motorway would be 75 per cent. safer. But there are these other hazards. On the American motorways they have found some of the greatest hazards in what they call sleep-outs, drivers getting drowsy from the monotony on the special motorways, and something like 37 per cent. of the accidents in one area, the Pennsylvania Turnpike, arose from that.
  They have also found on investigation that accidents due to loss of control are very high. In an investigation carried out over a period of time it was found
  1300
  that 25 per cent. of the total accidents were due to loss of control of the vehicle. In this country, only 5½ per cent. of the accidents are attributed to loss of control.
  Then again, at the ends of the turnpikes on the special motorways there are particular dangers. As every hon. Member knows, when driving any great disstance one does not realise one's speed when one comes into a built-up area, and the accidents which have occurred in America around the toll booths because cars do not pull up in time have made it necessary to build special guards and dips in the roads to prevent such accidents.
  I should have thought that in these Regulations we ought to provide for two things. We ought to provide for a speed limit, as experience shows on the American turnpikes. It may seem illogical to ask for that, because we have not a speed limit on the ordinary roads, but the ordinary roads have their natural restrictions and one cannot drive at any great speed on ordinary roads for any distance.
  On the motorways, the only limit to the speed is the capacity of the vehicle. Hon. Members have said that a driver must be relied upon to use his judgment. Frankly, I am not prepared to accept that, having regard to the number of accidents which occur at the present time through excessive speed—speed in the wrong places at the wrong time. Surely to get what several hon. Members have said that we need on these motorways, steady speed, by which I presume they mean a uniform speed, the right way is to impose an upper speed limit and keep the traffic moving evenly, by which I do not mean at a slow speed, on those roads. I should have thought that a speed limit of 70 was about right.
  On the New Jersey turnpike, there is no difference in the speed limit between private vehicles and commercial vehicles. This might be a sound idea, because we then have all the traffic moving at about the right speed, but I rather doubt whether the commercial vehicles in this country are sufficiently equipped for that at the present time. Thus, one point which, I think, ought to be included in these Regulations is a speed limit.
  The second point is a check on speed at either end of the special motorways, and, if possible, a stop, as they have for the toll roads in America, for two

  1301
  reasons: first, so that the driver has a chance of adjusting his mental attitude towards speed as he approaches a built-up area, and secondly, so that we may provide in these Instruments for examining the type of car which is going on to these roads.
  Again may I quote the Pennsylvania turnpike, where they had a war on thin tyres because they found in one period that no fewer than 69 per cent. of the accidents had been caused through bursting tyres and skidding on thin tyres. We have nothing in these Instruments to prevent the most dilapidated vehicle going on to these roads, driven at very high speeds for long distances. I am not talking only about the eight miles of Preston bypass because I believe that these Instruments will be a precedent for future regulations. I believe that we should have some check at either end, for the adjustment of the mental attitude towards speed, and someone to check up on a vehicle and, if necessary, prevent it from going on the road in a dangerous condition. I would add to the speed limit and the check a substantial patrol of the road by the police.
  Those are the two major points. There are some other points which one would have expected to find in these Statutory Instruments. Surely there should have been some prohibition on stopping. At present, as I read the Order, there is no prohibition on anybody drawing up on the actual carriageway, and if that is done it will produce most dangerous conditions. I see nothing which makes it compulsory to use the carriageways in one direction only on each side of the strip. I think the Minister needs a regulation to that effect in order to prosecute people for turning in the strip and possibly causing accidents when other vehicles are travelling at high speeds.
  There is also nothing to prevent learner drivers from using these roads. A further point which is of concern to me is that there are no regulations about the conduct of persons on foot on the roads.
  Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: Surely all these matters that my hon. Friend is referring to will be covered under Section 12 of the Special Roads Act, 1949. Regulations were laid under that Act which cover the prohibition of learner drivers, parking on roads and other matters.
  Mr. Page: That may be. But I understand that these Instruments are being brought in quickly before the end of this Session so that they will be in operation for the Preston motorway. Perhaps we shall have some further regulations on these topics.
  A matter with which I want to deal in particular is the question of restrictions on pedestrians. I can find no regulation, other than that which creates the motorway, to prevent pedestrians from using the road. How is there to be indicated to pedestrians the area which they must not use? Let us remember that we are here dealing with children and elderly people, among others. I hope it will be made clear what area is forbidden to pedestrians, as well as what is to happen to the motorist on foot when, for example, his car breaks down. I hope there will be some clear indication on these special motorways where a man must not walk, so that he may avoid being a criminal.
  We can only make these special motorways a success by carefully regulating them so that they are acceptable to the average driver and by ensuring that he will not shun them because they are just racetracks. We want them to be used fully.
  These Instruments are expressed to be experimental, only for one year. I venture to prophesy that at the end of the year my right hon. Friend the Minister will be obliged to bring in some sort of speed limit and a check on speed at either end of the motorway. In the meantime, we shall have been experimenting for these twelve months with life and limb, and it is my fear that if these Instruments are accepted for twelve months, as they are now, many people will have died and will have been injured in the course of that experiment.
  10.9 p.m.
  Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: I am happy to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page), and I should like to start by saying that I think that my hon. Friend's prophecy may well prove to be wrong. It seems to me that it is far more likely that at the end of the twelve months there will have been, relatively speaking, far fewer accidents on the motorways than on any other of the highways in this

  1303
  country. I am delighted that there is no speed limit attached. It would be quite illogical to impose a speed limit on a road specially designed for safe, fast traffic, and wholly wrong to do so, at least unless the prognostications of my hon. Friend about the danger of these roads were abundantly proved.
  There are three matters I want to deal with tonight. First, I want to answer what has been alleged against the Minister in criticism of himself and his Department, namely, that there has not been proper consultation. Two hon. Gentlemen opposite particularly made that criticism. I then wish to refer to the speed of travel on these roads and to refer to one important aspect of it, namely, what is known as lane discipline. I hope that we shall ensure that those who drive fast and those who drive slowly will adhere to their proper lanes. Thirdly, I wish to refer to the transport of heavy loads and make one or two suggestions about such loads moving at night and about the width of the vehicles involved.
  I really cannot agree at all with the criticism which has been made about prior consultation. I have some knowledge of these matters. The National Conference, of which I have the honour to be president at the present time, was consulted at the same date as was the Transport and General Workers Union. We, at a special meeting, thought that there was abundant time, in a fortnight, to consider the Measures proposed, particularly bearing in mind two factors. We are considering tonight Regulations governing only eight miles of the Preston bypass. At this time next year, we shall have an opportunity to consider the effect of them, and we shall then have an opportunity of dealing with what is of paramount importance, namely, the Regulations which will then come forward for governing the Birmingham motorway, which, I am sure, everybody is delighted to think will be opened in the autumn of next year.
  The Minister and his Department are undertaking an experiment, for a trial period. Out of courtesy, he gave an opportunity to all the appropriate organisations to tender their tentative views. They are not final views; they are tentative views. We tendered our tentative views. In our letter—it is only a matter
  1304
  of three lines—we said that we thought that the Regulations, generally speaking, were admirable. We said that as a Conference, and that is my personal view, too. Our Conference said, referring to the indivisible loads, that these
  "form an important part of the national and export trade and should be moved as quickly and efficiently as possible to destination."
  No one will disagree with that. Further, we said that
  "if one tries to assess where the greater danger to the travelling public lies, it is surely true that a large indivisible load on a narrow highway is a greater public danger than the same load on the wide motorways."
  That was an expression of view. It did not go on to say that, on balance, all these heavy indivisible loads—what my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East (Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett) called the juggernauts—should necessarily have a right of way, at all times, on these motorways.
  This is the suggestion I put to my right hon. Friend. Could not the indivisible loads, in special circumstances, be permitted to travel at night on these motorways? As I understand it, he has special powers in this respect. Very often, the police authorities are notified when such loads are to travel. They are often very heavy, long, and wide and, accordingly, notification is given of a wish to move such a load, of the route upon which it will travel and the expected time that the journey will take.
  Mr. C. R. Hobson: They get it free of charge, too.
  Mr. Rees-Davies: Yes, free of charge. It seems to me, and I hope that the House will agree, that there is room for such loads to travel at night, certainly on the particular bypass with which we are immediately concerned. I am not dealing with the general picture at the moment; I am considering this particular bypass, as an experiment, and only as an experiment.
  Might not these loads be entitled to use the Preston bypass, with notification, only at night, as an experiment? Will the Minister consider whether, where the width does not exceed 12 ft., they might be allowed to use this road, provided that they do so only at night? Could he take some general discretion himself—and, incidentally, may I ask if he has the power, because I am not sure whether he has

  1305
  or not—to permit these loads to travel in circumstances which he may lay down; that is to say, in individual cases only, in which he thinks it is proper to allow them to do so?
  Mr. Watkinson indicated assent.
  Mr. Rees-Davies: I gather my right hon. Friend can.
  Mr. Stan Awbery: The Minister is laying down a precedent with this scheme, not only for this section of road, but for any road in future, and saying that the same principle will apply.
  Mr. Rees-Davies: That is what the hon. Gentleman says, but I do not accept it. I am sure that we shall have another debate in twelve months' time on this subject. May I invite the Minister to tell the House whether we shall have the opportunity in twelve months' time to consider this matter again? When he replies, my right hon. Friend may be able to tell us whether this is the finale or merely the prologue. Perhaps he will be good enough to deal with that in his reply, because it would certainly ease the minds of many hon. Members opposite.
  I wish to conclude with some comments on the subject of speed. It seems to me that there are two considerations. On the whole, there are fast drivers and medium-pace drivers. The fast drivers will want to go on the middle lanes, and the slower drivers will want to keep to the other lanes. I do not believe in any speed limit on a road which has been designed for fast traffic. What I should like to see is that those who normally travel at 40 m.p.h. and never drive at more than 50 m.p.h., whatever opportunity arises, because they are just not capable of it, and those who are driving commercial vehicles who, for one reason or another—such as the state of the vehicle or the time permitted for a journey—do not want to travel at more than 40 m.p.h., adhere to the nearside lanes.
  One of the main causes of accidents on these motorways, particularly overseas, where there has been experience, has been the heavy vehicle which has been travelling too slowly when a third vehicle comes up suddenly to find one slow vehicle overtaking another. If one slow vehicle is overtaken by another slow vehicle, then a person who is driving at 100 miles an hour is very often catapulted
  1306
  into an accident. I would hope that we shall have good lane discipline on our motorways. If we can get this, and we can persuade those people who are driving at the more moderate speeds to adhere to the nearside lane, those who are travelling faster will be able to overtake with safety. Of course, within the next twelve months, we shall be able to have an analysis of the accidents that may occur on this bypass, and we shall be able to say whether my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) is right or whether the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet is right.
  I have always maintained that speed is not a main factor in accidents, from my own experience of accidents. My hon. Friend from his experience takes the contrary view. Well, we shall see.
  Mr. John Barter: My hon. Friend's argument would seem to apply particularly in cases where heavy vehicles overtake on an incline. I hope he will deal with that point.
  Mr. Rees-Davies: Yes, but I want to conclude what I was saying about speed with regard to heavy vehicles on the road by emphasising that if we have lane discipline, we shall succeed, because a principal cause of accidents, whether on motorways or on our antiquated roads, is the failure to keep a proper look-out. That is the cause of over four-fifths of the accidents in this country. In almost every case that comes before the courts, we find that the judgment of the judge is always the same. It is: "In this case, I find that the defendant—or the plaintiff—failed to keep a proper lookout." That is the point; it is entirely the human element which is the cause of accidents; a lack of concentration, and the fast drivers of this country are usually concentrating when driving at high speeds. For that reason, that is not the basic cause of accidents. I hope that this motorway will prove it. If over a few years the Birmingham motorway and other motorways prove this to be wrong, there will be plenty of time to introduce the necessary regulations accordingly.
  For that reason, therefore, I invite my right hon. Friend the Minister, first, to give that further opportunity next year after what I regard as good consultation now and to look particularly at the question of large loads, whether they travel by night and the question of their width and

  1307
  length, so that special consideration may be given to them travelling in exceptional circumstances.
  10.21 p.m.
  Mr. Ernest Davies: Hon. Members will agree that this has been a remarkable debate. For the last three hours, we have been discussing two Statutory Instruments of importance dealing with eight miles of special roadway. Hon. Members have expressed nearly as much interest tonight in roads as they do when there is a trip to inspect the roads which are being built on the Continent. If we have spent three hours, quite justifiably, in discussing this eight miles of road, when we have the following Order next year to discuss the 53 miles of road now being built from St. Albans to Birmingham we will be in for an all-night sitting.
  The Minister has reason to be gratified about the way the debate has run. Everybody has expressed a welcome for the fact that at long last we in this House are able to discuss Orders which apply to motorways in this country. We have had a large number of Parliamentary Questions, debates and pressure groups at work over the last few years concerning the need for motorways in this country and at long last we are able to discuss one, albeit belated, short and inadequate as it is.
  The Minister has a lot to answer when he replies. A number of different views have been expressed on both sides of the House and among his own supporters. Some, like the hon. and gallant Member for Croydon, North-East (Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett), would allow mopeds and bicycles to use these special roads. Others would allow their use for the very large, abnormal indivisible loads. The main question, however, which the Minister tonight must answer is why there was inadequate consultation with the interested parties before he laid the Order and the Regulations. Several of my hon. Friends have protested at the fact that only two weeks were available between the receipt of the draft proposals and the time limit by which a reply had to be given. I should like the Minister to explain why he limited the time in this way and whether the facts are correct. One of my hon. Friends stated that the Minister sought consultation only on 7th July and called for replies fourteen days
  1308
  later, by 21st July, and that on the following day or a day or two later the Order was laid before the House.
  I cannot understand why the Minister had to limit the time in that way. Motor roads do not grow overnight. Construction of the Preston bypass began about two years ago and the Minister knew that there would be special regulations in regard to the motorways. It was crystal clear that action had to be taken. Why did the Minister leave it until two weeks before it was necessary to lay the Order, in order to get it through the House before we adjourn for the Summer Recess, before he consulted the interested parties? I cannot understand it, and I hope that he will give us an explanation.
  The hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) considered that a fortnight was sufficient. It may be enough for the small organisation which the hon. Member represents. [HON. MEMBERS: "What organisation is it?"] The hon. Member did not inform us what the organisation was and I doubt whether any Member of the House is aware of it.
  Mr. Rees-Davies: The National Conference of Road Transport Clearing Houses reviews the position of long-distance drivers all over the country.
  Mr. Davies: It may have considered the time sufficient, but I should like to draw the attention of the Minister and of the hon. Gentleman to the fact that the British Road Federation, which represents the interest of hon. Members opposite far more than those of hon. Members on this side, also made its protest to the Minister and wrote to his Department on 14th July as follows:
  "You will recall that the urgency of settling these regulations was the subject of correspondence between us in October, 1957, and since. In any circumstances, however, it is regrettable that road-user organisations are given only 14 days in which to submit comments upon matters which are of such great importance to them. The time limit imposed gives little opportunity for detailed consideration of the proposals."
  I quote that to the Minister so that he should not be led to believe that protest has come only from trade union representatives. The short time allowed for discussion is also objected to by other organisations. It is not merely a protest on the part of the trade union which is most concerned and whose working conditions are affected by these Instruments, but also by the road users' organisations.

  1309
  I think that the Minister has acted contrary to his normal procedure. Often in this House we have had reason to attack him for being dilatory. We generally suggest that the Minister of Transport is extremely slow in attending to matters. Why on this one occasion the Minister should jump forward in this way, I cannot understand.
  The main point to bear in mind is that these Instruments are experimental. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary stressed that, and I think that the House must not overlook it. It seemed to me that many hon. Members accepted too readily the fact that these Instruments would set a precedent which would be followed with regard to other motorways. For our part, we do not wish that to happen. We consider that the nine months that this road will be open should be looked upon entirely as an experimental period and that there should be full opportunity subsequently for hon. Members and outside organisations to discuss the result of the experiment and have full opportunity for putting their views before any new Orders are laid.
  At the same time, it must be borne in mind that this experiment will be very limited, and the conditions on the eight miles of this bypass will not necessarily be comparable to the conditions which will prevail upon the London-Yorkshire motorway. After all, this Preston bypass has only two lanes in each of the dual carriageways, whereas the new motorway which is being built will have three lanes, and that makes a considerable difference, as hon. Members know, certainly in considering whether abnormal indivisible loads should be permitted on the motorway; and it has relevance to the speed limit.
  As the Joint Parliamentary Secretary said, the case for the motorways is based upon the need for a speedy flow of traffic to help industry and consequently to reduce the cost of transport, which is a very important factor with regard to the export market. Any restrictions which militate against the fulfilment of the objectives of the motorway must be fully justified, either on economic or safety grounds. That is the test which should be applied to these Instruments, one of which restricts the type of vehicle using the roads—prohibiting mopeds and bicycles on the one hand and the large, abnormal indivisible loads on the other
  1310
  —and the other which removes the speed limit and so facilitates the flow of traffic.
  The arguments concerning whether the abnormal indivisible load should travel upon these motorways are evenly balanced. It is very difficult to decide whether or not the Minister is right in this respect. It may be that there will be an advantage in having this experiment. In one aspect of the matter I am confused. The Minister's brief intervention did not clarify the position; it made confusion worse confounded. As far as I understood it, he implied that the reason for imposing the ban was so that he could permit a certain number of loads to go upon the road for experimental purposes.
  Mr. Watkinson indicated assent.
  Mr. Davies: The Minister agrees, but is not it a fact that under the Special Roads Act, the 1930 Road Traffic Act, and the subsequent Regulations, the police and the highway authority—and the Minister is the highway authority in the case of these roads—already have full power to direct upon which roads these abnormal loads shall travel? In his speech the Joint Parliamentary Secretary confirmed that. If that is so, and it is intended that some of these abnormal loads shall travel on the motorways, why did the Order have to be introduced? Is not the existing machinery adequate for the purpose? The Minister, in consultation with the police and other responsible authorities, can decide which route abnormal loads shall use. He has that power already. It was not necessary to bring about a total prohibition, which has caused this difference of opinion in the House.
  As for the Regulations, which deal with the speed limit, the arguments deployed tonight have been evenly balanced. The House seems equally divided whether they will aid the flow of traffic without impeding safety, or whether they will add to the dangers of the road. We are not concerned with private cars—and one would have thought from some speeches that there was already a speed limit on private cars. The removal of the restrictions on this road applies only to commercial goods vehicles and public service vehicles—buses and coaches. That is very important. I am not minimising that fact, but it should be kept in its proper perspective.

  1311
  The yardstick is whether the removal of the speed limit is justified on economic grounds, to facilitate a steady flow of traffic, and whether it can also be justified on grounds of safety. Can it be shown that it will not increase the danger on the roads? It is also incumbent upon those who urge a speed limit to show that it is enforceable. Nothing could be worse than that the traffic laws should be unenforceable, and thus come into disrepute, with the motorist ignoring the rules and regulations. The ideal would be for each vehicle to travel at a speed which was safe for it. In other words, it would be better if it could be left to the drivers to decide what was the safe speed at which to travel. Unfortunately, the behaviour of drivers up to now has proved otherwise, and I believe that the question whether a speed limit should or should not be introduced is bound to be decided upon the behaviour of the motorists using the motorways.
  Experience has shown, unfortunately, that a normally quite sensible person can become almost insane when he gets his hands on a steering wheel, that even the most patient of people, whether they be anglers or even bird watchers, become impatient of delay and intolerant of obstruction and demons for speed when they substitute a driver's seat for the river bank or the forest hide-out. I wonder what these motorists who like high speeds will do with the few minutes per hour which they gain.
  As far as the lorry driver is concerned—and he is the person who will be most affected by the removal of the speed restriction—he is the least susceptible to this temptation. He is the best driver on the roads. Tribute has frequently been paid in the House to the very high standard of driving of the lorry drivers. I will not say that the lorry driver never exceeds the speed limit, but I believe that he is able to judge for himself not only whether the policeman is behind him—he can see that in his mirror—but also whether he can maintain a proper standard of safety when travelling at a higher speed.
  It must be remembered that the present speed restriction imposed upon the lorry driver is due to the inadequacy of the roads upon which he travels. On our present roads, with their numerous intersections, bends and gradients, it just is not safe for him to travel at more than
  1312
  30 m.p.h. except in the open stretches of country.
  We must also keep in mind the nature of these motorways. There are no intersections, there is good vision the whole way, the curves are of such a nature that the vision remains good, the gradients are slight and there is generally a high standard of construction. All these things increase the safety of vehicles travelling at high speed.
  It may well be that it will be safe for lorries and buses to travel at high speeds on these motorways, especially in view of the fact that the drivers responsible have such high standards to maintain. I would suggest, however, that if it is deemed necessary to impose a speed limit it should be higher than 30 m.p.h., or, to put it the other way round, that we should consider whether it is necessary or desirable to jump in one go from 30 m.p.h. to no restriction at all.
  I think the case could well be made for fixing a maximum speed of 40 or 50 m.p.h. for commercial vehicles, but whether they should be completely and immediately released from any restriction at all is, I believe, open to question.
  When the speed limit was raised from 20 to 30 m.p.h. for heavy vehicles, we on this side of the House opposed that change, not on principle but because agreement had not been reached between the employers and the unions as to the new schedules which it would be necessary to operate if full advantage was to be taken of the higher limit. We have been proved absolutely right in the decision we took that night. We decided to oppose it on those grounds; and agreement has not yet been reached between the road hauliers, the employers and the unions, and the vehicles are still operating on a 20 m.p.h. speed limit and not 30. Equally the Minister is to blame. If he had given more time for consultation and discussion, it would have been easier for the unions and the employers to debate this question, rather than that they should suddenly have it imposed on them in this way. I think the right hon. Gentleman has treated them disgracefully in that respect.
  It is the responsibility of the operators to agree with the drivers of these vehicles on sound and realistic schedules. If the speed limit is removed, the drivers must be protected against the greater dangers which may arise from its removal. There

  1313
  have been different views expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House, but it is necessary again to stress that hon. Members on this side of the House insist on regarding this as entirely an experimental matter. I hope the Minister will repeat the assurance given by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary that before he makes any further regulations there will be full opportunity for hon. Members to express their opinions so that experience can be fully discussed and lessons learned from it. We need an assurance that the right hon. Gentleman will not again present us with a fait accompli as he has on this occasion.
  Well reasoned and sincere speeches have been made by my hon. Friends, and a good case made out against several aspects of these Instruments, and, in particular, about the failure of the Minister to consult the unions concerned. A good case could be made out for dividing the House as a protest. However, in view of the differing opinions which have been expressed, which I hope the Minister will take into account, and the experimental nature of these Instruments, we do not propose to divide the House; but it must not be taken that we accept these Regulations and this Order as a precedent, or that the party on this side of the House is committed to the policy set out in them. We are, for instance, not committing ourselves to a policy of never having speed limits on the motorways.
  The only gratifying feature of these Instruments is that they are necessary because the motorway is to come into use before the next Session of Parliament. In its length and breadth it is pitifully inadequate to meet the needs of the country. But it represents a beginning and is welcomed as an example of the shape of roads to come.
  10.45 p.m.
  The Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Harold Watkinson): I quite accept the views which the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) has put forward, but I think I can give one or two assurances which should help the House.
  First, I shall deal with the question of consultation. My Ministry, with its many experienced experts, has had contacts and discussions on this matter literally for years. Over the past twelve months I have been trying to make up my mind.
  1314
  I have had talks with many people. I have been to Germany, the United States and to France in the past two years to see what they are doing there. The more I have gone into this, and the more advice I have had from my experts—and no one is better versed in all this—the more sure I have become that one cannot make sensible, final regulations on this matter until we have had some experience in this country of using a motor road.
  Our habits here are not the same as those of the Americans and Germans when driving cars. We would be quite wrong and would run the risk of doing something stupid if we went ahead and made permanent regulations. That is the answer on consultation, which has been shown by the amount of contrary advice I have received tonight. There has been no common view on either side of the House and there is no politics in this. Everyone has his own views, based on guesswork and not on experience. I do not complain about that; it is inevitable at the moment.
  That is why I was advised by my Ministry, and came to my own conclusion, that we would be wrong to launch out on permanent legislation until we had some experience. I know that eight miles of twin track road is not a great deal from which to gain experience, but it will at least provide a pilot scheme. The first thing I want to make plain to the House is that because I feel consultation, although we have had a great deal, could not bring us to any sort of final conclusion, the right thing to do was to limit these Statutory Instruments so that they must run out before the next section of motor road comes into operation. That is what I have done. I have limited them to end in August next year, just before the London to Birmingham motorway will probably be ready for use. They are subject to affirmative Resolutions, which means that the whole matter has to be debated again in this House.
  These Instruments do not set a precedent, but merely enable us, as the hon. Member for Enfield, East fairly said, to carryout a necessary experiment. In my view, the right time for consultation will be over the next twelve months, when we shall be gaining experience and using this section of road as a pilot scheme. We shall need consultation and help from the police, local authorities, road haulage interests, trade unions and a great many others. It will be very welcome, the

  1315
  more so because then it will be based on practical experience. I certainly undertake to the House to say that we are not setting a precedent for motor roads as a whole, but enabling an experiment to be carried out on this particular road.
  Why is it necessary? For this reason; there might come a time when we would want to use this road at a week-end, or perhaps for a week, for private cars only, to see what sort of flow we get under those conditions. I certainly intend to see it used by vehicles with indivisible loads. We can control their use and, if we do not want them on the road, we have power to provide that.
  Mr. Ernest Davies: The right hon. Gentleman said that at some week-ends he might try to have only private cars using the road. By what powers can he do that?
  Mr. Watkinson: I hope I shall have power to do that. Although this road is a very valuable by-pass and a useful addition to our road structure, we want to look at it as a motor road on which to base longer term plans, not only on how to use the roads but for road signs and a great many other things. I am grateful to the local authority and the police in that area of Lancashire, who have offered co-operation in this most important work. I ant to try as many combinations and permutations of traffic on this piece of road as we can in the hope that when we come to the House with more permanent regulations in six to nine months time they will be based on really wide knowledge and practical experience.
  I do not at all accept the criticism that we have not carried out proper consultation. I agree that it has been of a formal nature, because the time for consultation is now coming, if this House passes these Regulations, and when we are prepared for the opening of the road this autumn. We will then welcome the maximum co-operation, of a practical nature, as the road is being used.
  That, too, will go for this difficult question of the speed limit. I am sure that it would be wrong to start our experiments with some sort of arbitrary limit. It is the experience of almost everyone to whom I have talked that if we can manage without a speed limit, we can get what we must have—the maximum throughput on this road.
  1316
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Truro (Mr. G. Wilson) has said, these roads are costing more than a quarter of a million pounds a mile. They will not pay a dividend, and particularly the commercial dividend that we want, unless we can push through them, as through a pipeline, the maximum volume of traffic flowing at an economical speed. If we try to say that one sort of traffic must go at one speed and another must go at another speed we will delay the very thing that we want, which is to carry the maximum economic load.
  There is the same difficulty with the indivisible load. My hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) rightly interpreted my present view, which is that an indivisible load that is not more than, say, 11 ft. or 12 ft. wide does not present such great difficulty, because it fits on one lane, and its length, weight and height are not such significant problems. The difficulty is with the abnormal load that closes more than one lane because on this type of two-lane road it will close over half the road, and traffic in one direction will be completely bottled up behind it. However, as I have said, I have not a closed mind on this. We must experiment, and see how we get on.
  Therefore, all I ask the House to do tonight is to pass these Regulations in the sense, first, that we will welcome anyone's help to get this thing right, because it is entirely new ground and it is very important that we should get it right. Secondly, I am not asking the House to bind itself for the future, but only to enable us to carry out this experiment. It will all have to be debated again; more affirmative Resolutions will have to be laid before the House, and the House will have the opportunity to reject or to accept them. These present Resolutions must fall by September of next year—
  Mr. Ernest Davies: The Minister says that we will have the opportunity to accept or reject them, but we say that when the experiment has taken place we should have an opportunity to express our views before an Order is laid, because, once presented, we have to accept Orders or reject them.
  Mr. Watkinson: I quite see the hon. Gentleman's point, but I think I have met the point made by him and by other hon. Members in saying that in the next

  1317
  nine months there will be the maximum opportunity for practical consultation on the spot, which will, I hope, play a good part in shaping the Resolutions. But if the hon. Gentleman says that we would prefer some sort of general debate before the Orders are laid, I will take note of that. It is not, of course, a matter for me to decide but for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. If what the hon. Gentleman wants is a general debate, I will undertake to report his wish to the Leader of the House. I am anxious only that this thing should work. If it does not, it will not pay us the maximum dividend.
  As to the contrary advice I have received—
  Mr. Prentice: I wonder if the right hon. Gentleman could give a further undertaking? When fuller Regulations are provided, will they be sent to the interested parties in time to give them a period longer than a fortnight in which to make their comments?
  Mr. Watkinson: Certainly, but this is now a continuous progress. These are not the binding Regulations, except for the purpose of this experiment. We shall want to talk with all the interested parties involved, and ask them, "If you do not want it done in this way, how do you want it done?". For example, I want to have talks on indivisible loads, in order to see if there is a better system for getting them on the road, and, perhaps, of keeping some loads off it which would tend to lose us the economic dividend which the road should bring us.
  Neither I, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, nor my Department has a closed mind on this, but open minds. We have nine to twelve months of very hard work ahead, and if it is thought right to consult the House before considering anything specific, steps will be taken accordingly.
  To sum up on the quite naturally conflicting advice that I have had from both sides of the House, I will take careful note of it, but I do not think I will be bound by it, nor do I think that I should be, until we have had a chance of opening this road and using it as a pilot scheme. We are trying to prepare for this great road programme for which the country should thank the Government. We have put an immense amount of capital into it. I believe that it will pay a very good dividend, but only if we get the maximum
  1318
  throughput on these new roads. If we get the wrong balance of speed or of load, so that we tend to hold up traffic rather than keep it flowing smoothly, we shall have accidents and we shall fail to get the results for which we had hoped.
  I ask for the help of those who have expert knowledge and who are interested in this matter. If we can approach it in that way, these great new roads which are to come will really be a revolution in transport and really will pay the nation a very good dividend. For that reason, I ask the House to approve these Statutory Instruments.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the Special Roads (Classes of Traffic) Order, 1958, dated 22nd July, 1958, a copy of which was laid before this House on 22nd July be approved.
  Motor Vehicles (Speed Limit on Special Roads) Regulations, 1958, dated 22nd July, 1958 [copy laid before the House on 22nd July], approved.—[Mr. Watkinson.]

  ROAD ACCIDENTS, SUTTON BYPASS
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Oakshott.]
  10.57 p.m.
  Mr. Richard Sharples: I am grateful for the opportunity which has been given to me tonight to raise a matter which is of particular importance in the constituency which I have the honour to represent, namely, the number of traffic accidents which have taken place on the Sutton bypass.
  The Sutton bypass was opened in 1928 at a time when there was still an area which was not built up between the town of Sutton and the village of Cheam. At that time Sutton and Cheam had not been amalgamated into a single urban district, and it was not until six years later in 1934 that the district was made into a municipal borough. After the construction of this road, ribbon development was allowed to take place along almost the whole length of the bypass, and today the entire area which lies between Sutton and Cheam is completely built up. The Sutton bypass now bisects the Borough itself, passing right through the centre of the constituency which I represent.
  In addition to the building which has

  1319
  taken place on either side of the bypass, the volume of traffic has increased enormously on the bypass itself by reason of the development which has taken place in areas further to the south; and traffic coming from London has, therefore, to pass along the bypass to go into these areas in southern Surrey and Sussex.
  The bypass remains exactly as it did when it was first opened in 1928, and it has not been improved in any substantial way in order to take account of modern traffic needs. It starts off as a four-lane highway, and then at a point at which there is a dangerous intersection and a hump-backed bridge it suddenly turns into a three-lane road. There is no central division between the lanes on the four-lane section, and there is a very unsatisfactory system of bollards and lamp posts which are spaced at irregular intervals, and which are held by many people to be more frequently the cause of accidents than a means of assisting in their prevention.
  As this road passes through the centre of the borough there is, of course, a considerable volume of local traffic which has to pass from one side of the bypass to the other and also a considerable amount travelling along the bypass itself for short lengths. Its total length is less than three-and-a-half miles and there are no fewer than thirty-six side roads abutting directly on the main road, whilst at only three of the intersections are there traffic lights.
  A very high proportion of the accidents on the bypass have involved traffic that has been coming in from one of the side roads or trying to leave the bypass and turning right in doing so. I have examined the records of accidents and it is astonishing how many accidents have been caused in this way by traffic turning right.
  The number of accidents—which continues to rise—is a cause of considerable concern to my constituents. During the period June, 1955, to May, 1958—for which I have been supplied with all the details of all the accidents involving injury or death—there have been 148 such accidents in which seven people have been killed and 227 injured. A high proportion were in fact seriously injured. That number of accidents is quite staggering considering the short length of road involved.
  1320
  Almost every week one reads reports in the local Press of the mounting toll of dead and injured on this section of road. A very high proportion of the victims are people living in my constituency who have to pass from one side of the road to the other in their normal daily business.
  When the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee was considering the introduction of a 40 m.p.h. speed limit it included part of the Sutton bypass in Part B of its recommendation in Appendix Three of its Report. In page 47 of its report, headed
  "Suggested modifications on other roads brought to the Committee's attention
  (1) Roads for which a 40 m.p.h. speed limit is suggested for consideration"
  in paragraph 16, it suggested Dunstan's Hill, and the Sutton and Cheam A217 from Collingwood Road to Alberta Avenue, whose present status is unrestricted.
  In the main part of its recommendations in paragraph 168 it said:
  "The conclusions of the Committee and of the sub-group, set out in Appendices 2 and 3, were reached only after inspection of the roads and consideration of such information as was available to it as to traffic volumes, incidence of accidents, etc., and of the suggestions made to the Committee in evidence. Deliberately, however, there had been no attempt to fix the exact details of the proposed limits until the local authorities concerned have had a chance to express their views."
  On the publication of that Report the Borough Council of Sutton and Cheam expressed its views in no uncertain terms. On 24th October, 1956, it recommended in a letter to the Surrey County Council that the portion of the bypass road between Sutton Common Road and Hillside Road be included in the limit of 40 m.p.h., but unfortunately this proposal did not receive the support of the County Council. On 31st December, 1956, a letter from the Town Clerk of the Sutton and Cheam Borough Council was sent to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation. After expressing disappointment at the lack of support from the Surrey County Council, the letter concluded by saying:
  "I am to advise you that the Council are of the opinion that a speed limit of 40 miles-per-hour should be imposed between Sutton Common Road and Hillside Road."
  Since that time, the number of traffic accidents on this road has continued to rise. On 2nd May this year, a further approach was made. The Borough Council wrote direct to the Surrey County Council, and also to the Ministry with a

  1321
  request that a speed limit of 40 m.p.h. should be introduced on that portion of the bypass from its commencement at the Rosehill roundabout to its junction with Hillside Road, Cheam. The Rosehill roundabout is where the bypass begins. A speed limit covering that portion of the road would take in the section from the beginning of the bypass until after the worst points for traffic crossing it are passed.
  To the best of my knowledge, there the matter rests. The volume of traffic using the bypass and trying to cross from one side to the other continues to increase, and the toll of accidents continues to rise. Yet the bypass remains unrestricted, without, to any substantial degree, having been modernised or brought up to the standard which modern traffic requires. Every week, I read in the local Press reports of accidents involving death or injury to my constituents.
  I ask my hon. Friend to consider very carefully what I have said tonight, and I want him to do two things. First, will he see whether it is possible for a 40 m.p.h. limit to be introduced, at the very least on the busiest section of the road to which I referred, before the toll of accidents rises still further? Secondly, will he examine carefully the whole design of this dangerous and out-of-date road and consider what can be done to bring it up to the standard required for modern traffic conditions?
  11.7 p.m.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. G. R. H. Nugent): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Sharples) on his good fortune in securing the Adjournment debate tonight to ventilate the complaint of Sutton and Cheam and the problem on the Sutton bypass. As I listened to his criticisms of this bypass and of its construction—how it was built in 1928, and is today appallingly out of date—I wished that there was no other road in the country which had been built before 1928. Bless my soul: there are many which were built in about 1828 and we are still having to do the best we can with them. The fact is that, although this road is not perfect, compared with average standards it is a very modern road indeed, and I wish that we had no worse bypass than this in or about many of our towns. Leaving that aside, I sympathise with my
  1322
  hon. Friend very much in the accident record on this road. It is high, and it it a matter for concern. I sympathise with his reaction and his wish to see something done to reduce the level of accidents there. It really does not follow, however, that a 40 m.p.h. speed limit such as he requests would necessarily have this result.
  I will say a word or two about speed limits generally. There is a continuous demand for new speed limits or extended speed limits all over the country—usually, of course, from people asking for 30 m.p.h. limits, but now for 40 m.p.h. speed limits also. I should not exaggerate if I said that, if we in the Ministry agreed to every request for a 30 m.p.h. limit or a 40 m.p.h. speed limit which came to us. it would not be many years before all the roads of the country were covered by either 30 m.p.h. limits or 40 m.p.h. limits and we were more or less back to the position we were in in the 'thirties when there was a general speed limit of 30 m.p.h. over the country.
  The fact is that speed limits are effective only if they can be enforced; and, with the best will in the world, the police cannot enforce them—and they are certainly most conscientious in trying to enforcethem—unless the limits command the co-operation of the average motorist. If he accepts them as being reasonable, then the exceptional motorist who disobeys the law is easily picked out. I assure my hon. Friend that we in the Ministry must be most economical in the use of this very valuable road safety measure if we are not literally to debase the currency and lose the co-operation of road drivers generally.
  The 40 m.p.h. limit was introduced with this very thought in mind; for, although the 30 m.p.h. limit is well observed in the middle of towns, it is not so well observed on the periphery. There has been an increasing enforcement problem over recent years, and it was then considered that it might be possible to introduce an intermediate stage between the 30 m.p.h. limit and derestriction; that is, on roads not sufficiently built up for the average motorist to co-operate with the 30 m.p.h. limit, but still not open enough for complete derestriction.
  We started the experiment last March, to see if it was possible to introduce this new feature which would result in a better observance of the limit, with

  1323
  general co-operation from drivers and a less difficult task for the police. But already we have had complaints that in the use of the 40 m.p.h. limit we have made fresh impositions rather than relaxations; in other words, we have imposed more 40 m.p.h. limits on previously derestricted roads than we have relaxed by going from 30 to 40 m.p.h. That is what is stated to have happened in this process. Therefore, we are in danger of defeating our own ends unless we are very careful where we impose these 40 m.p.h. limits. If we are to get any value at all out of speed limits nationally we have to be very cautious about imposing new ones.
  The London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee has been most helpful by making a most careful survey of the Greater London area in an effort to get value out of the experiment, and this Sutton bypass road, south from Rosehill roundabout is an open stretch of road; the first open stretch for drivers coming out of London and except for the railway bridge, south of the Cheam road, it is a four-lane road throughout. Visibility is good, and it would be very difficult to get the average motorist to give a reasonable degree of co-operation to the speed limit suggested. It is a class one road and, throughout discussions, the Surrey County Council has advised against a speed limit, no doubt for the reasons which I have mentioned.
  The fact that the accident record is a high one is a matter for concern, but I would point out that of the 35 injury accidents which have occurred in the last six months on the whole three-and-a-half miles, no fewer than 14 were due to motorists turning right without exercising sufficient care. A good deal of the trouble is due to the junctions. There is, however, very little to show that speed was the primary cause of the accidents. Our observations on the road confirm this and indicate that traffic usually travels there between 40 and 50 m.p.h., not at very high speeds.
  We have tried to do something to help at the main road junctions. Traffic lights have recently been modified to include an all-red phase, which will help pedestrians and turning traffic, and I hope that we shall see some benefit from that in the coming months. The installations
  1324
  in the centre of the carriageway have caused trouble, and except at the road junctions they have all now been removed; these must of course be left to help pedestrians who are crossing.
  I accept that the road is not perfect, judged by modern standards. There is not sufficient carriageway width for a central reserve and two two-lane carriageways. The cost of widening the road to give that would be very heavy and there is no immediate prospect of it with the huge arrears of road work which we have to carry out. We have established a new experimental island layout at the Brighton Road junction and I hope that it may be the forerunner of improved design of islands at other junctions on the road.
  It is true that in the Report of the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee on the lengths of road which should be considered, this length was included for consideration for a 40 m.p.h. limit, but it was included only for consideration. The fact is that that Committee has twice considered it, in two different schedules, and in the event has decided not to include it in either. The fact that it did not advise us to put a 40 m.p.h. limit on this length of road, combined with the Surrey County Council's opposition to a limit, must weigh heavily in the scales against the view expressed by my hon. Friend, which, I know, Sutton and Cheam Borough Council strongly holds.
  This Adjournment debate tonight is the first time that my hon. Friend has brought the matter to my attention. Although I cannot give him any immediate hope of a 40 m.p.h. limit there, I undertake, now that he has represented it to me so cogently and eloquently, to watch the situation. I undertake to have it considered again when we review the working of the 40 m.p.h. limit at the end of the experimental period, which we shall do in the next six or twelve months, and when we consider whether is should be extended elsewhere and what provision is needed in the London area. That I will certainly do and I will give full weight to my hon. Friend's representations and to the strongly-held views of the Sutton and Cheam Borough Council.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at eighteen minutes past Eleven o'clock.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Derelict Aerodrome Sites
  Derelict Aerodrome Sites
  EURATOM
  EURATOM
  SUMMIT CONFERENCE
  SUMMIT CONFERENCE
ATOMIC ENERGY
  Information (Declassification)
  Information (Declassification)
  Dounreay Breeder Reactor and Nuclear Submarine Machinery
  Dounreay Breeder Reactor and Nuclear Submarine Machinery
CYPRUS
  Press Censorship
  Press Censorship
  Turkish Cypriots (Terrorists)
  Turkish Cypriots (Terrorists)
BRITISH GUIANA
  Employment
  Employment
  Swiss Bank Corporation (Loan)
  Swiss Bank Corporation (Loan)
  Development Plan (Loan)
  Development Plan (Loan)
COLONIAL TERRITORIES
  Council of Europe (Recommendations)
  Council of Europe (Recommendations)
ADEN PROTECTORATE
  Economic Development
  Economic Development
LAHEJ
  Payments
  Payments
NORTHERN RHODESIA AND NYASALAND
  Emergency Laws
  Emergency Laws
  Education
  Education
  Lusaka Medical Aid Society
  Lusaka Medical Aid Society
SIERRA LEONE
  Illicit Diamond Mining
  Illicit Diamond Mining
  Reserves (Securities)
  Reserves (Securities)
SIERRA LEONE AND BRITISH GUIANA
  Development Projects
  Development Projects
KENYA
  Prisoners, Lokitaung (Letter)
  Prisoners, Lokitaung (Letter)
  LONDON ELECTRICITY BOARD (CONTRACTING SECTION)
  LONDON ELECTRICITY BOARD (CONTRACTING SECTION)
  COURTS (PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES)
  COURTS (PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES)
MINISTRY OF WORKS
  Big Ben
  Big Ben
SCOTLAND
  Dundee
  Dundee
  River Dee (Salmon Disease)
  River Dee (Salmon Disease)
  Royal Highland and Agricultural Society Shows
  Royal Highland and Agricultural Society Shows
  Part-Time Education (Releases)
  Part-Time Education (Releases)
  Hospitals (Doctors and Nurses)
  Hospitals (Doctors and Nurses)
  Prestwick Bypass
  Prestwick Bypass
  Kingsway, East Kilbride
  Kingsway, East Kilbride
  Congested Districts Act (Schemes)
  Congested Districts Act (Schemes)
  Murders
  Murders
  Law of Succession
  Law of Succession
  Fishing Industry (Mallaig Harbour)
  Fishing Industry (Mallaig Harbour)
  Pig Progeny Testing Station (Fire)
  Pig Progeny Testing Station (Fire)
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Commonwealth Goods
  Commonwealth Goods
  Dollar Imports (Chemicals)
  Dollar Imports (Chemicals)
  Machinery Imports
  Machinery Imports
  Flower Bulbs
  Flower Bulbs
  Hong Kong Textiles
  Hong Kong Textiles
  Industrial Development, Dorset
  Industrial Development, Dorset
  Regent Oil Company
  Regent Oil Company
  World Trade (United Kingdom Share)
  World Trade (United Kingdom Share)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  £ Sterling (Value)
  £ Sterling (Value)
  Public Works Loan Board (Interest Rates)
  Public Works Loan Board (Interest Rates)
  National Insurance Payments (Tax Relief)
  National Insurance Payments (Tax Relief)
  Regent Oil Company
  Regent Oil Company
  Customs and Excise (Charges)
  Customs and Excise (Charges)
  SUMMIT CONFERENCE (MR. KHRUSHCHEV'S LETTER)
  SUMMIT CONFERENCE (MR. KHRUSHCHEV'S LETTER)
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Precriptions (Charges)
  Precriptions (Charges)
  Royal Commission on Population (Recommendation)
  Royal Commission on Population (Recommendation)
  Home Help Schemes
  Home Help Schemes
  Charing Cross Hospital
  Charing Cross Hospital
WIRELESS AND TELEVISION
  Reception, Swindon
  Reception, Swindon
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Probation Officers
  Probation Officers
MINISTRY OF SUPPLY
  N.A.39 Aircraft
  N.A.39 Aircraft
TRANSPORT
  Diesel-Electric Trains (The Highlands)
  Diesel-Electric Trains (The Highlands)
  Forth and Severn Bridges
  Forth and Severn Bridges
  Fishing Vessels, Mallaig Harbour
  Fishing Vessels, Mallaig Harbour
Preamble
The House met at half past eleven of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers

  THE INTERNATIONAL SITUATION: THE MIDDLE EAST
  11.35 a.m.
  Debate resumed (according to Order), on the Motion moved yesterday by Lord Henderson: That there be laid before the House Papers relating to the international situation, with special reference to the situation in the Middle East.
  EARL ATTLEE: My Lords, yesterday the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, made a very complete and admirable speech expounding the position of the Labour Opposition on these matters. He stressed, I think rightly, the need for getting as much agreement as possible. That note was struck again by the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham. I do not intend to be controversial this morning. We had an interesting debate last night, illumined particularly, I thought, by speeches of great knowledge from Lord Jellicoe and Lord Lloyd. I cannot pretend to anything like their knowledge of the Middle East, but I have had occasion to consider these matters and should like to offer one or two reflections to the House.
  It was obvious that the Middle East was a weak point in the line of the West. When the cold war started, Russia was stopped at Berlin by the Berlin air-lift and in the Far East by Korea; but it was quite obvious that a weak point there in the South was open to her for intrigue. I have no doubt that she took full advantage of it. At the same time, I believe that it is a great mistake to overestimate the extent to which the troubles in the Near East are due to Russian intrigue. We are inclined to think that our friends across the Atlantic are rather apt to overstress Russian intrigue. Our weakness in the Near East was that we had a number of States, most of them fairly backward, with no democracy. After all, there is no democracy in Asia except that which was planted by us, the British,
  328
  in India, Pakistan, Burma, and the rest. There was no democracy, only semi-feudal States. Inevitably, after the First World War, there were set up undemocratic States, and we depended very largely on what rulers there were in those States. Sometimes we were very fortunate: I think King Abdullah was a very fine statesman. The trouble is that too often in Asia assassination interferes with the best-laid plans, as we have seen again from the assassinations in Iraq. I was inclined to say "Put not your trust in princes", not because we did not trust the princes but because their position was so uncertain. I would also say, "Put not your trust in Colonels or Generals". I think their position is equally uncertain.
  However, the position was that we had set up a series of States, and, as has been said, it is in our interest to preserve order in that area. That is true. But beneath this election of semi-despotic States there were very disturbing movements—Pan-Asianism and Pan-Arabianism; and also the impact of sudden and unexpected wealth. I agree that in these circumstances it has been very difficult for any Government in this country to act. They are bound to form alliances with rulers. Yet it may be found that those rulers have not the support of the people of their country. I think we need to be rather careful in this matter. I notice that it has been reiterated in the speeches from the Government Bench that our British interest is peace, tranquillity and stability. That must not be pressed too far, because when one talks about the overthrowing of established States it is often difficult to tell whether that is due to outside propaganda or to the boiling up of the feeling of the people themselves.
  It rather reminds one of an historic parallel—the position of Europe in the 1830's. There you had a whole series of States nicely laid out by the Congress of Vienna, and you had bubbling up there liberalism and nationalism. Prince Metternich naturally wanted stability and everything kept the same; yet there was this movement, and I have no doubt that he felt that British propaganda for freedom and nationalism was extremely inconvenient. You might compare that position with the position in, say, Italy. There, quite respectable people were ruling, as in Tuscany; but the fact was that the Italian feeling of nationalism

  329
  was growing. You might compare Egypt with Piedmont from the point of view of other States. One must not look too closely and imagine that these troubles in the Near East are all due to Russian intrigue. What we have to do, I think, is to keep our minds very flexible and to remember that the frontiers laid down for, let us say, Iraq are not necessarily the right ones. Jordan was a subsequent creation. There again there is the question of whether Jordan is a viable State on its own. Maybe we need to create a greater one. Therefore, I think that when we profess that we need stability, it must be stability with flexibility.
  There is one matter on which we must stand firm, and that is on the question of Israel. I believe that, from the point of view of purely British interests, the creation of a national home was a mistake in British policy; but it has been done and we cannot now allow Israel to be swept away. It would be an enormous advantage if we could get the Russians as well as ourselves to recognise that Israel is here and that it has to remain. Undoubtedly, as the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, pointed out, it is the existence of Israel that has been one of the great stimuli of Arab nationalism. But while we say that, we must also remember, as was pointed out on the other side yesterday, that nationalism is often apt to run into imperialism and aggression. Therefore, it should be clearly said to Israel that her State must be confined within certain frontiers and that we can no more support Israeli aggression than we can support Arab attacks on Israel. That is one of the points of stability on which we ought to insist.
  The question is, of course: Can we get any agreement with Russia? It is pointed out that our interests do not really clash, but the Middle East may be used as a pawn in the game. I myself should like to see rather more British leading. I am afraid that our American friends do not have the wealth of experience, such as we in this country can command, on the Middle East problems. I am inclined to think that they are not always very wise in their approach to these problems. Take, for instance, the proposal for a Conference. I think it is quite right that it should be under the United Nations, but I am inclined to think that the United States Government have been too insistent
  330
  on various legal points. In my time I found that there were a great many lawyers in the State Department—I do not think they were awfully good ones.
  I do not think that we should have rejected offhand the idea of a meeting in Geneva. Though the United Nations meet in New York, I am not sure that it would not have been a good thing to have borrowed accommodation from one of the other international organisations and met in Geneva. I do not think that the atmosphere in New York is necessarily very good. There is the memory of past controversies. There is a massed Press in America. There is also the fact that New York is one of the greatest Jewish cities in the whole world. I think, there, fore, that it might well have been wise if we had fallen in with the idea of a meeting in Geneva. Also, I do not know how far it is wise to emphasise that the Conference must be at the Security Council. There will be the presence of the Formosa representative instead of a representative of China, and I think that will lead to a good deal of talk about it being something like a hand-picked conference. I must say that this has impressed me. Particularly important is it that the Asiatic countries should be brought in, including India and Pakistan, because this is not just a European problem.
  I think that also there is a tendency to go off on smaller points and perhaps lose the main thread. The Times yesterday had a good leading article entitled, "Going Round the Mulberry Bush." I think that there is a little bit of "going round the mulberry bush." I think that we must not take too seriously the abuse that we get in all Russian communications. We must remember that they have not a great deal of manners. I think that we should disregard this abuse. There was a Prime Minister, Lord Melbourne, who always used the word "damned" before he said anything about any man or any purpose. Someone once said to him, "Let us just assume that we are all damned to start with." I think that, when dealing with the Russians, we have to assume that we are going to be abused to start with, and not take too much notice. Perhaps the legal department of the State Department is apt to take up these little irrelevant points of abuse. We want to go for the substance.

  331
  If we can get a conference, I say that we should be very flexible on these matters. We have to remember that if we try to stand pat, let us say, in support of certain States in Asia which the Russians regard as our satellites, we also encourage the Russians to stand firm with regard to their satellites. Therefore, I think that so far as we can we should have a complete disinterestedness in this region. We are interested in oil—so are other countries interested in oil—but there is no reason at all why our political interests should go with our economic interests. Arab nationalism may endure or it may not. In the past there have been great divisions amongst the Arabs, between the Sunites and Husseinites and others. I do not think we ought to encourage these divisions. I should like to see a great Arabia entirely free from pressure from ourselves, the Americans or the Russians. I think it might be a point of stability in the modern world.
  I am not going to talk on the matters of Suez, the troops in the Lebanon or the troops in Jordan, but I think they reinforce the need that has been so often expressed for a United Nations force. Years ago, between the wars, I was a strong supporter of Lord Davies, as was Sir Winston Churchill, in his demend for an international force. The events of the past few years have shown abundantly the need for an independent force. I hope that that will be pressed as far as possible by our Government, because I think that these difficulties will always arise where forces are put in to support order and the rule of law but are inevitably connected with the interests of the particular State to which they belong. We meet, my Lords, at an anxious time. We all wish our Government and the Prime Minister success in these negotiations; and the Prime Minister can speak on these matters with far more general support than has been available for many years.
  11.52 a.m.
  LORD REA: My Lords, I would start by apologising to your Lordships, and particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, for not being able to be in my place yesterday, but I have had the advantage of reading in Hansard the most interesting speeches that have so far been made. It has been pointed out by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord
  332
  Hailsham, I think rightly, that the delicacy of the international negotiations now continuing makes it very necessary that our criticisms and suggestions in this House even now should be circumspect, and not hypothetical or too specific upon matters whose full implication can, by the nature of political diplomacy, be assessed only by those Governments dealing with those matters at first hand and day to day.
  It is in that context that I should like to repeat my conviction that the action taken by Her Majesty's Government recently in the Middle East cannot be condemned in isolation; and although my Party and I do not support the declared policy of Her Majesty's Government in the Middle East so far as it has manifested itself in the past, nor their future policy so far as it can be understood—and I appreciate that it has not yet crystallised or recrystallised for the future—I regard the intervention in Jordan as one immediately based on motives of humanity and of rallying to the physical rather than the political support of human beings in danger of their lives. Whether the political results are judged as good or evil or non-existent is a totally different matter; and these aspects are at the moment very much sub judice. But until I have evidence to the contrary, I am prepared to believe that our response to an urgent call for physical help was made primarily to save the City of Amman from being sacked, to prevent the disruption of Amman airfield and to save from massacre a number of human beings, whatever their political colour and however representative or unrepresentative they may have been as a Government or as a Monarchy.
  It is sometimes argued that we have no proof that such a catastrophe would have occurred. To that argument I would reply, first, that the Baghdad Radio made it clear that trouble was brewing and would come to a head; and secondly, that in the event, so far as I know, not a life has been lost, not a shot has been fired, and so far from being aggressors, as some of us think this country was in a military sense at least in the Suez crisis, our intention has been and is purely preventive: to hold a dangerous situation in check—and at the invitation of the Government in power—and to gain breathing space, not to

  333
  formulate a policy but to enable a constitutional rather than a military solution to be sought. We may, indeed, only have postponed the trouble by our action, but, even so, surely such a postponement is praiseworthy and not blameworthy.
  The justification for this examination to-day of the present situation seems to me not to rest on the incidents earlier in this month but upon the degree of responsibility which this country bears for the general situation of unrest in the Arab world. It strikes me as a matter for astonishment that Great Britain, with its immense experience ranging over five or six hundred years of meeting and dealing with peoples of all races and religions, should so confuse what is desirable with what actually exists. By education and by precept we have brought many less advanced peoples to a newer and less primitive outlook, both culturally and politically. But no education will turn the instincts, deep-seated beliefs and psychological trends of a completely different race into Anglo-Saxon channels.
  They can be moulded and guided by us and other States of the West into what we believe to be a better, happier and more worth-while way of life, but I think we should never lose sight of the fact that such improvement is only possible, and indeed only justifiable, if the ends are for these peoples' improvement and not directed merely to a build-up of Western ideals or Western advantage. Despite our centuries of experience in this field, I cannot help feeling, like the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, that we have been, to some extent, led aside by the urgent and modern programmes of pro-selytisation of the great nations of Russia and the United States, neither of which countries has the deep and innate knowledge of the slow processes of civilisation, and both of which, I think, assess to-day and to-morrow as having little debt to and little relationship with the centuries of past experience and wisdom.
  The Western conception of political States is, I suggest, alien to the peoples of the Middle East, whose inspiration lies in communal religion and communal language and custom far more than in artificial geographical boundaries. Indeed, the integrity of Israel does not lie outside this definition. For this reason, we must, I think, re-assess our approach
  334
  and not only admit but encourage the natural force of what is held in common—a quality which is currently described as Arab nationalism. As the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, said yesterday, nationalism can be a good quality or a bad one. Where it operates selfishly or hysterically to the detriment of its neighbours, it is obviously bad. But where it operates towards constructive, patriotic development, with good will towards international co-operation, it is a good thing. We should, therefore, encourage and succour this new force and help to steer it into constructive channels. recognising that these millions of Arabs have found a voice that must he acknowledged.
  But just as Russia, with its large element of Asiatic territory and Asiatic mentality, is regarded by the United States as lacking in comprehension of the basic ideology of the Western Powers because it has an Oriental as well as an Occidental make-up, so Arabia is apt to be wrongly judged because it also has inherently different conceptions, standards and mentalities. Colonel Nasser typifies to many of us an unprincipled demagogue. But he represents something which the non-Arab world cannot or will not understand: he is the present and temporary focus of Arab aspirations which are held by good Arabs and bad Arabs alike. We deplore his methods and his political morals, but to the Arabs he is not a Hitler: he is to them a Garibaldi, a George Washington, a Winston Churchill. Much as we disapprove of his methods I think we must remember that.
  Our task, therefore, is to try to ensure that this new and great upsurge of Arab consciousness is guided into democracy and not into Communistic dictatorship; for in the Arab experience the impetus of to-day may go in either direction. True democratic representation by free election must be the Middle Eastern goal which we aim to achieve by all legitimate means, for the safeguarding of human welfare in Arabia and, indeed, for World peace. To this end we must do all in our power to co-ordinate such altruistic and benevolent elements as, I am positive, do exist in British, American and Russian policies. Oil, I suggest, is in a sense a hallucination. It is, for a few more decades to come, a passing richness in dollars and

  335
  strategic strength which may cause temporary affluence or temporary poverty in international prosperity or international influence. But situated as we are to-day, in a world where a snap of the finger may cause the nuclear destruction of all that exists and ever has existed, surely oil is a consideration of despicable insignificance; that is, comparatively. We are concerned in these desperate days with humanity: its survival or its extinction.
  So I come to the pressure of Russian influence in the Middle East or, for that matter, in South East Asia, Australasia, South America, Western Europe or the United States. As one of the two greatest nations in the world to-day, Russia already exists actually or potentially, almost everywhere. It is living in the 17th or 18th century to pontificate about whether Russia shall or shall not be allowed to appear in this or that quarter of the globe. Great Britain, for all its lost supremacy and dominance, counts for a very great deal wherever human life exists. So does America and so does Russia.
  Russia is in the Middle East; and we have the task—which I pray may soon be a pleasant and rewarding task—of co-operating and co-ordinating with this great Power whose ideology, for mental, racial, historical and physiological reasons, will always be different from our own. But just as we can live in a world where scientific knowledge remains still largely hidden from us and in the unknown, probably antipathetic to many of our most cherished presuppositions and prejudices, so, surely, we can accept Russian conceptions and predispositions (as, in a far easier degree, we accept other foreign but more understandable diver-gencies) as tenable concepts, however remote or antagonistic they may seem at the present stage of civilisation, compared with our own well-thought-out and deeply-believed-in first principles. We must, therefore, live together without compromising or sacrificing our first principles. But I see no justification in the broader horizon for maintaining—as I am afraid we do so childishly in home politics—that because we consider we have a good reason for thinking we are right, it follows that everyone who does not see eye to eye with us is necessarily wrong. That is superficial politics, but I think it is basically blasphemy.
  336
  Finally, one practical point which I believe was touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, yesterday. We in this country have a great heritage. Because of that proud and admirable background in our minds and our lives, we assume, without arrogance, as it might seem to be, but because we seem to expect others to take an objective assessment which in fact they do not do, that this benevolence and the altruism in our national policies are patent and apparent. They are not; and every time that our good intentions are queried or discounted we take mortal offence. We live now, unfortunately, in a world of advertisement. It is no longer enough that justice should be done and be seen to be done; it must be advertised and publicised and underlined and emphasised and put beyond the possibility of question or of denigration.
  Our competitors in this regrettably competitive world spend millions upon millions of pounds in establishing the merits of their aims, but more especially in describing the villainy of their adversaries' aims through the little box in every primitive village which relays to countless millions their radio propaganda. I do not advocate the distorted vilification of our adversaries, but I do urge the Government once again to step up the miserable allocation of an infinitesimal sum spent on foreign broadcast information to a generous support of wholesale dissemination of what we do stand for: the appreciation of truth, the knowledge that the Western civilised world works for co-operation and not for strife; and that one pound spent on permanent enlightenment is worth thousands of pounds spent on instruments of destruction and death.
  I believe that this country of ours—and because of its background this country alone—has in its power now the possibility of averting world war by concentrating in the widest and, indeed, in the most lavish way, on the spreading of good tidings of good intentions, so as to counter the threats and the blackmail which spring from suspicion and fear on every side.
  12.6 p.m.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords. I am obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Birdwood, for being so kind as to allow

  337
  me to intervene for a few moments at this juncture. If I may say so to the noble Lord the Leader of the Liberal Party, we know we are a great country. We know all that. But it really will not help the present situation we are in—a thorough mess—by repeating these little echoes of self-praise. I know a little poem beginning "Little Jack Horner" which covers a great part of his peroration.
  LORD REA: I do not think I was talking about self-praise at all. Whatever we may think of ourselves, we cannot expect other people to think the same.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: What I was saying is—and it is not only to the noble. Lord—that it does not help the situation to-day to comfort ourselves that we are a great country. We know all about that. If we are going to do any good we must recognise that we are in a great mess, and what we want to find out is whether there is any possible way out. The question that has been in my mind as a member of the Opposition—of which I am proud indeed—when listening to the speech of my noble friend Lord Henderson (and I may remind the House that many years ago he was my Parliamentary Private Secretary) and the noble Earl, who was our Prime Minister, is, when is this Conference going to start? We had a meeting yesterday when Mr. Dulles was here and something was discussed. Where is Mr. Dulles now? I believe he is in Washington. When are we going to hear about some positive steps being taken? That is why I am impatient with a very old personal friend, Lord Rea. I want to know how we are going to get out of this mess in the Middle East.
  LORD REA: What I was saying is that we must forget ourselves what has been said, however true it may be, and get on with things.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Then we are entirely agreed. His clarion call did not reach my ears. What we should like to know from the Government is when this Conference is going to start, and where. The thing is getting very foggy. General De Gaulle has put forward a plan of his own, and maybe it is right. He is certainly going to play a personal part in world politics. But when is Mr. Khrushchev going to see Mr. Dulles? That is what we want to know. No amount of platitude affords any answer.
  338
  As I am not a statesman, but an ordinary member of Parliament, I am going to ask one or two questions, as I am entitled to do. Will the Minister who is going to speak give us a little more information about what happened yesterday at the meeting of the Baghdad Powers? I think in clerical language you say the Baghdad Powers in partibus. It is everywhere except in Baghdad. What is the attitude of the United States to the recognition of Iraq? Yesterday I did not think much was discussed that required cross-examination. To-day there is a great deal of news which requires to be explained. At the Baghdad Pact meeting did we advocate that we should send a joint message to Baghdad to say that the Iraqi Government would be recognised? We had a remarkable speech yesterday from the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, and there were letters in The Times from Mr. Ionides, who knows a great deal about the country. They said, "If you are going to do it, do it now." I do not know what you would make of the Baghdad Pact if the new Government of Iraq joined; but we really ought to know what is the position, first of all, of Iraq in relation to the Baghdad Pact.
  The second question is, what is implied by this liaison of Mr. Dulles and the Baghdad Powers. It is not at all clear. He is not a full member of the Pact, because he cannot make a treaty without the assent of the Senate. Does it mean that as the Baghdadis have defaulted, the Americans have undertaken to send in troops if necessary? Because the whole thing is based on military apprehension, which I believe is fading and was never as much justified as people thought. All that has been done is that America has come along and given a sort of half promise in accordance with their policy of brinkmanship. We do not know what the attitude of the members is to Baghdad. If you do not go with Baghdad, Baghdad may go with Russia; you do not know; they will certainly not maintain the position in relation to the West which was the mainspring of Nuri Pasha's policy.
  There is another question in relation to the Baghdad Pact. One nation is forbidden to join it—the Jews; they are not allowed in. They would be glad to give assurances of peace in the Middle East but they are not allowed in because there

  339
  is a veto. People who come in must have unanimous support. We are now building up something which is making more difficult the position of Israel. If my noble friend Lord Attlee will forgive me, I would recall this. I was the Member for St. George's East and he was the Member for Limehouse. We both knew what the Russian persecution of the Jews meant. We both saw it. I saw it in my youth. I represented St. George's East down by the docks and I used to see these poor creatures coming with their little bundles, getting work anywhere they could for any wage. It was tragic. So far from thinking it is a mistake—I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Strang, that it is an embarrassment—I say it is one of the glories of our policy that Mr. Balfour founded a National Home for the Jews. It has made all the difference in the world to every Jew in the world; he can stand up now with a country of his own.
  On this same question of the Baghdad Pact, may I ask the Government whether it is intended that Jordan should come into the Pact? The noble Earl, Lord Gosford, will no doubt be able to give me some particulars about that. We tried to get Jordan in, with disastrous results, very nearly upsetting King Hussein, when General Templer the Chief of the Imperial General Staff, visited him and it got around that they were going to join. It nearly cost King Hussein his throne at that moment. Is it intended that Jordan should come in?
  I do not know about the Lebanon; I should perhaps just leave it aside. What any sensible person might have guessed is of course happening; everyone in the Lebanon are joining together against the man who gets the support of America. That is obvious. President Chamoun is finding himself isolated with the Marines. Everybody else, the Leader of the Opposition, the head of the Army, are all uniting against them. What will come out of that I do not know. In the United States, as far as one can judge from the Press, there is by no means unanimity in favour of this adventure. We have said we approve it and taken the responsibility and we may have penalties to pay; I do not know. But we are not actually engaged.
  But what about Jordan? That is a question that is very important. Are we
  340
  meeting the expenses of the Jordan Government? The Bedouin have not got much money; the Western bank people are hostile. Are we re-subsidising Jordan in the way that we did years ago to the tune of between£15 million and£20 million?
  A NOBLE LORD:£12 million to be exact.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: That is one point. The other, which is important, is this. This House is rising in a few days. Suppose the situation goes sour in Jordan. There are a great many people there, probably the majority, who do not want this dynasty, this King. Suppose there is a row: are we going to put it down ad interim? We want to get out, but we want to get out when our duties are taken over. What exactly are we going to ask the United Nations to do to replace our forces in Jordan? I do not know in the least. We went in out of a feeling of loyalty to a Hashemite dynasty who placed their destinies in our hands and now are faced with assassination and ruin. Some day it will be worth while having a discussion about that. I remember the people very well—Sir Mark Sykes, Colonel Lawrence and the rest. We allied ourselves with Hashemites and we were wrong. Now they are in this tragic position. In the meantime, within a few weeks someone has to settle who is going to pay the expenses in Jordan and on what terms we shall hand over, if we can, the occupation to the United Nations Forces.
  Finally, there is the other question that no one has spoken about, and that is the South—the Gulf Protectorates, Kuwait and Bahrein, and Saudi Arabia. Suppose that the same sort of revolt comes there against autocratic dynasties. Suppose it is an internal revolt of Arabs, as I believe these things are in the main, not inspired from outside. What do we do? Something was said by the noble Earl, Lord Home, yesterday about our responsibilities. Do we say that if there is an internal revolt, say in Kuwait, we have Treaty duties to perform to maintain the ruler with armed force? It may be that we shall have to do it; I do not know. I would be against it. But we want to know exactly what our obligations are, and how we propose to fulfil them. After all, it is all dead matter in the North, but in the South there are the

  341
  Persian Gulf, Saudi Arabia, Yemen and the Aden Protectorate. I would draw the attention of noble Lords to this fact: that we are surrounded in the Middle East by countries we do not recognise. We do not recognise Iraq; we do not recognise Egypt; we have no diplomatic relations with Saudi Arabia. Those are points which make us wish it were possible for the House to meet from time to time in order to receive the information that is always so readily available from the Minister in charge. Those are the only questions I have to ask, and if some answer can be vouchsafed to some of them I shall be very grateful. I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Birdwood, for allowing me to intervene.
  12.18 p.m.
  LORD BIRDWOOD: My Lords, I, of course, am not going to attempt to answer for Her Majesty's Government some of the questions which the noble Viscount has posed, but I suggest that if there were any attempt to answer them I personally should be absolutely dismayed. The meeting of the Baghdad Pact Powers assembled for the first time in London yesterday, and I should say that if there were an answer to some of those questions to-day it could only mean that the answer had been taken in a spirit of utter irresponsibility. The only point on which I disagreed with the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, in that fine speech of his yesterday, was when he said that we should recognise the new Government of Iraq immediately. I imagine that we are going to recognise that Government fairly soon, but I do not see any need for haste in the matter. We have to remember that there is the declared intention to try all those who were in any way associated with the late regime in Iraq, and I suggest that it would not be quite proper to recognise overnight a Government which holds over the world that kind of threat.
  As to whether Jordan is going to come into the Baghdad Pact or not, I would remind the noble Viscount that now that Iraq is in a most ambiguous position in regard to the Pact it assumes the nature of that original Northern Tier presentation on which Mr. Dulles was so enthusiastic. Therefore there is possibly now some reason to believe that at some future date Israel may be invited to join.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: May I ask the noble Lord a question? Does he
  342
  agree with King Hussein when he says that his business is to restore the authority of Baghdad?
  LORD BIRDWOOD: I would most certainly say that advice given him to attempt to restore the position in Iraq would not be in his interest.
  It seemed to me that yesterday there was so much construction packed into the debate that there is little, in a positive way, for somebody like myself to add. I would therefore concentrate upon trying to remove one or two misconceptions, as I see them, in regard to our general thinking about the Middle East—a dangerous tendency which has emerged, both in public and in Parliament, to over-simplify with clichés what are in fact extremely complicated problems. I would take as the basis the four principles which were set out in another place in a recent debate, and to which the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, referred yesterday—principles which were regarded as the formula for Utopian progress. If I diagnose rather than prescribe it is only because quite a number of prescriptions were provided yesterday.
  I recognise, just as much as any noble Lord opposite, certain facts about the Middle East. I recognise the fact of Arab nationalism. I think that is a movement within its own right. I would agree with Lord Attlee, who I think said words to the effect that these days the Soviet follows Arab nationalism rather than leads it. I recognise that there is a new, coming generation of Arabs who sense frustration and who look to Colonel Nasser as the focus of their hopes. I recognise the anomalies of the Middle East—of corruption in high places, of the need for land reform and so on.
  It is only when we come to review our own part in all these matters that I find myself in disagreement with many of your Lordships. Therefore I should like to set out the kind of fashionable argument that is current these days: first of all, that we have divided to rule; that the Baghdad Pact in particular was a division to rule; that the Pact was a provocation to the Soviet without providing any compensating military security; that we cannot ensure the flow of oil by more military adventures; that we now have to obtain oil by long-term commercial methods—to "put oil on a normal commercial basis", is the phrase used—that we

  343
  should not use outmoded imperialism in the process and finally, that we have no long-term policy and we cannot solve long-term problems by short-term methods. Those are the charges and sometimes those are the actual words used. I often wonder whether the use of words of that sort is damaging, because the British public might well be excused for having a picture in their minds of British soldiers with fixed bayonets standing over unwilling Arabs and forcing them to pump the oil through the pipes.
  I consider that we have made two grave errors of judgment in the Middle East since 1917. I do not propose to dwell on them to-day. All I want to do is to dispose of, as I see them, some self-inflicted wounds which we have inflicted upon ourselves, to say a word as to how I believe the present confusion has arisen, and to have a look at the future. Not unnaturally, when we surrendered the Iraq Mandate in 1932 we slipped into a certain pattern of thought. In Iraq we left behind good friends in charge—friends that we had trusted in the First World War, and, perhaps optimistically, we thought that those friends would continue indefinitely in control. Perhaps, too, we failed to notice what was happening elsewhere in the Middle East—for instance, in Syria and the Lebanon, where the fact that the French had lingered on long after we had left Iraq in itself fed anti-Western sentiment. Egypt we thought we knew. What we could not know was that thirteen years after we had handed over in Iraq, Egypt would be slipping into the leadership of the Arab world. How could we know that?
  In 1916, when we were busy planning for Arab independence after the war, Egypt had never been included in the area in which that independence was to be recognised. In those days Egypt was never regarded as an Arab country, and I think that that was the kind of view taken by many Arabs themselves. It may be that latterly the motives of that Arab leadership in Egypt, which were to my mind quite unscrupulous, have been diluted with the urge for reform. But I would submit that their better instincts have always been blurred and distorted, and remain so to-day, by anti-Western and anti-colonial obsessions.
  344
  If that be true, what now becomes of this accusation of dividing to rule? Was our support of the Arab League, when it was first thought of between the years 1942 and 1945, when it emerged, a division? Was our unification of Iraq after the First World War out of the three entirely separate Turkish vilayets of Mosul, Basra, and Baghdad, a division? Was our presentation of Iraq in 1932 to the League of Nations as an independent sovereign State, a dividing to rule? The truth is, in fact, that as the gulf between Colonel Nasser and Nuri widened we continued to support old friends rather than ally ourselves to the one man who, on a mere count of heads, could command the greatest following in the Middle East. That may have been a misjudgment but it certainly was not dividing to rule. When one speaks of dividing to rule, one surely conveys an intention, and I would submit that it is less than fair to ourselves to say deliberately that we ever set out to divide the Middle East.
  Then I come to the charge that we have no long-term policy and that therefore short-term remedies are ineffective. I sometimes wonder if a long-term policy is either necessary or desirable. I sometimes wonder if that conveys the conception of a rigid, inflexible kind of policy posed all over one big area. Then I would regard it as wrong. I think that what, more accurately we should have in our minds are long-term principles. In any case, I would regard it as a contradiction of logic to argue that because there is no clear-cut long-term policy it is therefore wrong to take short-term measures to remedy short-term situations.
  Our action in Jordan the other day was just such a case. We had to take a short-term decision to deal with a sudden and desperate short-term situation. I do not like the argument that because King Hussein had turned sour on us about eighteen months ago we should therefore have refused him his help in his hour of danger. I think the happier view is to believe that it was General Glubb's tolerance, understanding and dignity at the time which has to-day brought its reward in King Hussein now discovering the value of true friendship. But in any case I submit that we have an obligation to King Hussein, remembering that it was

  345
  we who set his family on its feet and that it was we who used his family to help us win the First World War.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Hear, hear!
  LORD BIRDWOOD: My Lords, had it not been for the standard of revolt raised under Sherif Hussein of Mecca—King Hussein's great-grandfather—it could well be argued that the ports on the eastern bank of the Red Sea would have remained in Turkish hands, and it is doubtful whether in these circumstances, so far as the Middle East is concerned, we should have won the First World War. We are therefore under a particular obligation to King Hussein. I am not going into the nature of the problem. I would agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, that we have set ourselves a very difficult problem to solve, but whereas I was certainly unhappy over the American entry into the Lebanon, we had no doubt whatsoever where our duty lay when the young King appealed to us under Article 51 on the evening of July 16.
  Now I would turn to the particular aspect of the charge of "divide and rule" which concerns the Baghdad Pact. How easily people forget their history! To-day that is presented as a Western imposition thrust on the Middle East, dividing countries that would naturally have come together in harmony. I would recall that in 1957 it was Mr. Dulles who was going round the Middle East concentrating on the Northern Tier conception and getting together all those States which lay on or near Soviet frontiers in some kind of mutual security system. That was followed, in February, 1954, almost simultaneously by American aid to Pakistan and the treaty of friendship between Pakistan and Turkey. I believe I am correct in saying at that time we were actually resisting the Northern Tier conception. In October, 1954—the same year—Nuri happened to visit Turkey at a time when the Pakistan military mission were there. He made it quite clear that sooner or later his country would come into this Northern Tier conception; so that in the following year, 1955, Iraq signed her treaty with Turkey. That was in February. The British signature did not follow until April, 1955, when we took the opportunity to end the existing Treaty with Iraq, because it certainly
  346
  had a certain hang-over from the old mandatory days.
  My Lords, I have repeated that list of dates only to refute the suggestion that the Baghdad Pact was a British imposition, but I should like to take this opportunity to say a word about out general attitude to these pacts, because it is essentially a matter of long-term policy in the Middle East. Surely we never impose a pact on anybody, at any time or in any place. If we like a pact, obviously we encourage it but we never thrust a pact on anyone. If Turkey, Iran and Pakistan to-day wish to continue in some form of mutual understanding with each other for their self-defence, and also wish for our assistance, are we to refuse that assistance? And if Iraq of yesterday wished to build up a system around that Northern Tier based on Baghdad, were we to have refused it? My own view is that these pacts have a psychological value which goes far beyond their military value; but on the day when a pact is not required by those countries concerned, on the spot, it is certainly not for a country outside the area, such as ourselves, to thrust a pact upon them.
  But, as I see it, there is a far wider principle involved. So far as the Middle East is concerned, the argument has run like this; that because doubts were expressed as to the degree of popular support which the Government of Nuri could command, we were in some way propping up an unwanted and authoritarian-imposed régime. That kind of charge is frequently made and I welcome the chance to dispose of it. Apart from the fact that the Government of Nuri happened to be friendly, it was also the officially accredited Government of the country. Do noble Lords really argue that because that Government was not popular we should not have dealt with it? Do they go further and say that because it was out of step with President Nasser and the "coffee shop vote" we should have removed it? It is so easy to come out with these clichés about "propping up" unwanted Governments, but frankly I have yet to understand what alternatives these critics have in mind.
  If we are expected to approve only the style of a Government which conforms to our own standard of a free election, there would certainly be few Governments

  347
  left in the Middle East to-day to recognise. It has seemed to me that we are asked to support an authoritarian Government when it happens to have a nationalist Communist flavour but not to support it when it appears to have a feudal background. In any case, I suggest that, to be quite consistent, when and if we meet Mr. Khrushchev in a conference we should remind him that there are at least half a dozen Governments in Eastern Europe to-day which, in our view, are just as much harsh impositions as any in the Middle East. At the same time, we might take up with Mr. Khrushchev the question of his somewhat extravagant assessment of the oil trade and his constant references to these "wicked oil barons".
  On July 20, Mr. Khrushchev wrote to the Prime Minister saying:
  "They"—
  the Middle East countries—
  " want only one thing: that this problem "—
  of oil supplies to the West—
  " be solved on an equal and mutually advantageous commercial basis."
  That is exactly how it is solved—on a mutually advantageous commercial basis. Mr. Khrushchev was supported in the other place in almost identical terms. What are the facts? The oil companies first recognise that oil in the ground belongs to the national Governments concerned. Secondly, every agreement which has been negotiated since 1950 has been freely negotiated with the Ruler or Government concerned; and thirdly, all those agreements have subsequently been followed by modifications in favour of those Governments, without any pressure whatsoever from a Western Government. There we have a commercial flexible arrangement.
  As your Lordships know, there are in general two ways of raising and extracting oil and selling it. Either one can turn to local private enterprise or the local Government or that local Government can go outside and call in an independent commercial organization which is fully equipped to deal with all the very difficult technical tasks involved. As to that first method, where the local Government or local private enterprise take on the job, I state only the obvious truth in saying that it requires a fully developed economy and a broad industrial basis such as can be found only in the United
  348
  States, and that such conditions just do not exist in the Middle East. In looking for oil and selling it successfully, one has to be prepared not only to spend vast sums of money in finding it but also in looking for it and not finding it. It is only by some kind of fifty-fifty profit-sharing arrangement that such companies can find the enormous sums of money necessary for the development of the oil trade and for future exploration. In fact, the Government of the country are saved the whole responsibility of having to raise any capital whatsoever; and I can imagine no more logical system. It would, of course, be too much to expect Mr. Khrushchev at a Security Council meeting to understand an argument of this kind, but I believe that we should all stand behind the Prime Minister if and when oil is discussed, because if these principles are not supported Middle East oil countries are not going to continue dealing in the Middle East; and in the long run the ones who will suffer most will be the Middle East countries themselves.
  As to the wider concept of an Economic Commission for the Middle East, which has been proposed, there is already, of course, the outline of a plan put forward by Middle East industrialists by which 5 per cent. of profits from companies and oil countries would be set aside for Middle East development. That kind of plan is perfectly logical and perfectly workable, but if we are to extend that, and say that there must be one economic plan for the whole of the Middle East by which oil-wealthy countries have to give to oil-poverty countries, then we shall destroy in the process that unity which we are seeking. After all, the whole conception of one country giving its surplus to another is one which we found it extremely difficult to implement in our own country or in our own area of Western Europe; and if we are going to force such an Economic Commission on the Middle East we are doomed to failure. I personally see no reason why the West should wish to force an Economic Commission on the Middle East, any more than to force a strategic pact or a political settlement of any kind.
  In conclusion, I wish only to draw attention to an old principle by which we have always stood: that we should stand by our friends in the Middle East rather at the expense of those who are

  349
  not going to be quite so friendly. But it seems to me that sometimes our friends may be in difficulty in making up their own minds. Sometimes it may not be entirely to their advantage to continue to want to stand by us. I am thinking particularly of the State of a future Jordan; perhaps, too, of the sheikhdoms of the Middle East in the Persian Gulf. If a Ruler of a State is in doubt as to his future relationship, I think it is only fair to us that he should be encouraged to say so. The one thing I regard as dangerous is to continue in ambiguity.
  Personally—and this may perhaps disturb the noble Marquess who spoke yesterday—I feel that we should be wise in a political sense to withdraw from certain areas in the Middle East for some time to come. We have, it is true, certain clear-cut obligations in a certain contracted area. We should state those obligations and state that we shall stand by those obligations when challenged at all times. But in the rest of the Middle East it seems to me that we might be wise in a political sense to create, so far as we are concerned, as and when possible, a political vacuum. We should then be left with a perfectly straightforward, normal, unimaginative commercial relationship. I think that in the process we should find that the Middle East would then have to turn and face its own problems and fight them; and there would, I believe in that kind of process be a curious shake-up of loyalties. It is interesting to reflect what would in those circumstances remain of so-called Arab unity. I believe that in the process we would find that we should once more be sought again as friends, rather than always having to plough on in the unrewarding process of searching for them. I submit, my Lords, that to be sought as a friend is proof of the wisdom of a policy.
  12.44 p.m.
  THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, I shall not follow the noble Lord who has just spoken, on to his own ground—the Arab world and the Moslem world, which he knows so well and about which he is such an authority; for another reason I shall not follow him, because I do not think that this debate at this stage is an occasion for an historical survey of our relations with those Powers. What I should like to say, as shortly as I can, is a few words about
  350
  a subject that has been touched on by almost every speaker in almost every debate on the United Nations over the last two years, and that is the United Nations Permanent Force. It is a coincidence, my Lords, that almost exactly a year ago I was making a similar speech, then also as a substitute for my noble friend Lord Pakenham, who this time has been striken with influenza and is unable to be here to-day.
  When an accepted principle is referred to continually by politicians I think there is a dancer in the constant repetition if nothing follows. It becomes a sort of conventional noise made in the course of a speech to assert your support of the principle of a United Nations armed force. Not only in the debate a year ago but since then many noble Lords and many Government speakers, both in this and another place, have said that in principle they are entirely in favour of a United Nations Permanent Force. Even as recently as June, a few weeks ago, the Minister of Defence, in a speech in another place, outlined quite a detailed series of ideas on a United Nations armed force; and the Foreign Secretary on July 2 confirmed that. There was a book published only a few months ago in which Mr. Clark and Professor Sohn worked out: a scheme for a force under world authority of something like 400,000 men, costing£3,500 million a year. When that is set against the present world armed force of 20 million men, costing something like£40,000 million a year, we get an idea of the incentive that lies before us for an agreement to set up a world force.
  But, my Lords, most of these suggestions and references are to a paramount force, a force that would be powerful enough to take on the armed forces of a nation, presumably the strongest nation. We know that the Foreign Secretary on June 10 said:
  " The starting point would have to be a general agreement for the prevention of war."
  That straight away, I think, puts the idea rather beyond the immediate horizon—some might say a very long way beyond. But surely there is something that could be done as a first step towards the ultimate ideal of the rule of law in the world, and that is a light force capable of dealing with cases of this new disease we have been hearing about, which has been

  351
  talked about only lately—namely, indirect aggression ". This sort of trouble that the Middle Eastern countries have been suffering from and complaining of is exactly the kind of threat that this light force, similar to the United Nations Emergency Force set up after Suez, is capable of dealing with. It is not intended to fight other armies; it is meant to guard and patrol and to be a token of the interest of the rest of the world in the dispute.
  I should like to remind noble Lords of what this scheme is. Not only has it been worked out in this country by the Commission last year over which my noble friend Lord Pakenham was chairman, but only last week I saw that the State Department in Washington came out very plainly in favour of some such scheme.
  "The State Department".
  we read in a message in the Manchester Guardian last Saturday,
  " has given its approval to the establishment of a permanent international police force under the auspices of the United Nations".
  Then some detail is given of the proposals. The proposals that were worked out in this country were for a force of something like 20,000 men, armed only lightly, made mobile by its own transport and with its own bases. But the essential feature of the scheme was that such a force would enter a country only at the invitation of that country. It would in no sense be designed to coerce any country that was resisting the United Nations.
  When it comes to the details of such a scheme, there is, of course, an enormous amount of work still to be done on the composition of it, the organisation of it—whether it should be national contingents or individual enlistment, and so on. But such a scheme was surely just what was wanted two weeks ago, to avoid the necessity of the United States and the United Kingdom sending troops into those Middle Eastern countries. Threats by individuals and small bands infiltrating across frontiers, small consignments of arms, and so on, are exactly the kind of thing that possibly a small observer force, such as that which is in Lebanon now, is not capable of stopping, but which an armed force of several thousands would undoubtedly be able to stop.
  352
  The scheme is there. It has been worked out. The Secretary-General of the United Nations is himself conducting an inquiry in the United Nations, a report of which is expected to be put before the General Assembly in a few months' time. Meanwhile, what are Her Majesty's Government doing? Surely we are entitled to look to them for a lead and to expect that they should express themselves not just in favour of the principle but in favour of definite steps being taken, and being taken as soon as possible.
  12.54 p.m.
  LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I deem it a particular privilege to speak in any debate on a Motion set down by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson. I know what a constant and untiring champion he is of causes that I have very much at heart, and I have learned to value his guidance in those causes. In the course of what I have to say to-day I may from time to time veer away from his opinions, but I hope that in conclusion I shall not be far from the point where he has set up his standard in this debate. I should like to follow the noble Earl who has just spoken rather later in my speech, and follow him by agreeing with a great deal of what he has said. Yesterday the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, wisely, I am sure, urged restraint upon the remaining speakers in the debate, and urged the importance of finding the largest available measure of agreement across the floor. I would not say that his advice has been strictly or universally observed by the Benches behind him, or even on the Bench beside him. But in response I shall restrict myself to the differences which he himself described in the same speech. This, of course, entails stockpiling a good deal of ammunition which may well be obsolescent by the time of our next encounter.
  At this point I should like to say that although I have heard many tributes to the restraint displayed by leaders of the Opposition during these days, I feel that at least as much should be said for that of the Government spokesmen in this crisis. Of course, restraint is admirable from the Opposition, too, but, to misquote an historic phrase, "They have plenty to be restrained about." Sophocles said that "Heaven will ne'er help those

  353
  who dare not act", and on that basis the Opposition, in these past days, have made it pretty clear that they are not seeking much help from Heaven. More clearly than ever before, I think, the two main Parties have classified themselves in the face of international problems and emergencies, as the Participators and the Onlookers—those who favour one rôle or the other for their country.
  My Lords, because Britain is led to-day by a Tory Government, Britain has played an active and valuable part in meeting this emergency and keeping it under control. Here I must declare a prejudice, because I am one of those who think that this country has an active and positive part to play in world affairs. Fortunately, from my point of view, the country as a whole believes that, too. The Gallup Polls show a healthy prejudice in favour of action and of the Government which took it; 54 per cent. approval and only 28 per cent. against. I see that the New Statesman explains this readily enough; it is quite simply the Tories plus the ignorant versus Labour plus the educated. That seems to be an unflattering picture of the country, I should have thought, but I have noticed that noble Lords opposite are inclined to support that diagnosis. It will be interesting to see if their Party is ready to approach the next General Election with the battlecry of "Ignorant vermin".
  The Opposition offer reasons for their cult of inaction at this time. Three of those reasons—the three most lucid—are that action will excite both Soviet Russia and Arab nationalism; that it places British troops in jeopardy; and that anyway it is none of our business because there was no proven attack across a frontier. I should like to deal with the last of these to begin with, because I think it is the most dangerous. In this very interesting publication, the N.A.T.O. Letter of last month, there is an analysis of Soviet techniques, listing in all twelve separate methods employed for overthrowing such rôgimes as show determined "sales resistance" to Communist doctrine. Only one of these is concerned with physical armed invasion across a frontier. The Soviet Government know by now that a combination of some of the others is far more effective. And it will be entirely effective if these eleven other methods are to be regarded as
  354
  perfectly fair tactics with which we have no right to interfere.
  In this connection it was remarkable to find how many supporters of the Party opposite invoked the example of the Spanish war to brace their argument. I should have thought that it was the very last example they would choose, recalling their attitude at that time. The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, invoked it in this House last week, and as always I listened with the closest attention to what he said There are few occasions when I feel like challenging the noble Earl, but when he starts talking about Spain he provides such an occasion. In September of 1939 I passed my twentieth birthday under sentence of death in Barcelona, because I knew a little too much for my health. I am happy to think that the noble Earl was never brought to such a situation in Spain. But one or more of his colleagues in another place have implied quite clearly that because King Feisal and King Hussein and President Chamoun could supposedly not count upon their respective armies, they were fit to be overthrown. When I heard that, I thought, "Well, what price Generalisimo Franco now!"
  If I may bring the analogy a little nearer home at the price of making it far more fanciful, I would ask the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, to picture our own country some years ago, in the period of his own Administration. I should like to take one of the gloomier periods—for instance, in the middle of the third financial crisis of 1951. If at that time a group of Commando officers had decided to overthrow the Government and turn the noble Earl out of Downing Street (I certainly cannot imagine them slitting his throat and dragging his body up Whitehall), would he and his Ministers have shrugged their shoulders and murmured soulfully, "Since we cannot count on the Army we are not fit to rule!" A successful military putsch creates dangers far outside the country where it is carried out. It encourages elements in other countries with similar urges to plan along similar lines. I have heard from a very dependable source that such an effect is already apparent, even in Germany. And if one successful putsch is dangerous, then a whole chain of them, unchallenged, might well be disastrous. They have not gone unchallenged or unprevented, and for that

  355
  I believe that the world as a whole is deeply beholden to the Governments of Great Britain and the United States.
  To deal with the Opposition's other objections to action: so far as the exciting of Soviet Russia is concerned, I believe that what really excited Russia, what made the plotters in the Kremlin rub their hands and toss back the vodka with expectant glee, was the prospect of an effortless and undisputed victory in the Middle East. From that point of view they may find the speeches of the Party opposite still fairly exciting. There is an unhealthy eagerness among some political speakers and writers in this country for Russia to call the tune, if not all the time, at least most of the time. If this eagerness were to be rewarded or to affect a Government in power in this country, Mr. Khrushchev would soon have us all dancing the Gopak, to make up sufficiently richly for the humiliation once inflicted on him by Marshal Stalin.
  In this connection, one of the greatest surprises to me of yesterday's debate was to hear the most superbly outspoken Member of your Lordships' House, the least-mealy-mouthed, whose candour I have had so often cause to admire, urging my noble friend and leader to be mealy-mouthed with the Russians—I refer to the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough. In a verbal exchange I am perfectly certain that he would be more than a match for Mr. Khrushchev, and I should hate to think that, were they to meet, his talents in that capacity would be concealed or confined. I suspect that they would not. Yet he admonished my noble friend for stating simply that we were able to recognise the Russian tactics within U.N.O. I do not think that he said the assessment of those tactics was inaccurate in any way—he just said that we should not mention it aloud. I am certain that any Government so inhibited would win only the contempt of our antagonists and the mistrust of our friends.
  As regards the excitement caused among Arab countries, I wonder whether noble Lords opposite would concede that we may have caused some very favourable excitement among our friends, by showing that they can count on our help in time of trouble. There seems to be an argument that Arab nationalism is good
  356
  if it is led by our enemies and bad if it is led by our friends. That is an argument that I am totally unable to follow or to accept. I find it surprising that speakers opposite have resorted to racecourse terminology in describing this crisis. We have heard it said, and I thought it did them little credit in any case, that we have backed the wrong horse.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, that sentence was Lord Salisbury's—the great Lord Salisbury. That is what he said about the Crimean War.
  LORD ST. OSWALD: I am not speaking about the Crimean War this morning. I should hate to mislead the noble Viscount on that matter. We have heard it from the Party of noble Lords opposite that we have backed the wrong horse, and I rather fancy that the noble Viscount mentioned it himself in the course of the morning. What they mean is not that we have backed the wrong horse, but that we have not exhorted our jockeys to the dirty tactics employed by the other runners, if I may follow the metaphor to that extent.
  We are told continually that we must come to terms with Arab nationalism. The clear lesson of recent events is that there are forces determined that we shall not come to terms with Arab nationalism, except on terms set down by dictatorship, either Russia's or Nasser's, or a blend of both. There are those in this country who are ready to derogate, even to condemn, the overthrown or threatened rôgimes on the simple transparent argument that they were loyal to us, plus fastidious references to feudalism.
  We have heard tributes to Nuri es-Said and to his administration from those far better qualified than I, notably from my noble friend, Lord Birdwood, who spoke a moment ago, and from my noble friend of many years standing, Lord Jellicoe, in his outstanding maiden speech yesterday, which was as fine as his friends could have expected—and I can hardly pay a higher compliment than that. If, as I understand, there is to be a memorial service for Nuri Said in London in the next few days, I hope that as many as possible of your Lordships will make plain by your presence that we deeply valued the part that he played for Arab nationalism. And on

  357
  this whole question we cannot too often remind ourselves that the only way in which a man or a nation can win true friends is by setting an example of loyalty. I have been told of an incident, when Marshal Tito was being urged by a British negotiator to place his trust in Britain. He replied, "How can I, after the way you behaved to Mihailovic? "
  I should like to touch briefly on the very sincere objection that springs from anxiety ebout the situation of our troops in Jordan. I have been a soldier, and I know that sometimes soldiers have reason to curse the politicians. But I simply do not believe that this is such a time. They are spoken of as cut off, but that is hardly factually or geopolitically true. Can anyone really imagine the Israelis falling upon them from behind? I think that they must feel considerably less cut off than the men of the 27th Infantry Brigade, in the autumn of 1950, in the Pusan perimeter in Korea. I can imagine the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, and the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, feeling grave anxiety at that time, and I can sympathise if they are apt to compare the two situations. Frankly, I do not believe that this situation, from a military point of view, is in any degree so critical as were those weeks. And, in case for a moment it should be suspected that I am mentioning the Pusan perimeter as an occasion when soldiers were entitled to curse the politicians, may I say that nothing is further from my intentions.
  Two factors, I am certain, are of the utmost importance to the morale of our troops in Jordan. First, to feel that the country is with them, whatever may be thought of the political decision that took them there. I think that that has been made clear by speakers from all Parties—I have not heard of any expatriate Norwegians visiting the area this time!The second is to feel a sense of solidarity with the Americans, to feel that we and our troops are not in this alone. And here the comments have not been so fortunate. The noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, has been openly critical in this debate of American policy and action. The other day I listened to a Labour Member of another place giving the Government some advice of such a fantastic nature
  358
  that I must, with the permission of the House, repeat it verbatim.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, it is not a question of the permission of the House. It is a Standing Order that noble Lords must not discuss intercamerally.
  LORD ST. OSWALD: I shall bow to the noble Viscount's interpretation. There is another objection to action, which I have not mentioned, coming from those who simply think that we should not poach on U.N.O.'s preserves. But I have never been able to see what advantage lay in pretending that U.N.O. is capable of a speed of action which is quite patently beyond the limits of its organisational effort, even if unanimity of view were providing the stimulus. I think that one of the greatest liabilities under which we labour is this modern myth that U.N.O. must be regarded as effective in spheres where it is either impotent or essentially sluggish in its present form. I am all for a change in that form, to make it effective instead of mythical. My noble friend and Leader called it yesterday, "Our duty to make U.N.O. work", and I do not think he meant a passive duty based on pious hope. I relish the idea of a U.N.O. emergency force, and I hope that it may be developed. Here I am entirely behind the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, and the noble Earl, Lord Lucan. But for the present we had better face the fact that sacrificing a white bull in front of the statue of Jupiter would be as effective in practice as calling on U.N.O. to solve an immediate international crisis of any importance.
  On this question, I listened with interest to a most measured and sympathetic speech by Mr. Shinwell in another place in which he introduced one unusual phrase (if the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, will permit me to quote one phrase) when he said that we must "prop up the United Nations". This is no doubt a worthy ambition. But it is the devil's own job to prop up an octopus at any time, and especially if its object at the time is to bury its head in the sand. It has been frequently and somewhat smugly laid down by the Party opposite that the whole question of Iraq and Jordan should have been handed over to the Security Council and left in their hands. It has, in fact, been in their

  359
  hands since July 15, a period of two weeks. They are still deliberating, with a number of resolutions already in limbo, and no agreement even in sight. Bringing an open intelligence to bear, what do we think would have happened to Jordan in the meantime? I ask this because, paraphrasing so many of the kindlier speeches of Labour spokesmen during this crisis, what I find they are really saying, in essence, is this: "No one could be more regretful than I about the hideous deaths of Nuri es-Said and the Royal Family in Iraq, but what really upsets me is that we have stopped the same thing happening in Jordan."
  And when I hear these plentiful words of advice from the Labour Party on how to deal with the Russians, when I hear the echo of that exotic slogan of the 'forties, "Left will speak to Left", I am reminded of the rueful remark of a confederate warrior after the American Civil War: "We could have whipped the whole Union Army with cornstalks, only they wouldn't fight with cornstalks!" But under the present leadership we are not depending on cornstalks. We are approaching a Summit Conference, with all the opportunities stressed by noble Lords in this debate, and I take heart from the fact that our senior representative at that Conference will be a man of world stature, whose prestige was never higher, and upon whom we and our Allies can count for firm judgment and firm decisions. He will not go as an apologist for our action in Jordan. He will go fortified by the fact that such action was taken in time, and that, as a consequence, Jordan and other small countries of the Middle East are still free to name their desires. I hope and believe that, face to face with the Russian leader, he will secure as many concessions as he grants. I hope the discussion will be wide, search-in; and realistic. Above all, I hope it will be made clear that standing by our friends is endemic to our national character, and that this loyalty provides the root and branch of our policy and makes us what we are as men.
  1.15 p.m.
  LORD SILKIN: My Lords, when we adjourned at lunch-time yesterday I was under some apprehension that when it came for me to make my speech, and even more when the noble and learned
  360
  Viscount on the Woolsack was going to reply, there would be little left for either of us to say. Whether it was the effect of the lunch, or whatever the cause may have been, it turned out in fact that after lunch we departed from the rather peaceful and bipartisan atmosphere in which we had conducted our discussions in the morning. Then, as the House will remember, the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord President of the Council, quoted with approval the statement of the Prime Minister about the careful balance of advantages and disadvantages in which the Government had acted, and added words of his own which I feel are so appropriate that I should like to remind the House of them. He said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 211 (No. 100), col. 257]:
  " It is not a question here of legality or gravity, but a question of carefully balanced arguments, of decisions that were taken with the greatest reluctance and the greatest sense of responsibility. Rightly or wrongly, we came to the conclusion that the dangers of inaction were probably greater than the dangers of action, and although we could not foresee all the consequences of action, we had to admit that we could not foresee the consequences of inaction either."
  The spirit of the Prime Minister's remarks on July 16, and the spirit of the remarks of the Lord President of the Council which I have just quoted, are very different from the spirit of the speeches of the noble Lord who has just addressed the House, the noble Lord, Lord Birdwood, and others. I should have liked to deal with the question in the former spirit and to state my view about the intervention both of the United States and ourselves in Lebanon and Jordan. But the speeches made yesterday afternoon and to-day have rather turned this from a bipartisan debate into very much a partisan one. But for those speeches, I should have been prepared to let the matter of whether we were right or wrong rest on the statement of my noble friend Lord Henderson, but I think it is now necessary to re-state the point of view of my noble friends and myself and of our colleagues in another place. I hope that I shall do so, nevertheless, in the spirit of the statements of the Prime Minister and the Lord President of the Council, because I realise that it is not an easy question, and it had to be decided, as they said, on a balance of arguments one way and the other.

  361
  One of the difficulties that we all feel in considering this question and forming a judgment on it is that we are not in a position to get at the true facts of the situation. There are so many facts that are in dispute to which we have not a clear answer. For instance, is it true that Lebanon and Jordan were ruled by an autocracy in opposition to the majority of their peoples? How far are the results in Iraq and the trends in Lebanon and Jordan inspired, organised and equipped from outside; or hew far are they movements which are indigenous to the people of those respective countries? Is the trouble due to nationalism—that is, the desire for Arab unity—and the disappearance of the so-called artificial boundaries created after the First World War? How far are Nasser and Egypt regarded by the rebels as leaders of a greater Arabia, or how far are they regarded with suspicion and as, to quote the noble Lord, Lord Rea, "unprincipled demagogues"? What is the evidence which the Government say they have, but have not adequately disclosed, of the threat against the Governments of Lebanon and Jordan? There are many other questions of that kind which we ought to have answered clearly before we can be in a position to give a definite answer to the problems which concern us.
  In the absence of reliable answers, we each have to make up our minds on the best evidence that is available, such as reports from Press observers on the spot, articles from well-informed people and speeches from such persons as the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, who made such an outstanding maiden speech yesterday. On the basis of that evidence we have to make up our minds. In the spirit of the Prime Minister's statement, I and my friends have tried to make up our minds on the very difficult problems which beset us. I have come to the conclusion that on balance we were not justified in intervening. I am not going to state my case in the demagogic spirit in which the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, made his speech, because I do not believe ex hypothesi that people who have come to a different conclusion from myself are villains.
  LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, the noble Lord must allow me. I never suggested that. I think that when he reads my speech in Hansard he will find that there was nothing in it which
  362
  suggested that there was villainy involved in opposing this decision.
  LORD SILKIN: I did not think the noble Lord said it, but I thought that was the implication of every word he uttered. I do not take that view. I believe that the Government have a very difficult task indeed, and I accept the fact that they came to a decision sincerely and honestly, using their judgment as best they could in these difficult circumstances.
  I should like to go through the reasons given by the Government at various times in this House and in another place for their intervention, and I will try to do so as briefly as possible, because most of the arguments are well known by now. First, it was stated—I do not think with great vigour or energy—that American and British lives were endangered. I should not think that they are in very grave danger now with 20,000 American troops in the Lebanon and 2,500 American citizens, nor in Jordan, where I believe the number of our forces exceeds the British population. But I do not think that that was ever seriously maintained. The British and American citizens were never in serious danger of their lives, and I do not think it has been suggested that they needed the help of these vast forces for that purpose.
  Next it is said that we were required to intervene as a matter of honour and morality. That was pressed by a great many speakers in this debate to-day—by the noble Lord, Lord Birdwood, and by the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald—and yesterday by a great number of speakers. I accept that that is the main reason for our intervention. It is not for me to say whether the Americans were justified in intervening in Lebanon on the ground of honour and morality, but I doubt very much whether honour and morality required them to intervene, and still less whether we were required to support them on those grounds. But I can say a word about our own action in Jordan. When anybody is in trouble and asks for help, it is a natural human intinct to go to his help; but it is not an inevitable instinct. One does not automatically go to the help of everybody who is in trouble, and one is not even under an obligation to do so in honour or morality. In the last resort, it depends upon the circumstances of the

  363
  particular case, and so one has to look at the circumstances of this case.
  I do not wish to enlarge on the point, because the case was put so adequately by my noble friend Lord Attlee on the occasion of the Adjournment Debate that I am content to rest on that. It was, briefly, that Jordan had actually expelled our forces who were there to help them. More, they had refused even to accept our help. We were giving them a grant of£10 million a year, and they actually refused to accept any more money. Therefore I cannot see that the claims of friendship, honour or morality would have induced us to intervene. Then, there was the danger of doing nothing while one small independent nation after another was undermined and destroyed. Which are these nations who are being undermined and destroyed? I do not think we have had any examples of that, and it depends upon what one means by being "undermined and destroyed". What has happened is that minority Governments, autocratic Governments, have made way for more popular Governments. If you call that being undermined and destroyed, that may have well happened in Iraq. But to suggest that they have been undermined and destroyed at any rate from outside—and that is the implication; that they have been undermined and destroyed from outside—is quite contrary to the evidence of the United Nations observers and of independent members of the Press. It may be that the Government have additional evidence of undermining and destruction, but so far the evidence they have produced is singularly unconvincing.
  The Foreign Secretary in another place gave the evidence, and he disclosed that there were four instances in 1956 when Egyptian individuals had been discovered with arms, one in Lebanon, one in Jordan, one in Ethiopia and one in Iraq. He gave two instances of what happened in 1957, one in Jordan and one in Iraq. In 1958 there were no instances. If that is the evidence that is being produced to justify the claim that there has been intervention from outside with the object of undermining one State after another, I must confess that that is not evidence which would be regarded as satisfactory in any court of law or by any tribunal.
  LORD BIRDWOOD: My Lords, is the noble Lord referring to physical intervention or to subversive intervention?
  LORD SILKIN: I am referring to intervention of all kinds and the justification which was given by the Foreign Secretary in another place. Those were the cases he quoted.
  LORD BIRDWOOD: The noble Earl, the Leader of the House, quoted two very telling examples yesterday of intervention over the radio. Of course, that was only two out of hundreds. May I quote one example of what happened last year in Iraq over the radio? The Iraqis were advised to rise against their rulers and throw their heads to the hungry dogs. That is exactly what has happened.
  LORD SILKIN: I am much obliged, and I am sorry to have given the noble Lord an opportunity of making a second speech.
  LORD ST. OSWALD: That was almost more demagogic than me!
  LORD SILKIN: I was going to refer to the radio. There was one instance quoted by the Foreign Secretary of incitement by radio. But even the statement of the noble Lord is a very long way from this "destruction of one State after another justifying intervention". Finally we were told—and I accept it—that we have a vital interest in oil. Of course, there is no oil in the Lebanon or in Jordan. The oil is in Iraq, and we are not intervening in Iraq. I should have thought that the effect of our intervention would have been to endanger our oil supplies rather than secure them. After all, the effect of intervention in Suez—I do not mean to touch unduly on a sore point—was that our oil supplies were endangered and suspended for quite a long time. The natural effect of our intervention here might well have been to endanger our oil supplies rather than give them any greater security. What we have done is to give the impression that we are trying to bolster up Governments that are friendly to the West but unpopular in their own countries, and that is a very dangerous impression to give throughout the Middle East.
  I thought it right just to summarise the views which we hold. I do it in all diffidence, and I am not going to pretend that we on this side are 100 per cent.

  365
  convinced that we are right, any more than the Prime Minister and the Lord President are 100 per cent. convinced that they are right. But it was for reasons of this kind, not accepting the case for intervention—and, after all, the case for intervention has to be made out—that I thought it right to state our views. I would summarise by saying that, in my opinion, our action has been of doubtful legality, of even more doubtful wisdom, quite uncalled for and dangerous.
  Now I want to turn to the future. There has been a greater measure of agreement in this debate on what we should do in the future than on what we have done in the past. We all agree in this country that there should be a Summit Conference—it least, I hope we do. At any rate in this House there has been no dissension in the course of the two days.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (THE EARL of HOME): Does the noble Lord mean the Summit we originally talked about or the Summit on the Middle East?
  LORD SILKIN: I mean on the Middle East. I take it we all agree we want it held as soon as possible. We think it right that it should be held, if possible, within the framework of the United Nations, provided that the inherent difficulties can be overcome. The noble Earl may remember that when the announcement was first made my first reaction was that there were inherent difficulties in this procedure, and it looks as if those apprehensions have to some extent been realised. I have never myself thought that the kind of discussions that we held were of paramount importance. I agree very much with my noble friend, Lord Attlee, that it is an open question whether this is the best form of discussion, and certainly whether New York is the best place in which to hold it. I very much regret that we should have got ourselves bogged down in a mass of technicalities and detail as to the exact procedure to be adopted rather than getting down to the actual conference itself.
  Possibly there has been some confusion about the term "within the framework of the United Nations". When I say that I believe that a conference within the framework is preferable, I mean not the introductory machinery—that is, getting the various members of the Security
  366
  Council to agree among themselves as to the kind of conference; I had not that in mind—but the machinery for actually holding the conference under Articles 28 and 31 of the United Nations Charter. How the conference is actually summoned, I think is far less important. I want to say frankly that I believe that the Prime Minister and the Government are genuinely and sincerely in favour of such a conference, and I think that if left to himself the Prime Minister would not be difficult about the kind of talks we have, whether they were held in Geneva or New York, in Moscow or in London. In that respect I think the Prime Minister is in almost complete agreement with Mr. Khrushchev as to the holding of a conference.
  I realise the difficulty is that the United States is reluctant to hold a conference at all and is obviously seeking a way of preventing it, and our other ally, France, is somewhat lukewarm. It is for this country—and I am not minimising the difficulties—to try to prevail upon our two Allies to hold these talks at the earliest possible moment in conditions where they are likely to be successful. Yesterday we rather pressed the Government to announce the date of the conference before the Recess. I am not at all sure that to-day I would repeat that request, because it would be, I should imagine, somewhat unrealistic. I feel that we are now departing for the Recess leaving the matter at large and without any opportunity for Parliament to express its views in the day-to-day changing circumstances, and I should like a definite positive assurance that the noble Earl, the Leader of the House, and the Government will not hesitate to summon Parliament again, at whatever time it may be and whatever inconvenience to noble Lords and Members of Parliament, if it should become necessary and if they are called upon to make important decisions.
  I remember that we were called back two years ago in connection with Suez. It was very inconvenient to a great many of us; I had to come back from Spain. But we all came back and we had no complaint against the Government. In fact, we were grateful that they had called us back to enable Parliament to express its opinion about the situation. I believe that the position to-day is even graver than it was two years ago. Therefore, I hope we can have a definite assurance

  367
  that there will be no hesitation in calling Parliament back.
  Let us hope that there will be a conference of some kind. I hope it will be helpful and flexible and not rigid. I use the term "flexible"' not in a platitudinous sense, but because I think it is necessary that we should apply our minds to flexibility. We must not assume, for instance, that all the right is on our side and all the wrong on the other. After all, there are many countries and many citizens in our own country, maybe only 28 per cent. as the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, said—the foolish 28 per cent. if you like, or the ignorant—who take the view that our action has been wrong.
  LORD ST. OSWALD: That is exactly the opposite of what I said. I was quoting the New Statesman, and they said 54 per cent. were foolish and 28 per cent. were educated. I am not sure of the figures. I am sorry to interrupt, but I must correct that.
  LORD SILKIN: All right; the wise 28 per cent, take the view that the Government action was wrong. At any rate, an appreciable number of people in all countries and an appreciable number of countries think that we were wrong. Therefore, I hope that we shall not assume in the beginning that we are the only people who have been right over this question and that everyone else is wrong. I am glad it was assumed throughout the debate that Russia wants peace as much as we do, and that she has a legitimate interest in the Middle East. I hope we can assume that, but I would ask noble Lords to bear in mind the statement which Mr. Dulles made before leaving this country last night—namely, that one of his reasons for not welcoming a conference at all was that he challenged Russia's interest in the Middle East. I do not want to argue that at this stage. Of course she has an interest, if only because the Middle East adjoins her own territory—just as we should be interested in what goes on—
  LORD ST. OSWALD: Would the noble Lord say any greater than the interest we have in Central and Eastern Europe?
  LORD SILKIN: Yes, I would say that.
  LORD ST. OSWALD: I would disagree.
  LORD SILKIN: Of course, the noble Lord disagrees. At any rate, I think that that has been generally accepted in this debate.
  I promised the noble Earl the Leader of the House that I would refer to one or two remarks that he made yesterday in the course of the debate which I thought were somewhat ill-advised. He seemed to suggest that his idea of talks is to bring about a change of will on the part of the Russians so as to preserve the status quo in the Lebanon and Jordan—and, incidentally, so did the noble Lord, Lord Strang—and that unless there was this change of will, as he put it, on the part of the Soviet Union, these talks would be unsuccessful. He said that so far it is Russia that has prevented peaceful solutions. In a later part of his speech he said that the Soviet Union could relieve us of this new type of aggression, assuming that the Soviet Union was responsible for this type of aggression. But that is exactly what has not been established and what a great many people deny.
  In another part of his speech he said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 211 (No. 200), col. 292.]:
  " Certainly we are prepared to go and talk with the Russians and to hope that they now have a change of mind."
  I do not want to be mealy-mouthed in talking to the Russians—certainly, they are the last people who are discreet in their language; but it seemed to me that the noble Earl, who is always so careful in what he says, was displaying an attitude of mind as regards these talks which did not augur too well for their success. That is why my noble Leader and I feel that we should make some comment, and why we feel that it is necessary to stress the desirability of flexibility in our talks. It was the noble Lord, Lord Henderson who said yesterday that talks can succeed only if the result is acceptable to all concerned. I should cordially agree with that and add, also, by trying to understand, even if we do not accept, the Soviet point of view. As to what kind of agreement might be aimed at, I think it is interesting that this is the only time, I imagine, in their political lives that both Lord Salisbury and Mr. Bevan have agreed upon

  369
  the terms of a general agreement that might be aimed at, and there has been no dissent from those principles which my noble friend Lord Henderson summarised yesterday from either the Lord President, when he spoke, or from the noble Earl the Leader of the House.
  I imagine that, generally speaking, the Government are in favour of an attempt being made to work out a solution on the basis of those four principles. Of course that might well be our objective, and I quite understand that we cannot enter into discussions completely committed in every detail to achieving what we think is the right result. For one thing, we may not even have our own Allies completely with us—there may be differences of opinion, and we have to cater for that. I can assure the noble and learned Viscount who is going to reply that I, for one, recognise our difficulty in having to negotiate with our two Allies who, quite naturally, do not always see eye to eye with us but that it is necessary for us to present a united front and put forward a common case. I think there is general agreement upon what we wait to aim at.
  I would say only this in addition: that whatever the result of these talks, per. manent peace as opposed to a temporary standstill arrangement in the Middle East can be secured only if a number of conditions are satisfied: if the legitimate aspirations of Arab nationalism are met, and if the economic difficulties of all the countries in the Middle East can be overcome so that all countries, and peoples of all countries, participate in the prosperity which oil is able to bring to some of them. The noble Lord, Lord Birdwood, seemed to think that that was an impossible thing to attain: that no Arab country possessing wealth would be prepared to contribute to the welfare of its brethren—and one assumes that they are brethren. I see no reason why that should be regarded as impossible. After all, we and the United States, with other countries, are in fact contributing to the underdeveloped countries—possibly not enough, but we recognise an obligation to people who are not necessarily our brethren. If the Arab aspirations are true and they really believe that all Arabs are one people, it is not too much to expect that: the wealthier of them will help the less-well-off.
  LORD BIRDWOOD: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for allowing me to interrupt. I had not meant to convey in any way that perhaps this was an impossibility. All I meant to convey was that it should not in any way be imposed on them; that the desire to create this fair division of wealth through the Middle East must come from the countries themselves concerned.
  LORD SILKIN: At last I find myself in some measure of agreement with the noble Lord. I do not agree that anything that is imposed in these discussions can ever be satisfactory. Then we must find a solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Whatever the history of the matter may be—whether we were wise or not or right or not in creating a home for the Jews in Palestine—I think it is one of the greatest acts of statesmanship that this country has ever embarked upon, and the name of Lord Balfour will be for ever remembered for his association with that great act of statesmanship. But I recognise that there may be differences of opinion about it—and perfectly legitimate and sincere ones. The fact remains, however, that there are close upon two million people who are in the main refugees from persecution in other countries and who have settled in that land partly as a result of the encouragement which they have been given by us. In my view we have a sacred obligation to see that the State of Israel is allowed to live arid continue; and there can be no hope of permanent peace in the Middle East unless that problem is solved.
  The term "intractable" has been used. This is an intractable problem, but I hope that its intractability will not prevent us from doing everything we can. I recognise that this is not entirely a matter of economics and that one of the difficulties is the question of the refugees. I am convinced that Israel would be prepared to play its full part in helping to deal with the question of refugees if the Arab nations were prepared to do so as well. I would say, also, that if it is intended to bring in those nations in the Middle East who have an interest in that area, then Israel should be brought in as well, for she has a live, vital and legitimate interest there to-day.
  Then there is the question of recognition and understanding of the interests

  371
  of the Soviet Union in the Middle East. I believe we must accept that if we are going to argue about whether or not the Soviet Union has a legitimate interest there we shall get bogged down without any hope of a solution. If a solution can be found as a result of these talks, which we still hope will take place, it is possible that that may mark the beginning of a new era; that the removal of misunderstanding and mistrust will herald the peaceful world for which we all long; and that mankind will at long last enjoy the blessings which science and invention have placed at his disposal but which he is at present using for purposes of mutual destruction. I pray that all of us will have the patience and the wisdom to take advantage of this opportunity.
  1.53 p.m.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): My Lords, as I understand it the object of a debate on foreign affairs in a situation like the present is for everyone, irrespective of preconceptions, to try to get the facts in true perspective; and the purpose of a winding-up to such a debate should be rather to inform as to facts which are still doubtful and which can be answered, and also as to the mental attitude of Her Majesty's Government, to which so much importance has been attached during the last two days. As I understood him, the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, in that first speech which has won universal praise, especially drew our attention to the duality of indirect aggression. He stressed the danger of its two facets: first, actions directed at the integrity of another State, and secondly, the reactions in defence to them; and the noble Lord asked us to consider the definition of "indirect aggression" and the position of the United Nations in that regard.
  I believe it is important (and this may be some answer to the noble Lord) that we should start to consider how far the United Nations has already gone in that direction. The noble Lord will agree with me that we have first to look at the Charter as a whole and then to consider, in addition, the two resolutions to which reference has already been made—the resolutions of the General Assembly of 1949 and 1950. I believe the noble Lord will agree with me that it is not uninteresting to remember the names of
  372
  those two resolutions. That of 1949 was termed the "Essentials of Peace Resolution", and it called upon States:
  "To refrain from any threats or acts direct or indirect aimed at impairing the freedom, independence or integrity of any State or at fomenting civil strife."
  The resolution of 1950 was significantly called the "Peace Through Deeds Resolution" and it first condemned:
  " intervention of a State in the internal affairs of another State for the purpose of changing its legally established Government by the threat or use of force",
  and solemnly reaffirmed that:
  " Whatever weapons used, any aggression, whether committed openly or by fomenting civil strife in the interests of a foreign Power, or otherwise, is the gravest of all crimes against peace and security throughout the world."
  These are grave words, and in taking them to heart Her Majesty's Government have surely tried to work in accordance with the spirit of the Charter as illumined by the subsequent resolutions of the General Assembly. That is what I ask your Lordships to give Her Majesty's Government the credit for doing.
  The noble Lord, Lord Henderson, rightly said that this was not a new problem. Thanks to the inspiration of the noble Lord's speech I have refreshed my memory on certain points, and what is also interesting is that one of the earliest complainants about this form of aggression was the Soviet Union herself. Professor Waldock, in his well-known article on the use of force in International Law, reminds us that one example of aggression was:
  "The incursion into the territory of one State of armed bands acting for a political purpose."
  That was included, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, will now remember, in the Soviet Union's enumerative list of cases of aggression as long ago as 1933. We need not go into the facts, but he and I remember them very well, and I am sure that we discussed them at the time with our Russian friends; I certainly did.
  The Professor's next example was that contained in the 1950 resolution to which I have already referred:
  " fomenting civil strife in the interests of a foreign Power."
  I venture to give the House one more quotation because I believe that this is

  373
  the essence of the matter. It is in reference not to any thoughts of mine but to the International Law Commission of the United Nations, and it runs as follows:
  " The Commission thus recognised that a definition, of aggression simply in terms of the use or threat of armed force would be inadequate. Aggression in the modern world is achieved through indirect and concealed uses of force. This was perhaps inevitable as soon as the law began unmistakably to condemn any resort to war or armed force."
  In other words, he is driven, unless he is to go flat-footed against the whole of world opinion, to take this course; and the only point I am adding to what the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, says is that the United Nations and its members have to recognise the point perhaps more clearly than the noble Lord indicated by what he said. My Lords, I venture Ito add two things with, believe me, the utmost solemnity and objectivity. The first is that the list enumerated by the Soviet Union reflects the fact that they, in their opinion, like everyone else, have suffered from this form of aggression. There is a very good old Spanish proverb:
  " To-day to me; to-morrow to thee."
  And the second point is, as I have already tried to indicate, that its concealment and vice is that it must disguise itself as internal revolution.
  I come to the second facet of the noble Lord's worry on this point. Of course, self-defence against this form of aggression, as against any form of aggression, must fulfil the conditions that there must be an instant and overwhelming need and the force must be proportionate to that need; and the right of defence exists only in the face of imminent attack. The same tests apply (I think this is beyond controversy) to collective defence as to individual defence. There is another point on which we must keep our minds clear—and again I do not think 'that 'the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, will find this controversial at all; it is not intended to be. Quite different considerations apply to the sending of troops into territory of another State at the request of the Government of that other State, which is a situation which can occur in an infinite variety of ways. As noble Lords will remember, it was the Government under the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, that invited American troops to come to this country. We can, taking that as one end of the scale, go down an infinite variety of
  374
  occasions, in which different considerations apply.
  But I want to say this—and again I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, will not think that I am being controversial: I am sure he will agree that it would be wrong for the Government spokesman to leave the point which he made unanswered; indeed, I think he invited me to answer it. He dealt with the statement made by my right honourable and learned friend the Foreign Secretary in another place, and I think it is only right (I am sorry to inflict it on noble Lords, but the matter has been challenged) that we should have the record clearly in front of us. My right honourable and learned friend said [OFFICIAL REPORT Commons, Vol. 591 (No. 143), col. 1253]:
  "The technique is the smuggling of arms and explosives, the infiltration of agents, a virulent propaganda campaign, incitement to insurrection and assassination and, finally, the plot against the lives of the constitutional leaders."
  Nobody has ever denied that there has been a virulent propaganda campaign. Nobody has said that it is even untypical when we find the quotations made by my noble friend the Leader of the House calling for blood of Chamoun. That has been the method of the campaign, a campaign whose propaganda is always expressed in these terms. My right honourable and learned friend went on to give specific instances. He said [col. 1254]:
  " Sometimes the plots are found out and frustrated in time. I have a list of them. There was one in January, 1956, resulting in the Egyptian military attachébeing expelled from Iraq. In November, 1956, the Libyan Government demanded the immediate recall of the Egyptian military attaché.In that case there was the discovery of explosives. In November, 1956, in the Lebanon, a vehicle filled with arms was seized. A vehicle full of high explosives was found in the house of the chauffeur to the Egyptian military attaché.In Ethiopia, in November, 1956, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs requested the immediate recall of the Egyptian military attaché.In March, 1956, the Egyptian Consul-General in Jerusalem was expelled for the same sort of reason. In Saudi Arabia, in.1957, the Egyptian military mission was expelled; arms were found coming from it. In June, 1957, in Jordan again there was expulsion on the grounds of this technique of subversion."
  My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, denigrates the evidential value. Surely the one constant factor that stands out in all these instances is the presence and activity of the Egyptian military

  375
  attachéin every country in which it is sought that this sort of thing should happen. That is the general position. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, knows me far too well to think that I would make a debating point in a debate like this. I ask him to reconsider—and I know that he will, because he is a fair-minded man—whether, when you get a string of episodes with that common factor, that is not evidence of systematic conduct.
  Now I come to the particular, and that is the issue that faced my colleagues and myself on the night of July 16. Believe me, I do not think that any one of us would say that the language of my noble and learned friend the Lord President in any way underestimated the gravity of the decision which lay in front of us on that occasion. But, my Lords, we had first of all from Jordan itself evidence that there was a triple attack designed from the West bank, from the North and in Amman itself. That was corroborated from our own sources, which I cannot specify further, because that is not the custom of a Government of any Party. It was also corroborated by the announcement on Baghdad Radio to which reference bas been made in this debate. What was corroborated was that these things were going to happen the next morning. We had been asked for help not only by the King but also by the Government of Jordan. My Lords, on all that I have said—and I do not mind which test you apply—we were legally entitled to answer that request.
  I am sorry to think that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has doubts about the legality, but, with great respect to him, I have not found it seriously argued. I have read very carefully the debates in another place, and of course I have seen the Press. Then the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, says: "Even if the legality is all right, what about the wisdom?" He asked: "What are the countries in which you expected further trouble?" My Lords, what we believed would have happened if these countries of Lebanon and Jordan had gone was that there would have been a general flare-up in the Middle East. There would have been the Lebanon, Jordan, Bahrein, Kuwait, and the Trucial Sheikhdoms. There would have been an immense danger of trouble in
  376
  every one of them. That is what I believed, after giving the matter the most careful consideration that I could. On the night of July 16 I was convinced that there was, on the sternest test, an overwhelming need, and it was because I was convinced of the existence of that overwhelming need that I was a party to the decision which my colleagues made.
  Now, my Lords, there is another aspect of this which I would ask the noble Lord to remember, because I consider it is important. Before I come to that, may I just thank the noble Lord, Lord Rea, for the sympathy which he showed in his speech with the decision which I have attempted to describe. But it is vitally important to remember that both the United States, in the Lebanon, and we ourselves, in Jordan, went in on the basis that we should retire as soon as the United Nations could ensure its integrity. We reported our action at once to the Security Council. If I may use a famous phrase of Sir John Moore in quite different circumstances, we went in "bridle in hand", ready to go as soon as there were the forces available to take our place. On this point, I have listened with great interest to the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, on his view on the creation of a United Nations force. He was good enough to say that my colleagues had already expressed sympathy for the idea, but I shall certainly bring the conception that he favours to the attention of my right honourable friends the Minister of Defence arid the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs; and if I may give my own reaction, I think that is a matter which it would be most profitable to discuss.
  I come to the other point that has been made. It has been said that the justification of intervention and the readiness for our forces to be replaced by the United Nations forces did not disclose a medium-term policy. I appreciate the view of my noble friend Lord Birdwood that it is sometimes a mistake to place yourself in the armed framework of a long-term policy, but I think the real criticism that has been made is that our action did not disclose a medium-term policy, and that is the point with which I want to deal. Of course, our problem was to guarantee to Lebanon and Jordan their right to independence against whatever threats were planned from outside. But what had we in mind? This is

  377
  obviously a delicate problem, and I hope that the House will agree that I am doing right if I put it in the words of my right honourable and learned friend the Foreign Secretary, because I do not think I can usefully add to them. But they are very important with regard to the future of Lebanon. What he said was [OFFICIAL REPORT, COMMONS, Vol. 592 (No. 147), col. 228]:
  " With regard to the longer term view—for the action taken in the Lebanon is surely emergency action—I think that the Committee "—
  he was speaking of another place—
  " is familiar with the special historic position of the Lebanon since the massacre of 1860. It has been a semi-autonomous régime, even under the Ottoman Empire and the Christian Governor, and the delicate balance has been preserved between Christian and Moslem. I believe that the Lebanon's position in the future can be safeguarded by some special international status under the United Nations' auspices which would preserve both the traditional detachment of the Lebanon and the delicate balance between the religious groups in the country. Such a position would have to be achieved, of course, with the consent of the people of the Lebanon themselves. I think that this status would be very much in their own interests, but I am not formulating proposals. I am simply indicating a way along which I believe progress might be made."
  My Lords, I think that that statement is entirely within the spirit of what was said by Mr. Aneurin Bevan in another place, and by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson yesterday.
  Jordan represents a different problem. It is, like the Lebanon, small and weak; but, unlike the Lebanon, it is economically unviable and has only a tenuous outlet to the West. Its people are of the same race and religion, and share many of the same feelings as their Arab neighbours. Here again I should not like to go further than the Foreign Secretary's speech. He said:
  " The object of these consultations with other Governments and in the United Nations would be to work out proposals under which assistance could be given by the United Nations to the Government of Jordan to ensure the preservation of Jordan's territorial integrity and political independence "—
  in other words, that we ought to share in a joint plan. In answer to the noble and gallant Viscount, Lord Stansgate, I should like to say that we have never received a request from Jordan to become a member of the Baghdad Pact, and have no reason to believe that she will make one.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: But the noble and learned Lord Chancellor will remember that I referred to an official visit by General Templer urging that.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes. I am sorry; I did not intend to mislead the noble Viscount. I was referring to the present time. I was not questioning his past history: I was taking the position to-day.
  The noble and gallant Viscount also asked about the Sheikdoms of the Gulf which were independent States under British protection. They present a different case. They are too valuable economically and strategically, and yet too small in size, to be able to maintain their integrity unaided. The present arrangements are of long standing and we have no reason to suppose that there is any particular desire of those concerned—namely, the Governments and the peoples of the Sheikdorns—to alter them. I do not think that the noble Viscount would expect me to deal with hypothetical questions on the basis that there will be a change of opinion. I would remind the noble Viscount of a remark of Sheridan about the Government of which he was a member. He said that he had heard of many Governments hitting their heads against brick walls but few except his own had built the brick walls to hit their heads against. I have adopted Sheridan's position in this regard.
  The noble Lord, Lord Henderson, directed our attention, and there has been general acquiescence, to the four propositions of Mr. Aneurin Bevan: first, the great Powers to agree not to seek military allies or foster blocs in the Middle East; secondly, to guarantee against alteration of existing frontiers without consent; thirdly, willingness to facilitate amalgamation or federation; and fourthly, an economic commission under U.N.O. I want to say only one or two words on this matter, because the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, will remember that my right honourable friend Commander Noble dealt with these points in another place. I want to say this—and again I would ask noble Lords to consider it objectively. The Baghdad Pact is an institution which came about because of threats to the participants in it; and we believe that, as such, it serves a useful purpose. The noble Viscount,

  379
  Lord Stansgate, asked me whether discussions had taken place about the position of Iraq under its present authorities. Discussions did take place. I am not in a position to divulge them, because, as the noble Viscount will understand, they have still to be discussed with members of the Commonwealth and other Powers. I did not want him to think that I was ignoring that question.
  The other question he asked me was about the position of the United States with regard to the Pact. If your Lordships read The Times as well as the noble and gallant Viscount does (unless he has changed a great deal since we were in another place together), you will have seen the following declaration:
  " Article 1 of the Pact of Mutual Co-operation signed at Baghdad on February 24, 1955, provides that the parties will co-operate for their security and defence and that such measures as they agree to take to give effect to this co-operation may form the subject of special agreements. Similarly, the United States, in the interest of world peace and pursuant to existing Congressional authorisation "—
  I am meeting the point raised about treaty-making powers—
  " agrees to co-operate with the nations making this declaration for their security and defence and will promptly enter into agreements designed to give effect to this co-operation."
  I think that meets the noble Viscount's fear. Of course it is up to the present Iraqi authorities to decide whether they will join the Pact.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, I think that this might be a convenient moment for the noble and learned Viscount to tell us what will happen to our personnel and material in Iraq.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, all one can say is that since the burning of the Embassy, for which the Government have apologised and expressed desire to pay compensation, there has been no further action of which I know. The position so far as our personnel is concerned is that they are now safe. The noble Viscount knows that I have been sitting on the Woolsack all the morning, and I do not know whether there is any late news; but that was the position as I knew it this morning, and I have no reason to suppose that it has changed.
  I am sorry to detain your Lordships but a number of points have been raised.
  380
  With regard to the point that the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, raised about guaranteeing of frontiers, I will say only that that is a difficult matter. It has to be done by agreement and many things have to be taken into account. I think that he regarded this more as an objective than as a cut-and-dried matter of policy and programme. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, was right in saying that the Prime Minister and the Government are anxious that there should be a conference on Middle Eastern questions under the anspices of the United Nations at which heads of Government will be present. We still think that the Security Council is the right forum—for the following reasons. Governments, under Articles 28 and 31, can be represented by their heads. Secondly, procedure is flexible within the Charter. Thirdly, there is the full possibility of private meetings; and fourthly the settlement of any question can be kept within the United Nations framework. Fifthly, it is an organisation with a continuity of effort which can carry on from the conference and also provide the basis for further meetings, should they occur. I very much hope that we shall not get into our minds the idea, which I think is completely out-of-date, that we ought to have one meeting and that that is the end of everything. I like to contemplate further meetings in future.
  I was asked about timing. Here again I want to be perfectly frank with the House, and I hope that the House will understand exactly my attitude of mind. I was disappointed with the most recent reply from Mr. Khrushchev, and so were my colleagues, because we had thought that he had gone further in accepting the United Nations framework than appeared from this latest communication. But we are going to press on for the meeting. Of course we shall consult the Commonwealth and our Allies. Noble Lords opposite would be the first to criticise if we did not. We shall press on, and I hope that we shall be able to give a progress report, not merely in the official meaning of the term, but a report of progress, before the House rises for the Summer Recess. I shall certainly bear in mind, and so will all my colleagues, what the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said about the recall of the House. I think that this is a matter which every Government must approach with a grave

  381
  sense of its responsibility and of the fact that it owes its existence to Parliament, and therefore whenever there is doubt of any important matter it should lean over towards Parliament. That is a view that I have expressed.
  May I say this, in my last words? The independence and integrity of small nations are things that are worth preserving in themselves. As the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, said this morning, racialism is no excuse for imperialism even if it calls itself nationalism. That is a great truth which we must remember. We must remember that small and medium-sized nations behave just as great nations do; and we must consider that we have got to try to find some method by which all nations may be brought into better relations. I think, with the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, that we want to make yet another effort to express not only our disapproval of concealed and indirect aggression but our renunciation of it; and that this should also be a matter for which we should aim at general consent.
  When I was a boy, in international situations in those days there used to be references in the Press to the Foreign Minister of Ruritania "waving a torch over the powder barrel", which was then the Balkans. We ought to pause and think seriously that what we are considering to-day is literally the torch being waved over the oil barrel of the world It is wrong to talk about oil in any denigrating way. Oil can make all the difference to the lives of these people living in great poverty and turn them towards the hope of better things. And what is wrong with the conception of oil as the sinews of the life of our own country and of the peoples of the West? Surely it is of the utmost importance that these benefits to both sides should always be in our minds.
  We want these things: that is, the removal of a danger to a great material
  382
  asset by a strengthened United Nations. I am not for a moment going to ask your Lordships to agree to every mental step. Of course we shall, please God, keep our individual approaches for the health of this country and its politics—but I do ask your Lordships to agree in this: let us try to take this new step to peace through the action of a strengthened United Nations. This is a high purpose for the United Kingdom and the United States of America and our Allies. It is surely a purpose high enough and beneficial enough to command the co-operation of all the nations of the world.
  2.34 p.m.
  LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, I rise to ask leave to withdraw the Motion, but before doing so I should like to say that I think in all parts of the House there is general agreement that this debate has been worth while and extremely useful. I should have liked an opportunity of discussing some of the things which the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack has said in his reply. I am grateful to him for the full reply he gave to me on indirect aggression. I must admit that I had overlooked the two resolutions to which he has referred; but possibly we can come back to that matter on another occasion. I am also grateful to the Lord Chancellor for saying that before we rise at the end of this week there will be a statement by Her Majesty's Government as regards the Conference. If there is one thing that I feel I must press before sitting down it is that we are most anxious to know that a date has been actually fixed, because the situation in a Parliamentary sense will be very different next week, when the House will have risen. We hope that the Government will be able to announce a date for the Conference before we rise on Friday. With those few remarks, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
  Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

  MANCHESTER CORPORATION BILL
  2.35 p.m.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD MERTHYR): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
  Moved, to resolve—
  That the promoters of the Bill have leave to suspend any further proceedings thereon, in order to proceed with the Bill, if they shall think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that notice of their intention to do so be lodged in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments not later than three o'clock on the day before the close of the present Session, and that all fees due thereon up to that period be paid;
  That such Bill shall be deposited in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments not later than three o'clock on or before the third day on which the House shall sit after the commencement of the next Session of Parliament, with a declaration annexed thereto, signed by the Agent, stating that the Bill is the same in every respect as the Bill at the last stage of the proceedings thereon in this House in the present Session;
  That the proceedings on such Bill shall be pro formâ only in regard to every stage through which the same shall have passed in the present Session, and that no new fees be charged in regard to such stages;
  That the Standing Orders by which the proceedings on Bills are regulated shall not apply to such Bill in regard to any of the stages through which the same shall have passed during the present Session.—(Lord Merthyr.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to: ordered, that a Message be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

  TELEVISING OF THE STATE OPENING
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, I beg to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
  [The Question was as follows:
  To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they can now make an
  384
  announcement concerning the proposal to record by television the Opening of the next Session of Parliament.]
  THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, this matter is under consideration, and my right honourable friend the Prime Minister hopes to make an announcement before the Houses rises, which I shall repeat in this House.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that reply.

  PEERS' LEAVE OF ABSENCE
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, I beg to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
  [The Question was as follows:
  To ask the Leader of the House how many Peers failed to reply to his letter of June 23 and have in consequence been granted leave of absence, and how many Peers have to the present date neglected to take the Oath.]
  THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, if the noble Viscount will allow me, I will give the complete picture. The number of applications for leave of absence for the remainder of this Parliament is 133. The number of applications for leave of absence for the next Session is 62. Eighty-six Peers stated that they did not wish to ask for leave, and three Peers have answered but have not yet finally stated their wishes. The answers to the noble Viscount's particular questions are that 47 Peers failed to reply to the Lord Chancellor's letter, out of a total of 331 to whom the letter was sent, and the number of Peers who have not taken the Oath in this Parliament is 228.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, has leave of absence been granted to the Peers who have not taken the Oath.
  THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, it will be, but I am not sure that it has yet gone out.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, it is rather difficult to send an unsolicited paper giving leave of absence to a Peer who has not qualified to sit.
  THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I think the answer to that is that the Peer can qualify himself at any moment.

  COUNTY COUNCIL BILLS
  2.38 p.m.
  LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name, on the Order Paper.
  [The Question was as follows:
  To ask the Chairman of Committees when he intends to set up the Committee promised by him on May 21 last.]
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: My Lords, on May 21 I said that I would welcome an inquiry by a Select Committee, or preferably a Joint Committee, into the principle relating to County Council Bills which I had put to the House on May 13—namely, that a County Council Bill should not confer on local authorities or any other authority or person functions in which the county council has no interest. I had hoped to put the Motion on the Paper before the Summer Recess. For a number of reasons, however, I am not yet in a position to do so. The present situation is that discussions are going on both here and in another place in order to see whether a Joint Committee can be set up. I still regard myself as under an obligation in this matter and shall certainly do my best to ensure that a Motion is put down early in the next Session for either a Joint Committee or a Select Committee.
  LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I am obliged for that Answer. May I take it that the noble Lord would still prefer a Joint Select Committee rather than a Committee of this House alone?
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: Yes, My Lords.
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, will the noble Lord please bear in mind that if there should arise the question of having a Select Committee of this House alone, many of us would feel bound to submit strongly that the Business which would be referred to it is Business for both Houses of Parliament and not for a Select Committee of this House alone. That might lead to further difficulty.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: Yes, my Lords, I will bear that in mind.
  THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, may I ask whether the Leader of the Opposition would use his best endeavours
  386
  to achieve what we all want—a Joint Committee of both Houses?
  LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, when the noble Lord is considering this matter, would he also consider whether a great many practical advantages may not attach to the rather indeterminate way in which the matter stands at the present moment? In practice I think it works extremely well.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: Yes, my Lords, I will consider that also.

  FINANCE BILL
  2.41 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, in April the Spring flowers can hardly vie in interest with the annual consideration of our fiscal dispositions. After all, the flowers come up much, the same every year, and we all hope each year that the Budget will be different. But to move the Second Reading of the Finance Bill at the end of July is to face a situation in which the bloom has gone off the subject, like the daffodils at the Chelsea Flower Show. We face a subject in its detail rather like a plate of cold porridge for tea which a tyrannical nanny sometimes compels her charges to consume in atonement for their not having eaten it at breakfast.
  Last year I endeavoured to spare your Lordships this ordeal by suggesting that the appropriate course was to indulge in a free-ranging debate on economic affairs, a course which I was advised would be perfectly in order and in accordance with tradition. However, that did not meet with the complete support of the Opposition, and with my customary desire to conciliate that august body I now propose to move the Second Reading in a more conventional form. I propose, if I may, to take the Bill as it stands and deal with some of its principal provisions, and then, when these have been summarily glanced over, to say a word or two, but hardly more, about the general economic policy, upon which the proposals rest, as it existed in April and as it has developed since.
  The first Part of the Bill relates to the Customs and Excise clauses, and this year

  387
  they carried with them the unusual interest of a far-ranging and, I think, imaginative recasting of the purchase tax provisions. These proposals were designed to simplify and rationalise the purchase tax. The number of rates of tax was reduced from seven to four—the 90 per cent., 50 per cent. and 10 per cent. rates being abolished, while the range of goods charged at 60 per cent., which is now the top rate, was much reduced. The 60 per cent. rate is now confined to a limited range of goods: cars, radios, television sets, gramophones, records, perfumery, cosmetics and what, with a sad lack of humour, are referred to as the less essential toilet goods, which contribute substantially to the tax revenue. The 30 per cent. rate is now the standard rate applicable to all taxable goods not subject to any other rate, while the 15 per cent. rate applies to the more common household utensils and requisites, and the 5 per cent. rate to clothing and most articles of furniture.
  The changes are too numerous to mention individually, but among the most important reductions are those on household goods and electrical appliances, such as refrigerators, vacuum cleaners, washing machines, space and water heaters, musical instruments, other than gramophones, radio gramophones and records (if they can be referred to as musical instruments at all), cameras and jewellery, on all of which tax was reduced from 60 per cent. to 30 per cent., whilst the only increases of note are in respect of oil heaters, shopping bags and brief cases. These were formerly exempt and are now charged at 30 per cent., in common with other comparable goods, thus removing anomalies which existed before.
  The net cost of the original Budget proposals was estimated at£41 million in a full year and, I think£30 million in the current year. Additional concessions, however, were made during the passage of the Bill in another place in respect of protective footwear and headgear, including crash helmets, shopping baskets of cane and wicker, and gas-fired domestic central heating appliances. These are estimated to increase the full year cost by about£700,000. Taken together, I believe that these changes represent a substantial simplification of the tax. They remove a number of anomalies, and
  388
  by producing a simpler and more logical structure they make the tax more defensible as a revenue instrument and more easily comprehensible to traders. The changes received a fairly general welcome, and will prove a useful and practical reform.
  A second improvement in this class of duty was the proposal by my right honourable friend to reduce the entertainments duty by rather more than half, at a cost of£14½ million in a full year. It has been generally recognised that this relief was needed in order to help the industry to meet the changed circumstances resulting from the sharp fall in attendances at cinemas over the past year. There were also changes in the Excise duties on wine and sweets—a phrase with which I first became familiar in this connection when I was studying the licensing laws of this Kingdom. Clause 4, which deals with the former, reduces by 12s. a gallon the rates of Customs duty, both full and preferential, on imported heavy wines. These are the stronger wines, like port and sherry, as distinct from the lighter table wines, like claret and hock, on which the duty remains unchanged. I hope that this reduction is welcome: the trade would call it overdue. It goes some way towards reducing the disparity between the duty rates on light and heavy wines which were widened in 1949, when the rate for light wine, as your Lordships will remember, was substantially reduced, while that for heavy wine remained unchanged. The new rates of duty are 38s. a gallon for non-Commonwealth and 28s. a gallon for Commonwealth wines. The duty reductions, which have been passed on to the public in full, represent a saving of 2s. a bottle. Also they have been warmly welcomed by the trade, although it is fair to say that the trade itself had pressed for an even greater reduction. Clause 5 is rather consequential on Clause 4. It applies to those British wines to which the old English term of "sweets" is still applied.
  I come now to the second Part of the Bill which relates to the Inland Revenue. Of the changes in direct taxation, the two which I think should be given pride of place and which I feel should be noticed here are the 50 per cent. increase in the rates of initial allowances for plant and machinery and industrial

  389
  buildings and the radical reform of the structure of the profits tax. The former of those two changes is effected by Clause 15 of the Bill. This increases the rate of initial allowances on qualifiying expenditure payable on or after the day of the Budget from 20 to 30 per cent. for plant, and from 10 to 15 per cent. for industrial buildings.
  As your Lordships are aware, these initial allowances have varied in the past with changing economic circumstances. Your Lordships will also have noticed that the increase is double that which was originally proposed in the Budget. This change in the rate of increase reflects my right honourable friend's wish to encourage firms to write off their assets fairly quickly so as to be in a position to take advantage of new and improved plant and machinery and buildings. It reflects also his later judgment, as time developed, of the degree of encouragement to industrial investment which the situation currently requires. A measure of this encouragement could be given by saying that the cost in a full year of the increase is something of the order of£50 million. Apart from the direct benefit provided, the change should give confidence to those responsible for the investment plans of private industry and should be of particular help to new and expanding concerns.
  The second major change is to be found in Part IV of the Bill and in the Seventh Schedule. These contain the provisions converting the present differentiated profits tax, which is charged at 30 per cent. on distributed profits and 3 per cent, on undistributed profits, into a single rate of tax of 10 per cent. on total profits. The Royal Commission on Taxation, under the chairmanship of Lord Radcliffe, drew attention to the serious economic and administrative disadvantages of the existing tax in its present form, and the majority of the Commission strongly recommended the unification of the rates which is now proposed.
  The change has, I think, generally been welcomed by the representatives of industry and commerce as removing a source of distortion of company finance and assisting the flow of capital within industry. It will also greatly simplify the law and administration of the tax,
  390
  remove the main causes of avoidance and save much unnecessary work, both for the Revenue and for the taxpayers and their advisers. It is true that one effect of the change will be to reduce the liability of companies which distribute a high proportion of their profits in dividends and to increase the liability of those which retain a high proportion of their profits without distribution. Many of the latter should, however, benefit from the increase in initial allowances. In any case, as my right honourable friend has pointed out, these are effects which must be faced if we are to change to a system which we have been advised by the Royal Commission is sounder in the long run.
  Apart from those two changes, my right honourable friend formed the conclusion that present economic conditions and prospects for the near future do not permit any substantial reduction in direct taxation this year. Obviously, alleviation of the present heavy lax burden must remain for the Government a most important long-term objective, one which I hope will he shared in all quarters of the House; but the policy for this year must be one of consolidation. That, of course, has not prevented my right honourable friend from giving up a modest amount of revenue in order to meet specially deserving cases, and the Bill, it will be noticed, contains a number of provisions of this character of which perhaps I may be permitted to give some of the most noteworthy.
  In the sphere of income tax I would draw your Lordships' attention to Clause 14. This extends the special reliefs for old people living on limited incomes and for those who help to maintain infirm or elderly relatives. I would also mention Clause 16, which relaxes the Schedule E expenses rule in favour of those paying annual subscriptions to professional and learned societies connected with their work. There is also Clause 17, which removes an anomalous provision that has deprived the churches and other charities of exemption from tax on certain property which they own and occupy.
  In the sphere of estate duty I would mention Clauses 29 and 30. These clauses give relief in cases where there are at present two lots of duty payable

  391
  simultaneously or in rapid succession. As regards stamp duty, a modest relief is given by Clause 34 to those who wish to buy their own houses by the remission (up to£3,500), or the reduction (up to£6,000) of duty on small conveyances. The other Inland Revenue clauses are designed either to simplify or clarify the law or to counteract avoidance. In the first category, for example, are Clause 23 and the Sixth Schedule. This change gives effect to another recommendation of the Royal Commission that there should be a comprehensive review of all time limits for income tax appeals and claims, with the primary object of bringing about a greater degree of uniformity. In the second category there are Clauses 18 and 19. The necessarily lengthy and highly complicated provisions of these two clauses are directed against the avoidance of income tax by means of what have come to be known as "dividend stripping" devices. I would also draw your Lordships' attention to Clauses 20 to 22 inclusive, which are directed against the avoidance of sur-tax by way of settlements, and to Clause 28, directed against the avoidance of estate duty by the purchase by life tenants of interests in expectancy.
  That brings me to the Treasury clauses of the Bill, of which I think I need mention only Clauses 36 and 38. Clause 36 extends for a further twelve months, until August 31, 1959, the arrangements first introduced by Section 42 of the Finance Act, 1956, under which the nationalised industries are financed directly by the Exchequer, instead of, as before, by borrowing temporarily from the banks and by issues of stock, both having been guaranteed by the Treasury. At the same time the limit of the finance which may be met in this way is increased from£700 million to£1,070 million. The reason for the further extension of these arrangements is that these industries still cannot in practice borrow on their own credit, and so long as they have to borrow on Government credit there are strong reasons of market management for centralising the raising of money in the Exchequer.
  Clause 38 deals with annuities under the Tithe Acts. This clause is designed to bring about economies in the operation of the Tithe Redemption Commission which was set up by the Tithe Act,
  392
  1936, when the annual tithe rent charges were extinguished. At that time those who had formerly paid annual tithe rent charges were required to pay instead Redemption Annuities, calculated on a different basis, to the Tithe Redemption Commission. Since 1936 rising costs have upset the financial balance of the Commission's operations, and in order to promote more economical administration this clause provides for the annual, instead of half-yearly, payment of annuities. The 1936 Act also provided for the compulsory redemption of any annuity in cases where the annual payment amounted to£1 or less. Redemptions under the£1 limit are now almost complete and the clause raises the limit for compulsory redemption from£1 to£3, with provision for possible further increases in future. These two changes will make possible considerable administrative economies in the working of the Tithe Redemption Commission.
  My Lords, I now turn for a brief period to the economic policy underlying these proposals. I hope that by this time the main aims of the Government economic policy are sufficiently well understood. As my right honourable friend said, as recently as July 3, when he was announcing some relaxation of the control of borrowing [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 590 (No. 134), col. 1599]:
  " The Government's economic objectives are fundamental and unchanging—to put the strength of sterling, the soundness of our international position, and price stability first."
  He added (col. 1600):
  "…we are determined not to return to inflationary conditions. But it is clearly right to encourage such sound development as we judge to be within our capacity."
  He said that the first objective would be to stimulate our exports and investment programme.
  Already at the time of the Budget my right honourable friend could look back on six months in which Britain's external position had been, I think it is not too much to say, transformed. Sterling had become strong, and since the end of September our reserves had increased by 920 million dollars, a sum which meant that they had fully recovered from the autumn losses. At home the prospects as regards prices could be considered better than at any time in recent years, and I think it could have been claimed already

  393
  at the time of the Budget that the dangerous excess pressure of demand had slackened. Looking ahead then in April, it seemed probable that demand would weaken a little further, mainly because of the expected fall in overseas demand for our exports. In consequence, some slight decline in production and a continuing rise in the unemployment figures were already foreseen.
  The difficulty was that at that stage it would, I think, have been imprudent to announce immediate measures of expansion. The recovery from the autumn crisis was very recent and the external financial position, although already stronger, still at that time imposed a high measure of caution. At home, at the time of which I am speaking, the pattern of the wage round had not yet emerged, arid although the prospect for prices was, as I have already said, comparatively hopeful, I think it could still have been jeopardised by any decisive return to inflationary conditions. The Budget which my right honourable friend presented was, therefore, a reform Budget, rather than an expanding Budget on the grand scale. Only small tax concessions were made, although this year they will cost£50 million. The most important concessions were those to which I have drawn attention, relating to purchase tax, initial allowances and the reform of profits tax.
  Since the Budget, however, the economic situation has developed. I think it has developed more or less on the lines we then expected. The general level of home demand has been well maintained; consumption and investment have continued to increase. On the other hand, there has been some decline in the demand for our exports, although the fall has not been large, and on the whole I think we can take a certain amount of satisfaction in the smallness of the reduction to date. Production has been maintained at a high and stable level. None the less, in spite of that high level there has been some rise in unemployment since last autumn. This is always something which must cause concern to any Government, but one reason at least, is not altogether unhealthy: employers have at last weeded out unproductive labour to increase efficiency.
  I think it is fair to say that unemployment, at a bare 2 per cent. of the working population, is still low compared with
  394
  that in any other industrial country, though I am not forgetting that even very small figures like that do not operate absolutely evenly over the country, and there are areas where this extremely satisfactory picture would not be reflected. When we read some of the comments which are made about the economy this might seem to suggest that at the moment we are in recession. But I would say that the present situation would seem recessionary only to those who regard the previous overstrain of the economy as a desirable state of affairs. I have already indicated that I have not forgotten that unemployment in certain areas is still above the national average. The Government are most conscious of the problems this must cause, and the Distribution of Industry (Industrial Finance) Bill, which at present awaits the Royal Assent, will allow financial help for the industrialists willing to set up in those areas and, we hope, will go some way towards solving the problem. I am sure that in expressing that hope I reflect the opinion of both sides of the House.
  The main internal problem for the United Kingdom this year has been not to avoid deflation but to break the inflationary spiral, as it is called, in wages and prices. The other day my right honourable friend said that he was not yet entirely satisfied about wages: the rate of increase this year is still in excess of the normal growth of productivity. Nevertheless, the average wage increases granted this year are likely to be less than in recent years. For the immediate future, I should be inclined to say that the prospects for price stability are relatively good. Here, of course, we have been mainly helped by the sharp fall in the price of our imports over the past year. This has now worked its way through into wholesale prices. The wholesale price index of manufactured output stopped rising as long ago as October and in recent months has fallen slightly. There are now, therefore, good prospects of a fall in retail prices in the coming months. Recent rises in the index of retail prices have been due to seasonal rises in food prices—particularly, I am told, because of the shortage of potatoes.
  I think I can report to your Lordships that our balance of payments so far this year has been really satisfactory. The

  395
  main factor has been the exceptionally favourable terms of trade which we have been enjoying temporarily: thus although export earnings have fallen slightly, the cost of our imports has fallen much further, and for the first time this century we have had a substantial payments surplus on visible trade.
  Invisible earnings have, of course, also been high, and in consequence the current surplus in the first half of this year will prove to have been very large. The reserves have also improved substantially since the beginning of this year. On June 30 they amounted to£1,099 million, which was£287 million more than at the end of December. It was also the highest level for over six years. At the same time our liabilities—the overseas sterling holdings—have been falling. Between the end of June last and the end of March this year (the latest date for which published figures are available, I believe) the sterling balances of other countries went down by£260 million. Our external monetary position, taking account of both reserves and liabilities, can therefore be claimed to be much stronger now than it was at the beginning of this year or, indeed, has been for a number of years past. At the same time, we have been maintaining the flow of capital abroad. mainly, as I know your Lordships will be glad to hear, to the Commonwealth, which helps underdeveloped countries to expand their resources and so, we believe, strengthens world capacity for increased trade.
  Having given that favourable report I feel it is right to say that in the second half of the year the result will not be so good. This is partly due to seasonal causes, but partly because of growing reserve difficulties in the rest of the sterling area which must affect our exports to those countries. We hope that the current surplus will still be large, and in view of our improved monetary position we feel that we can enter into this seasonally less favourable part of the year with a good degree of confidence, Her Majesty's Government have made clear that they will encourage expansion as soon as it is safe to do so. Your Lordships will remember that since the Budget several steps have already been taken in this direction. The bank rate has now been brought down to the level
  396
  of 5 per cent., which is where it stood before the crisis last autumn, and the ceiling on Bank advances imposed at the same time has been removed. Also, the criteria by which the Capital Issues Committee have to judge applications have been substantially relaxed and, as I said when I dealt with the Budget proposals, the initial allowances have beer further increased.
  These measures are designed to encourage expansion selectively, mainly by stimulating investment and exports. Further measures will be taken as and when they become desirable, although, of course, it is not desirable to advertise them in advance. The outlook for the economy is more hopeful than it has been for several years. I believe that we call look back on nine months in which great progress has been made in strengthening sterling and fighting inflation. When I was preparing for this debate I re-read that rather grim debate on the financial situation which we had in February last. I then expressed a degree of confidence in the future and satisfaction with the policies of Her Majesty's Government which was not universally accepted in your Lordships' House. I believe that events have proved that the view I then took was the right view. My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.
  Moved. That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
  3.14 p.m.
  LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: My Lords, we are greatly indebted to the noble and learned Viscount for his description of the Finance Bill and I should like to tell him that it is all to the good that we should have our minds refreshed as to the details of the measures which his right honourable friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, introduced into another place in the middle of April. Our minds get a little rusty with regard to these things, and even though perhaps we ought to remember them I believe neither the oldest nor the youngest of us is able fully to carry all these changes in our minds. We are also grateful to the noble and learned Viscount for the discourse he gave us on the economic policies of Her Majesty's Government. I think he described them fairly accurately although I shall have something to say in an adverse sense with regard to them later in my speech.

  397
  This debate on finance follows closely on the heels of the long debate which we have had yesterday and this morning on foreign affairs; and to some extent there roust be a likeness in the two debates. I was very happy that in that foreign affairs debate a considerable measure of agreement was reached in all parts of the House, but my noble Leader was careful to explain that that agreement did not, in the slightest degree, mean the withdrawal of any of our strong criticisms of the policies of Her Majesty's Government in the past. It is my intention today equally in the matter of finance to explain most carefully, first of all, where we are in accord with Her Majesty's Government, but also where we disagree strongly in those measures of finance and economics which Her Majesty's Government have carried through, in our view to the grave detriment of the fortunes of this country.
  First, among the matters on which we agree I should like to state emphatically that we are at least equally determined as Members on the opposite side to prevent inflation. I have spoken many times to your Lordships upon the evils which come about with inflation and I have done so for two main reasons. I believe inflation is externally injurious because it tends to price our products out of world competition; and it is internally injurious because it works havoc with our contractual obligations. From the former springs the menace of the flight from sterling on the exchanges and from the latter springs the unjust discrimination against persons of limited fixed incomes. Where we differ from Her Majesty's Government is in the choice of weapons with which to combat inflation—a matter to which I shall make much longer reference later in my speech.
  Secondly, we recognise the importance of the sterling area and for this purpose we desire to strengthen the gold and dollar reserve. I noted the statement made by the noble and learned Viscount, repeating the words of his right honourable friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with regard to the reserve at the present time. We are very glad that the figures show as good a return as they do, but it is only fair to remember that they would not stand at that figure but for two facts: first, that we had borrowings from, I think, both the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank; and, secondly, I will not say that we
  398
  defaulted, but at any rate we did not pay the interest on either the American or the Canadian loan last December—and I believe that that is not the first time it has happened. In fact, I think that but for those facts over the past three years our reserves would be£350 million lower than they are at the present time. I am not saying it was unwise of the, Chancellor of the Exchequer to effect those transactions; probably it was right; but before we "lick our chops" with the delight of the meal we have had, I think we have to consider that somewhat slight commentary upon the facts. As I say, we desire to strengthen the reserves, and we wish, within the limits of our resources, to promote the development of the countries of the Commonwealth and of our Colonial Empire and also, where it seems suitable, to help other backward nations in their progress towards industrial recovery.
  In the third place we agree with the Government—and to that extent disagree with the Liberal Party, as represented by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, who spoke in this House last week—in thinking that some controls are necessary. We do not believe in laissez faire, and I hope it is true that the Government do not believe in laissez faire either. We believe there roust be Government control of economic development for our own country; but where we differ from the Government is in that, whereas we think there should be selective and sometimes physical controls, though riot more than are absolutely necessary, the Government appear to think that a "free for all" economy and a preference to rely on monetary weapons (meaning mainly changes in bank rate) are all that is required from them. However, I will say this for the Government: I think they agree with us, and not with the noble Lord seated by the gangway on my side of the House, that changes in bank rate are a matter of high policy and cannot be left entirely to the decisions of financiers, however able, working inside or outside the precincts of the Bank of England. I think that the Government, equally with us, have no desire to go back to the régime of Montagu Norman, when decisions which mainly affected the economic life of this country were decided, not inside the Houses of Parliament, but within the walls of the Bank of England.

  399
  Leaving those matters, on which there is a certain measure of agreement, at any rate, between both sides of the House, I come to other matters where I think there is slightly greater divergence. We on this side of the House, and our Party as a whole, set very high up among our priorities full employment and the maximum home investment programme. Tory Chancellors of the Exchequer, during the last few years have, in our opinion, missed a great opportunity when they have been given the immense advantage—a "windfall" advantage to which the noble Viscount has already referred—of the terms of trade turning in our favour. I wonder whether all noble Lords fully appreciate how great the change has been. It has amounted to no less than£400 million to£500 million a year. In our opinion, Tory Chancellors of the Exchequer during these years have frittered away this "windfall" bonus that has been given to this country; and they should have used a great deal—a larger part of it—in setting the industrial life of this country on a wider basis. Further than that, they have in the course of these years toyed with the obsession of immediate convertibility. Fortunately, they drew back at the critical moment, though before they had done so this toying with convertibility had already worked to considerable detriment to the country.
  I remember very well some thirty years ago, or a little more, when Mr. Winston Churchill (as he then was) toyed and did not draw back from a similar pressure from the financial authorities to restore the gold standard at its old parity. Later, Mr. Winston Churchill himself admitted that he was over-persuaded and it would have been better had he not done so. The consequences of that action in restoring gold at the old parity wrought incalculable harm. The troubles of the later 'twenties and the early 'thirties owed a large part of their origin Ito that action. Mr. Maynard Keynes (as he was then, later Lord Keynes), your Lordships will remember, had written a very famous book called The Economic Consequences of the Peace. He wrote another, much smaller, book, The Economic Consequences of Mr. Winston Churchill, in which he showed what frightful results had happened from this most unwise step that Mr. Winston Churchill had taken at
  400
  the instigation of and under pressure from the financial authorities to which he was subjected. I am thankful that the Government stopped short of the brink and did not make the plunge. But they went very near it and, as I say, they did a lot of harm in the process.
  Part of what I am going to say to your Lordships presently will be to sum up the economic consequences of the Tory policy in recent years. But before I come to that, I should like to point to one thing in the actual Budget of to-day to which we on this side take exception. The noble Viscount referred to the obliteration of the distinction between the profits tax on the undistributed and the distributed profits of a company, and he said it was of considerable advantage and had been recommended by a Commission. That may all be true, but there is no doubt—and even he admitted it—that it has to a large extent withdrawn the incentive to companies to keep their profits as undistributed and have them ready, therefore, to devote to development, rather than to distribute them and leave them to be spent on consumption. Even if it were thought desirable to take this course, we on this side strongly hold that some other incentive ought to have been put in its place, because otherwise once again it could be said that the policy of Tory Chancellors of the Exchequer has been to fritter away money that could be used for extending the industrial progress of this country on presents to some of the people in this country.
  Now I come to the cost. The Chancellor of the Exchequer tells us—and it has been supported by the noble Viscount—that the financial crisis which has been confronting the country may now be regarded as over; that there is not anything like the need for the credit squeeze that there was; that there can be a let-up, and that we can now go to encouragement, expansion and growth. Of course, we are glad to be told that, and we are glad when tangible signs of it appear in the Budget or in the speeches of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We are glad that he has seen fit, in conjunction with the Bank of England, to bring down the bank rate from 7 per cent. to 6 per cent., from 6 per cent. to per cent., and from 5½per cent. to 5½per cent. Of course, in the old days 5 per cent.

  401
  was considered a very high rate of tax. Compared with 7 per cent. it seems comparatively small, but it is still a considerable handicap on industry and a considerable handicap on the public life of the country.
  What we are concerned with is this: this inflation has been stopped, and some of the credit for that—a large part of it, if you like—may be due to the action taken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer; but were the methods used to bring that about the best methods, or have they been far more costly than other methods which would have achieved the same result? Your Lordships will remember the proverb of the Chinese, which I think runs:
  " If you are going to roast a pig, it is not necessary to burn down the house."
  Our criticism is that in stopping the evil of inflation the Government have not exactly burnt down the house but have damaged the foundations and strength of the house when they could have had roast pig on very much cheaper terms.
  Some of your Lordships will remember that in November last we had a debate on the Address to the Sovereign, in the course of which I raised a certain question. I put to the Minister who was then replying for the Government (it was Lord Mancroft) the question: could he, representing the Treasury, give us any approximate figures Which would tell the cost incurred by the country due to the high bank rate of 7 per cent.? How much more was it going to cost the country than if the hank rate had remained low, as it had been in the years gone by? The noble Lord said that he had asked his advisers for the figures but that he regretted very much that there were not any figures and that they could not give any. At the time I was rather shocked by that, and I think he was a little shocked himself. But since then have had time to think it over and, in the light of what has happened in the last few months, I have realised the reason for their refusal to give any figures. It is clearly this: that a great many of the data on which any reliable figure could be based—or even an approximate figure—were data that depended on hypothetical events in the future, and, that being so, no figures could be given.
  My Lords, the future has now come. The hypothetical future of nine months
  402
  ago is now with us, and we are now able to have facts which were only possibilities in those days. I propose—rather venturesomely, because it can only be a very speculative estimate in the hands of a private citizen like myself—to give to your Lordships some rough idea of the aggregate cost of this high bank rate to the country. Let me begin with the floating debt. The rate of interest on the floating debt has gone up from hardly anything at all to 5 per cent., and for a time it was 7 per cent. There is not the slightest doubt that that has involved the Exchequer in payment out of large annual sums in interest on the floating debt. It is perfectly clear that those sums, taken in the aggregate. will run into several hundred million pounds over the years—how many hundred millions, I should not like to say. What is further well known is that a considerable part of that has gone to foreigners and has not come into the hands of the citizens of this country at all. So we start with the interest on the floating debt, and we realise that that has cost several hundred million pounds.
  Now we come to the funding debt, and that is what was not in evidence in November because I think it is since that time that three funding operations have taken place. They have resulted in the following facts. There has been the£300 million of 5½per cent. Funding Loan, 1982–1984. That is, of course, a period of something like twenty-four to twenty-six years. There is approximately a further£300 million of 5 per cent. Conversion Loan, 1974. That is some sixteen years further on. There has also been£500 million of 5½per cent. Exchequer Bonds, 1966. Now I should just like your Lordships to realise the importance of this. Because of the high bank rate, we have been obliged in the course of the last few months to float loans bearing this exceptionally high rate of interest, and that rate of interest will have to be paid for all those years until those loans have been redeemed. Therefore the cost to the Exchequer of the high bank rate includes all that additional rate of interest for all those periods of years.
  Now I do not want to make an un fair comparison. Let us assume that instead of the high rate that has been adopted the rate had been 3½per cent.—

  403
  I think that that is a fair figure, because it was, roughly speaking, the rate of interest on long-term money in this country about 1951. It was roughly that; it may have been a little more, it may have been a little less. On that basis I reckon that the total additional cost to the Exchequer of floating these loans at this much higher rate of interest is no less than£300 million. I could have taken a more unfair view by comparing it not with the rate of long-term interest but with the rate of the interest on the floating debt, which was a great deal happier in those days—something like 2 per cent., or something of that kind. That would have produced a much higher figure of over£400 million, but I think the lower figure of over£300 million is probably a fairer statement of the case.
  In addition to that extra cost, which falls directly on the Exchequer, there is the cost that has fallen on local authorities. I have no figures to show the total amount of local authority loans that have been floated in this austere money period, but I will just remind your Lordships of one of them. Not long ago the London County Council floated a loan for£20 million repayable in 1975–78. They had to pay 6 per cent. interest on it, and will have to go on paying that for the whole of the next seventeen to twenty years. That is only one out of the great number of local authorities who, either directly or through the medium of the Government, have had to pay these high rates. Adding all these three items together, I do not think the loss to the Exchequer and the local authorities can fall very much below£750 million. That, in itself, is a very considerable sum, and I think very few people realise that that is the price that our pundits at the Treasury have forced us to pay for getting us over inflation.
  But I will say this—I want to be strictly fair—this is a gross sum and I think that there must be same rebate on it. In the first place, some loans are partly held by Government authorities and there is not much loss when it comes to that. It is a matter of taking from one pocket and putting it in another. Also there is additional income derived by individuals from these high rates and we should make some allowance for income tax and pos-
  404
  sibly even for surtax in some cases. No private individual can possibly form any estimate on that score. I have given the gross figure. I admit that there may be a certain subtraction from it in the shape of a rebate, but there still remains a very large figure when all that is said and done.
  But that is not the whole of the picture. In addition to this direct monetary loss, there has been a great loss to the country in the restraint of production, the holding back of investment and the loss of manpower resulting from unemployment and under-employment. The noble Viscount who dealt with the Budget just now made rather light of unemployment. I am sure that he did not mean to be unsympathetic.
  VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I do not think that the noble Lord is right to say that I made light of unemployment I said that it was a matter which would give rise to anxiety on the part of any Government. I simply pointed out that in so far as it was due to employers getting rid of unproductive labour, it was perfectly satisfactory and that in fact it was lower than in any other industrial country in the world. I do not think that it is right for him to say that I made light of it. I must completely reject that.
  LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I am sorry that I gave offence to the noble Viscount; I did not intend it. I said that he was not unsympathetic. I withdraw the phrase "making light of." He seemed to paint the less terrible side of unemployment and looked at it from the point of view of the individual. What I was going to say is that, whatever view might be taken by a number of individuals, it was a loss to the country, because there were idle pieces of machinery not being worked and idle hands not working them, and in consequence the productive results were less than they could be, and should be, if full employment existed. That is the point that I wanted to make. I am sorry to have drawn the noble Viscount, because I had no intention of criticising what he said. That is a big factor and might well result in an even greater loss than that to which I have referred already.
  We can get some idea of what this further loss has been from the following facts. Between 1951 and 1957 there had been a growth of production in this country of some 18 per cent. and we can make

  405
  the comparison between that and the increase in some of the other principal industrial countries of the world. In a fable of ten of them, some of whom I will mention by name later, Britain comes eighth. There are only two others with smaller increases than ours but there are seven countries with much greater increases, headed by Japan, which had 113 per cent., then West Germany with 73 per cent.; Italy with 52 per cent.; and France with 48 per cent. I think that that shows that we in this country have not adequately encouraged the increase of production. I attribute this in part—I would not by any means say in whole—to the financial policy of the Government over the last few years. These are the deplorable facts for which I hold the financial and economic policies of the Party opposite to be responsible.
  But my "Economic Consequences of the Tory Party" has not finished there, because there are other facts that must be mentioned. I will start off with the frightful burden on hard currency imposed on us by the promise to keep four divisions of soldiers in Germany, The cost in hard currency is just coming to the public notice—some of us saw it when the promise was made. I was reading a day or two ago a book by a famous economist and financier, Andrew Schonfield. This is what he says with
  "What this means in commercial terms is that we need to sell an extra£1 million of exports a week for the rest of this century in order to meet this undertaking to Western Europe."
  I know that it is common to say that we must provide for these soldiers and that they might as well be in Western Germany as anywhere else. If we could pay for them in our own currency, in sterling, the position would not be so serious, but because they are stationed in Germany we have to pay a large part of the cost in foreign currency, and that has been a frightful burden on our resources.
  I do not want to talk foreign policy but I cannot avoid mentioning what happened with regard to Suez. Looking at the matter from a purely financial aspect, we cannot entirely neglect it. There is no doubt that the cost of the whole Suez episode has been quite considerable, even though we have not ever really recompensed those unhappy Britishers who were working in Egypt at the time when the
  406
  Suez event took place. In the third place, there was the laxity of control which allowed some£50 million worth of exchange to disappear through the Kuwait gap. If we were more particular to guard those leaks and less anxious to procure a premature return to complete convertibility, we should be serving much better the benefit of this country.
  It would be a legitimate question for noble Lords opposite and on my right to put to me: "What would you do about it?" In the last few minutes during which I propose to detain your Lordships, I would say a few words about that. In the first place, in the matter of monetary policy, in so far as we require monetary policy to handle this matter, we would make it far more selective and less a matter of the bank rate. Instead of flying to the bank rate at the earliest opportunity, we would adjust the financial methods. One of those financial methods has been put forward by our Party for some time. When it is necessary to restrict credit, there should be a compulsory change in the bank liquidity ratio. That was scoffed at by members of the Party opposite—I do not mean in this House—though I think that I am right in saying that that method is in existence in other countries.
  I am interested to see that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has declared to-day his intention of pursuing a policy in future on somewhat analogous lines. As noble Lords are no doubt aware, he has suggested that in times of emergency the Bank of England, no doubt with the concurrence and probable direction of the Government, should have the right to demand from the banks special deposits, and that when these special deposits have been made, they shall not form the base of additional credit. It is too early to form a final judgment in regard to that matter, but prima facie it appears to me and to those of my colleagues to whom I have spoken to be quite a good proposal. We welcome it not only because it is in line with what we have already suggested but because we think it will be a cheaper way in future of handling the necessity of some control and curtailment of credit than the expensive method of tile bank rate. I would say, further, in that connection that we shall look forward with great interest to the Report of the Radcliffe Committee, which we hope will make other valuable suggestions for

  407
  cheaper methods of handling a crisis than the expensive way to which we have been subjected in this country.
  In addition, the Labour Party believe, frankly, in planning. It is in accordance with what happens in all other directions of life, and the Labour Party do not think we can get away with a "free-for-all" economy in these days when planning is required in other matters in every direction. I hope noble Lords will not run away with the idea that by "planning" I mean that we want to restore all the controls, restrictions and rationing which we had to have, by the agreement of all Parties, during the war, and which the Labour Party, to a certain extent, had to retain in the years immediately following the war. We do not mean anything of that kind. But we do mean that, when all is said and done, there must be development, and in the nature of that development there must be some planning by an authority capable of deciding what should be done.
  Among other proposals that we have, of which probably your Lordships are aware, is that there shall be for this purpose of taking care of the development of the country a National Investment Board; that it should deal with the question of investment, and that it should be in addition to, and not a substitute for, the Capital Issues Committee. Moreover, we should seek, in conjunction with other members of the sterling area, to reconsider the matter of effective controls to prevent the leakage of sterling out of the area. Greater price stability and a healthy balance of payments are both indispensable conditions of expansion; and some planning and overall control of that expansion is an absolute necessity behind both of them. Above everything, we seek maximum investment and rising production. By these alone can we provide a better standard of living for our people and an opportunity to play a noble part in the development of the backward countries of the world.
  3.53 p.m.
  VISCOUNT ESHER: My Lords, the backwoods are at their best just now, out I felt that I ought to come up this afternoon in order to represent, after the Front Benches had given their incontrovertible and incomprehensible explanation of the Budget, the point of view of
  408
  ordinary people to whose opinions your Lordships are always prepared to pay attention. One of our opinions is that if the Labour Party came back at the next Election things would be exactly the same, only rather worse.
  I do not understand anything about economics, and I do not know what the perpetual crisis is about. It therefore required some courage to face the embattled economists in your Lordships' House this afternoon. This courage was derived from the fact that I recently formed part of an impressive and important deputation to the Chancellor of the Exchequer urging him to implement the National Theatre Act, a matter of high consequence to the intellectual life of the country. Being the least important member of that deputation, I had time to watch the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I was surprised to find that he seemed to understand what we were driving at. He had none of that tough hostility which has made such a gulf between the politicians and the public, between the governors and the governed, a gulf which has destroyed the Fourth Republic in France and has caused the revival of the Liberal Party in England. On the contrary, he had an atmosphere of sympathy and understanding rarely experienced by those who are forced to enter the official world and deal with Government Departments. So I thought I would venture to discuss the Treasury and its Finance Bill as it seems to the unprivileged who live outside the magic circle of the establishment.
  I once knew a very unpopular man who used to say: "Let me see if I can put it in a way that you will understand." No one has ever tried to do that about the finances of this country. Yet in every Budget one thing is made clear: that we ought to save. But in spite of being prodded to do so, every day and in every way, I have never for years saved a penny. We ordinary people never have the advantage of talking about finance with important people at top level; we never meet Mr. Roy Harrod at luncheon. As a rule, what we think is of no importance, and we are glad to accept the decisions of people who are "in the know". Also, we may be wrong, which as a rule does not matter a straw. But as the Government want us to save, it is important for them to know the reason why we do not. And the reason why

  409
  we do not save is because we believe the Government themselves do not really intend to save: they just want us to save, which is an altogether different thing.
  I admire and understand the persistent extravagance of the Government. No wonder they have totally failed to reduce the income tax during their Administration!
  VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: If the noble Viscount will forgive me for interrupting, he must be more under-privileged than he is now pretending if he has not noticed the reduction in the income tax. Perhaps he does not pay any, he is so underprivileged.
  VISCOUNT ESHER: Those reductions are practically invisible. It is no wonder that the Government have failed to inspire a crusade for saving. Their "banner with a strange device" has written on it some such dreary and inexplicable abstraction as "balance of payments". They have put no glamour or excitement into the idea of saving because they do not believe in it themselves. They intend, as we do, to have a gay time inside the inflationary spiral.
  Suppose we had done what we might have done, but did not, and had recently invested in some successful business and made a profit of£5,000? Shall we save it or shall we spend it? If we spend it we can buy a car or a fur coat. If we save it and invest it, dangers surround us on every side. The income it brings in is subject to income tax and sur-tax up to 18s. 6d. in the pound; the capital itself, after the next Election, will be seized by Mr. Gaitskell who is waiting in the wings for that express purpose; and if we are fortunate enough to die before the next Election the present Government will take up to 80 per cent. of it in death duties. Indeed, the Government consider it so immoral to save for one's children that they make it impossible to do so, and "Not a penny from grandpa" has become the motto of family life. So we all spend, and it is the Government who set us the example. They spend£186 million of our capital that comes to them from death duties as income every year.
  Chatsworth is a wonderful example of this process. The Government are selling up many of its treasures: one of the finest collections of works of art in the
  410
  world, a palace of which even Italy would be proud, not only sold up, but its large capital values used as income! One is reminded of those well-known lines in Omar Khayyám:
  " What is it that the vintners buy
  That's half so precious as the stuff they sell?"
  What is it that the Government buy that can compare with what they are selling from the Chatsworth collection?
  It is clear, then, that nobody is going to save, and I am all for the Government being as extravagant as I am myself. But I hope that the Chancellor will look very critically at the£5,000 million he spends every year, not in order to save it but to cut out the waste and improve the direction of his expenditure. There is a lot of smug talk in Government circles about not being able to afford this or that desirable expenditure. The Germans do not feel like that. They know that a nation can be a great Power without having an army, navy and air force. And look at the money spent by that disarmed nation on the amenities of life!We have done away with poverty here, and our way of life is regarded as unequalled in the world. I want a few of the Government's£5,000 million to be spent on making this young and promising democracy an educated and civilised nation. There is no reason whatever why the lives of this classless nation, so unified in its ideas and so happy in its temperament, should be both boring and congested. A man said to me the other day, "You go through a hell of traffic if you go on a holiday, and when you get to the other end there is nothing to do but to look at the sea." But when we are faced with such problems the Government say, "No" to all suggested improvements that we should like to carry out: they lie supine in the hands of a conventional bureaucracy.
  On the other hand, Mr. Lennox-Boyd, who is disposing of the Empire, and Mr. Duncan Sandys, who is disposing of the armaments, are well aware that Government expenditure is spent largely on obsolete objects. The Government know that, in addition to the few millions that people like myself require to make our national life more interesting,£3,800 million requires to be spent on the roads to make it possible for us to get about this country. Yet the Government sit there,

  411
  surrounded by field marshals and trades unionists, saying "No" to everything.
  Surely the time has come to overhaul, examine and, above all, to make intelligible to the voters of this country the vast expenditure of the Government. Much of the£5,000 million has probably become purely automatic—served up every year on a plate as if the world never changed. Surely there must be large sections of expenditure which could be curtailed or eradicated. If the Government would make the effort, they could finance the pleasures, the amusements and the occupations of the Welfare State, and establish this great nation that is destined to lead the new world. I do not believe they are hostile to this idea: they merely refuse to believe that it can be done. But it would be the most popular as well as the most rewarding thing they could possibly do.
  4.9 p.m.
  THE EARL OF CROMER: My Lords, the noble Viscount's most enlightening speech leaves me in somewhat of a quandary whether to attempt the abandon of the underprivileged, or whether to attempt to soar into the academic economic stratosphere. I think my best counsel would be to keep in between the two extremes and try to confine myself to matters which concern me in my day-to-day life. I think the most impressive thing to anybody who has to deal with money day by day is the remarkable results brought about by the use of the bank rate. The noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, has left us in no doubt that he detests the bank rate as being what they call a blunt instrument, because it falls on worthy causes and what some would call less worthy causes.
  If I interpret correctly the beliefs expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, this afternoon, I understand that the Socialist Party would go in for detailed planning. By their detailed planning they would attempt to judge the merits of credit users. This approach, apart from introducing differences of opinion as to what might be more worthy than something else, also overlooks a most important factor, the factor, I think, which is the most important of all—that is, the question of confidence. You can call it old fashioned if you like, but resolute use of the bank
  412
  rate when circumstances demand it inspires greater confidence in our intention to uphold our position than anything else. Relatively few people in this country, and even fewer abroad, have any confidence in the juggling activities which must form part of any policy of detailed planning if the British are to be left with any freedom. Even if by some happy fluke at one moment in time detailed planning were to bring about a state of equilibrium, there would be no confidence in its continuance. After all, half the fun of watching a juggler is the hope that sometime he is going to throw up one more ball than he can manage and then the whole lot falls to, the ground. The noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, said that before adopting the use of the hank rate they would explore every other measure. Is that likely to instil confidence? Confidence cannot be created by edict; it is indeed a most tender flower which reacts to certain stimulants when it wilts but dies altogether in constant changes of atmosphere.
  The noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, also brought up the question of frittering away the balances accumulated as a result of our favourable balances of trade. I fail to understand how these balances could have been put to more practical use. He also raised the question of high bank rate, but high bank rate does not necessarily prevent productive investment. In point of fact I think the quite remarkable stability of the pound in the last few weeks is almost entirely due to the confidence created by the very courageous action of Mr. Thorneycroft in raising the bank rate last September.
  Unfortunately, owing partly to other distortions in the economic system and partly to insufficient energy, there has not been the increase in savings necessary to finance our investment programme. The last Report of the Bank of International Settlements publishes a table of domestic investment and savings in most of the leading industrial Western European countries. In that table the savings in the United Kingdom are lower, as a percentage of national product, than those of any other of the countries quoted, with the exception of France. On investment we are the lowest of all. This does not bode very well for our future, for on our investment to-day depends our prosperity

  413
  to-morrow. Only by a high rate of internal investment shall we be able to continue to compete in world markets where the foreign customer is the arbiter of quality and price. There would seem to be little doubt that our savings and investments are totally inadequate for our internal needs, let alone for overseas investment, but I do not want to raise that issue this afternoon as we are to have a debate on that subject to-morrow. It seems to me, therefore, that the first priority in the internal economic picture is to increase savings and mobilise them more productively.
  There are two fairly obvious approaches which come to mind at once. The first, I am sure the noble Viscount, Lord Esher, would agree, would be to cease penalising those members of the community who by their ability or thrift or industry have incomes of over£2,000 a year and as a result find themselves starting to climb a greasy pole, a pole surrounded by the barbs of the Inland Revenue and surmounted at the top by the Special Commissioners armed with a sledge-hammer. Do not let us forget that it was the forerunners of such people who by their exertions created the investment in the industries which to-day give us our livelihood. They took a chance and many failed, but those who succeeded laid the foundations of industrial Britain. This is also the section of the community—perhaps I should now add, with some exceptions—who instinctively save. From the point of view of the nation they are the people who should be encouraged to even further exertions, as it is their ingenuity more than any other which can do most to improve the lot of the greatest number. The immorally high rate of surtax, accepted willingly when the State was in danger in war time, to-day not only stifles initiative but starves the country of the risk capital it so urgently needs.
  Another approach towards achieving the savings we need is to mobilise more effectively and energetically the savings of wage earners so that both they and the country can directly benefit from the increased profits arising from more investment. There must be many wage earners who, given the opportunity and facilities, world wish to become shareholders in our public companies. It is, however, essential
  414
  for them to have a spread of risk for their investments. The insurance companies and the unit trusts have been doing excellent work in this direction, but it is probably true to say that the surface has hardly been scratched. So far as I can see, the Government has given no lead to stimulate the smaller investor.
  There are a number of constructive steps which come readily to mind here. Get on with the necessary amendment of the Truck Acts, so that wages can be paid by cheque or bank transfer. Encourage as many people as possible to open bank accounts. Surely no one can seriously believe that the payment of wages by cheque or bank transfer is likely to introduce the abuses which originally led to the Truck Acts. There is plenty of evidence of the effect of this change. By chance I am myself a director of a company in Canada which some ten years ago started paying wages by cheque. The bank opened at the gate of the works a branch which was open when the men came off their shift on pay day. The rise in savings as a result of payment by cheque was really quite remarkable. Surely this is an opportunity that we cannot afford to overlook.
  Another step, and a most constructive one, would be to amend the Companies Act or in some other way permit the forming of what are generally called "open-ended" investment trusts. I do not need to worry your Lordships on this occasion with the technicalities of this matter, but this type of investment trust is, I think, probably the most extensively used medium by the small investor in every other country outside the United Kingdom. Yet we do not permit it in England owing to a technicality of the Companies Act which does not permit the reduction of capital. That is quite proper for most purposes, but it is ridiculous when applied to this type of investment. Lastly—for I have already taken too much of your Lordships' time—why do we continue a rate of tax on transfer of property, including investments, so much higher than any other country in the world, so as to make London the most expensive market in the world to operate in, and then, curiously enough, impose the tax on the man who makes the saving instead of on the man who is liquidating his saving? Is that encouragement to save?

  415
  My Lords, the Conservative Party have set themselves to create a property-owning democracy. I strongly believe in this ideal, as I believe it is the only system in a modern industrial society under which the individual can retain his freedom. I would ask the noble Viscount who is replying to the debate to give the Government's assurance of a continued belief in this ideal. I would also ask him to persuade his colleagues to adopt a more active approach towards its creation, because every single suggestion I have made would be possible in a free society, but is not possible as long as certain out-dated regulations remain on the Statute Book.
  4.22 p.m.
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, may I first of all thank the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, for allowing me to precede him, because I have to leave early this afternoon. I have been exceedingly interested in the exposition of this Finance Bill by the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham. I expect he will hardly think it necessary for me to comment at any length on his speech, because my noble friend Lord Pethick-Lawrence has largely covered the ground for me. On the other hand, I have been exceedingly interested in the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Cromer, who has just resumed his seat. He seemed to me to be putting in the most attractive way possible many of the well-known views of those who are experienced in City business, and it will not surprise him therefore that I hold somewhat different views.
  One could take, for example, the question he raised on the point made by my noble friend Lord Pethick-Lawrence, about the frittering away of trade balances as they accrue and the failure to organise the whole system in relation to the great improvement in our position which took place with the improved terms of trade, month by month. While no doubt there were many avenues through which my noble friend probably thought that the frittering away had taken place, there were certain important respects in which undoubtedly the use of those favourable conditions reacted against certain other aspects of industry. I put it in this way: that whilst we hear this rather nicely worded defence of the poor, down-
  416
  trodden sur-tax payer, one method which the Government adopted, and which is probably part of the answer that the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, will make to Lord Cromer, is that nearly£34 million was given back to the sur-tax payer in reduced taxation. Considering the limited number of sur-tax payers there are, that is not a bad fall of fruit for that particular financial year.
  But in the larger sense what we have in mind is that we on this side of the House are so often blamed for our policy in trying to see that wages and the like keep pace with the cost of living. Therefore, we have to come back to the question of the cost of living and the steady improvement in our terms of overseas trade, commencing I think, fairly early in 1952. In the period immediately succeeding that time, we had a steady policy of reducing or, in some cases, abolishing subsidies on food, the processes of which led immediately to the demand—and we say a justly based demand—for increased wages, which put up the wage spiral and the cost of production and reduced all the value of the improved terms of trade abroad by making it more difficult in terms of trade for those who produce in this country. That is our general reply. If I had more time I would go further into it, and especially into one other point that I must mention, because I want to come now to a particular "bee in my bonnet" with regard to the movement in which I have spent most of my life.
  The noble Earl, Lord Cromer, spoke about the need for spreading investments among the working classes. I gather that he would desire that the risk on their investments should be widely spread, if not, in view of his subsequent remark about property-owning, that the investments should be without real risk; and that they should be induced to refrain from buying articles which they can possibly do without, so long as they can be sure that the value of the investments they make will be safe. That brings me on to the point that I specially want to raise upon this Bill—namely, the application of the details of the changes in the profits tax which the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, explained to us to-day.
  Broadly speaking, I suppose it is understood that by changing from, say,

  417
  a 3 per cent. profits tax on sums placed to reserve and 27 per cent. extra on distributed profits to an overall 10 per cent., it is estimated that the Treasury will not lose. I understand that is the position. On the other hand, for some reason or other, in divers ways it appears that, if I may take three separate instances, varying results follow in the individual cases. It is not as if the Government were just making this change over a large number of companies and getting exactly the same results. As I understand it, one group or class of companies will gain from the change a total of about£16 million a year.
  I am sure that it will please the noble Earl, Lord Cromer, that the building societies are to benefit altogether to the extent of£1 million a year. But one of the greatest organisations working as an engine of thrift for the working classes is to be damnified by an increased charge of£1,300,000 per year. That seems to me to be just stupid. It is upsetting a large section of the population who gather themselves together in industrial and provident societies in order that they may reduce the price to themselves of the necessaries of life, and in order to have a basis on which they can invest their capital with security, and yet, in their working class circumstances, have it readily available for withdrawal on notice. All these things are essential if the Government are going steadily to promote the saving habit on the part of the working classes of this country.
  I am well aware that experience in the case of the individuals among more than 12 million members in the industrial and provident society co-operative movement will vary a great deal. Some of them will not keep much capital in; but some may, by steady and hard work and thrift, go up to a holding of£500 in total, and then go on investing in loan capital. Here a great organisation is being told, "It is because of a general comparison that we make between you and the ordinary company system that we must apply the same rule of 10 per cent. on your reserve capital and 10 per cent. on other classes of profits on which you are liable for distribution." If the Government are going to take that line with co-operative societies, it means that they will inflict on the societies the penalty of
  418
  being unable to set aside£1,300,000 a year which is badly needed.
  There are certain fundamentals to be remembered in connection with this decision. First of all, the Co-operative Movement has never yet agreed, and will not agree, that there was any real reason for change, as was made out in the Act of 1933 (after the 1932 Norman Raeburn Committee) departing from the basis which had then been accepted for something like nearly ninety years, that mutual trading amongst members of an association was not trading for the purpose of profit and therefore no profits arose for taxable purposes. Since that time we have had this very big change. It is true that, because of the very great need of the country in connection with the war and the immediate post-war problems, when the profits tax was instituted the co-operative societies, while they felt that they must make their usual protest on the basis of the injury to their mutual position, nevertheless made no great grumble about paying profits tax on that basis.
  The result of what is supposed to be a nice new tidy way for the Treasury to collect the profits tax, one which will save money in administration (for I expect that would be one of the reasons put forward) is to place upon co-operative societies an additional burden of£1,300,000 per annum. And for no reason at all except that given by the Paymaster General and the Secretary to the Treasury, when they are pressed: the old bogy that because this mutual association enters into competitive trading it is an organisation that should be taxed at the same rate as others. Of course they had to clarify their words and to indicate to others that they did not want to go back on a decision arising out of the Raeburn Committee and did not want to give way to the many demands made, that dividends on purchases ought to be subject to tax. They did not do that, I grant; but I would point out that every authority on this matter in the Treasury, right up to the memorandum of Sir James Grigg in the year 1932, was always in favour of our point of view and not against it. Now the position is that we are once more to be damnified in this matter.
  The other thing I would point out is this: I can well understand the pleasure

  419
  which this change afforded to those responsible for the wellbeing of companies at large. As a result of having the tax on their distributed profits reduced by 17 per cent. off the present 27 per cent. they are able to distribute much more to their shareholders. The shareholders in this case will gain from a dual point of view. Nearly all of these are public companies which go to the exchange markets for their capital, and they will get, first of all, the increased dividend for share interest (whatever one may call it) in distributed company profits. Secondly, they will stand to gain very appreciably in the value of their shares upon the market, because of the increased rate of dividend that will be paid as a result of this new decision.
  May I point again to the thinking, on our general objection in another place to this whole question? I am bound to say that I believe that, in the long run, the change in the case of companies will be inflationary. There will be more spent on things that do not matter, and with the rate of tax on what they put to reserve going up from 3 to 10 per cent., probably less will be left in the "kitty" of a particular company for the development and expansion which are so much needed. Whilst we up here cannot do anything on a certified Finance Bill, and while all the decisions on this matter have been made in another place. I am bound to utter my protest about this change, because the industrial and provident societies do not trade in the capital sense on the same basis as companies. They do not go to the public market looking for risk capital. All their capital is provided by the savings of the members of the society, either by voluntary deposits or by allowing for discounts upon their mutual purchases to be credited to their share capital and loan accounts.
  It must be noted also that if we are to tax contributions placed to the reserve of a particular provident society we are making it much more difficult for them to meet certain of their objectives. First, like any other part of industry they want to expand; and as has been so ably demonstrated again and again by capitalist speakers in this House, they expand best if they have good reserves and a sufficient capital by way of reserve
  420
  and depreciation capital to enable them to do so. What Her Majesty's Government now propose to do is to increase the tax on that capital from 3 to 10 per cent.; and in the case of co-operative societies that is quite serious.
  Another point to be remembered in connection with this type of shareholding is, as I have said, that it is capital acquired and used on the continual lending principle, and is always withdrawable on short notice. Under the law, it is never given to earn more than the gilt-edged rate for the time being on the general market. That is prohibited. and I imagine the Chief Registrar of industrial and provident societies would soon be "chasing" those societies hard if there were any widespread attempt to acquire deposits of members' capital on any offer of greatly increased interest on shares. That cannot be done tinder the general administration of the Industrial and Provident Societies Acts.
  At the same time if the societies are to meet the necessary withdrawals on notice from members they must have liquidity of capital backed by a reserve, so that in any particular period, as often happens in the event of unemployment, a strike or a lock-out, they are able to realise without serious damage to the whole financial structure of the society and to meet all probable claims made upon them. It seems to me that Her Majesty's Government have not treated industrial and provident societies very well in this matter. In view of the reliefs given to certain companies and to building societies (not that I want that relief taken away, for I think it is a good thing that it should work out in that way for building societies) the industrial and provident societies might easily have staged a major agitation for a change in the law on the taxation of mutuality profits and surpluses. They did not do so, however. All that they said in another place was that, in view of the nature of the requirements for which profits tax was instituted, they would be content and satisfied if they were allowed to have the status quo and to remain taxed at 3 per cent. on capital, and whatever was due to be taxed under the law in their case on any distribution they made. I think it is of no use for me to make a long detailed speech upon it, though I could say a great deal more.

  421
  But I am here to protest on behalf not only of all the industrial and provident societies which are affiliated to the normal organisation, the co-operative union; but also of all the agricultural societies. One thing that we are very anxious about in the rural areas is to increase the number of agricultural co-operative societies. Some are growing, and are growing very well indeed. I am a member of one myself.
  VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I am a member of two.
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: The noble Viscount is a member of two. If that is so, and if the noble Viscount and I were to compare the balance sheets of his societies and mine we should find that the one outstanding factor is the need for more capital; and the best means of ensuring that is to get the largest amount contributed by each member on the basis of his trade with them, and so on.
  I would say that it was by no means a surprise to me to learn, after the event, that when the deputation waited upon Mr. Simon, I think it was, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, the agricultural co-operative societies—now in an Association which is so well run by Sir Frederick Bundrett—had sent their representatives, alongside those of the general Co-operative Movement, to state their case to the Treasury, which I believe they did very well. When we consider all these things, I think that the Government might have taken a better view of the matter and granted that very small request—that, in view of the nature of their capital, these societies should be allowed to retain the status quo. I am very sorry that that was not done.
  4.43 p.m.
  LORD GRANTCHESTER: My Lords. before I come to the main remarks I should like to make in this debate, perhaps I may be allowed to follow the noble and learned Viscount in a reference to the Control of Borrowing (Amendment) Order which we discussed last week. The noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, admitted that the then existing position—that is, the position as at last week—was almost incomprehensible. He promised that there would be a consolidating Order, which has since been issued. I think that this new consolidating Order
  422
  contains a serious error in Article 4 (1). It is taken from the Order of 1947. Would the noble and learned Viscount have this looked into before he comes to reply? This Order is made under a highly penal Statute and it is important that it should be correct. I repeat, I refer to Article 4 (1). Perhaps it could be looked up.
  VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I have no doubt that I can get it looked into; I doubt whether I can get it looked into before I come to reply.
  LORD GRANTCHESTER: I thought there would be somebody here from the Treasury who could look into it.
  VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I shall do my best.
  LORD GRANTCHESTER: My Lords, turning to the Finance Bill, the basic difference between the views that I have tried to put and those of the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, and other members of his Party is that, in my view, they do not trust the people to manage their own affairs. Quite simply, the purpose of all controls is to prevent people from doing something that they want to do or to direct them to do something which some outside person thinks is better for them than their own decision. I do not believe in this. I would rather rely upon the result in the market of the decisions of many individuals (who will not all take the same view). than upon any imposed decision.
  I indicated in the debate on the Control of Borrowing (Amendment) Order that I think bank rate reflects the short-term view in the money market; and whatever the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, says, this view in the money market is not controlled in this House; nor is it controlled within the precincts of the Bank of England. That is why I think bank rate should be left in the hands of the authorities who have the duty of watching the money market from day to day, rather than waiting upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I think that the long-term rate is determined somewhat differently. It is decided by what I may call the common denominator of the views of investors—really, by what investors are willing to accept for a longer-term investment. A higher rate reflects, after all, increased prosperity and an increased demand for expansion.

  423
  Decisions cannot be imposed either for short-term or for long-term rates without causing grave dislocation, which is undesirable and injurious to the economy.
  In considering the Finance Bill to-day, I should like to let figures speak for themselves. My noble friend Lord Esher has already referred to this aspect in passing. I should like to underline it. The figures involved give us a great deal to think about, and it is desirable that they should be understood by every citizen. I should like the Press to lend their help a little more in making the figures that are involved a little clearer. I should like to do a little sum in addition, a little simple arithmetic, while referring to these figures. There are so many books of learned statistics, if I may so call them, that it is difficult for even a mathematician to do the sum. I am sure that the noble and learned Viscount will correct me if I make a mistake in referring to the figures or in doing the addition.
  I make the central Government's expenditure, above the line, the income account,£5,000 million, in round figures—the figure quoted by my noble friend Lord Esher. This figure of£5,000 million is made up of items of£700 million interest on past borrowings;£1,400 million on defence;£1.000 million on National Health expenditure, including welfare foods, family allowances and national assistance;£800 million in contributions to local government expenditure. There is£300 million for subsidies, agricultural subsidies, and food subsidies;£100 million for atomic energy expenditure; and there is miscellaneous expenditure which totals£600 million which goes on broadcasting, Commonwealth Development and Welfare Funds, prisons, research and other miscellaneous items. That approximately makes up our total of£5,000 million. To these must be added National Insurance payments, which means another£500 million. These are just as much part of Government expenditure as other items, such as the cost of the Health Service. Then there are the rates levied by local decentralised authorities, which amount to some£600 million, in addition to the contribution made by the central Government. Finally, there is the central Government expenditure called "below the line", the capital
  424
  account, which is another£600 million. That makes a total expenditure this year for which Government is responsible of at least£6,700 million. I think the noble and learned Viscount, if he checks those figures, will agree that I have not exaggerated them. If anything, they are understated.
  Once upon a time we had Kings who were considered guilty of extravagant ideas and costly adventures. Once upon a time Parliament used to call the King to account. In due time Parliament came to think that it might as well do the spending instead of the checking—it is certainly more interesting. A Party which had been brought up upon the virtues of retrenchment thought that brakes were unnecessary, and to-day we have no power to question the right of those in another place to spend as freely as they may decide. But we can still draw attention to what they have decided, and, as I have said, I wish the Press would do a little more to bring home to every citizen the figure to which this expenditure has risen.
  Some years ago a group of economists expressed the opinion that in peace time the safe limit for Government expenditure was 25 per cent. of the gross national product. I believe that the late Lord Keynes lent his authority to this view. I rather think this view must have gone home in a sort of way (though perhaps not quite in the right sort of way), because in May last the Information Department of the Treasury announced in their Monthly Review that current Government expenditure was now down to 25 per cent. of the gross national product. So as not to be misleading, there was a star against the word "expenditure". The star referred to a footnote in which it was stated that National Insurance payments were not included. Of course, if you do not include all that you should include, the percentage of the gross national product spent by Government looks better; but if the items which I have enumerated and which, as I have said, total some£6,700 million at least, are correct, the proportion of the gross national product taken and spent by Government is about 37 per cent. I said I would leave the figures to speak for themselves, but, whatever else these figures may say or suggest, surely the first call will be for a halt to continually rising expenditure.
  Perhaps our greatest danger in this respect comes from the clever people—I

  425
  do not say that in any disparaging sense. It is natural that clever people should think that they can spend our money much better than we can ourselves. The Labour Party has recently treated us to a series of treatises on schemes by which they would control the use of any money left in the pockets of the people. There are rumours that the present Government intend to enter into competition with them, particularly in the field of pensions, for which new taxes will have to be paid by everyone. My Lords, it has been estimated that it costs about one-and-a-half times as much for the Government to do anything we can do for ourselves. I think that that is probable, for the costs of administration are always great. I am sure that the case for the Government not doing what the citizen can do for himself is quite overwhelming.
  Before I leave the figures involved in this Finance Bill I should like to recall the controversy the Government had with their last Chancellor of the Exchequer; the little controversy, as it was called, over a "negligible" sum of some£50 million. We now have the actual figures before us. The Estimates for the current year exceed the Estimates for last year by no less than£250 million, and exceed the actual expenditure last year by£150 million. My Lords,£50 million is not a sum which should be treated as negligible by a Government pledged to good house keeping; but an increase in the Estimates of£250 million surely should be enough to shock any Chancellor of the Exchequer into resignation. It is appalling to think that any Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer can be found to defend it.
  Strictly speaking, taking expenditure "above the line" and expenditure "below the line", this Budget is not balanced, even after raising in taxation some£5,500 million. The estimated surplus of£415 million, if it materialises, is, of course, forced saving. Broadly, that is raised to finance the nationalised industries. The Labour Party, as I understand it, would carry this method further. Their policy is more forced saving and control of the use of any private saving. It is evident, I think, as I have said, that the Labour Party do not believe in trusting the people or in their education. The exercise of his freedom, the exercise of his choices, the exercises of his preferences, when-
  426
  ever he spends his own money, is part of the self-education of every citizen.
  The Conservative Party certainly gives him more freedom than the Labour Party would, but I still say, my Lords, that it is not enough. Let us try to build a really responsible society. I believe that a sound economy is based rather on the decisions of the consumer and the user than upon the dictates of any bureaucrat. Without infinite knowledge and without infinite wisdom, the job of controlling wisely is impossible. That principle applies to the Capital Issues Committee which I mentioned in the debate last week. I do not want to criticise the sincerity of their efforts, but the job that they have to do is an impossible one. That is why we prefer the decisions of the market which are the decisions of many individuals rather than the decision of any bureaucrat.
  There is only one other matter which I should like to mention. It is, I believe, related to the subject under discussion. Spending by the Government which is not covered by taxes or funding has to be met by the use of the printing press; by printing more Treasury notes or issuing more Treasury bills. I am rather surprised, when demands are made upon the Government—for instance, in the nationalised industries—for increased payments, that the Government do not admit straight away that they could find the extra money by instructing their printing press to manufacture a little more money. I am surprised that the Government do not say that, if they are pressed too hard, this is what they will have to do. I am going to suggest that this is what they have been doing. Last month they printed an extra 100 million Treasury notes; last week the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave authority for an extra 50 million to be printed.
  I know I shall be told that this is to meet the needs of those who are going on holiday, but if your Lordships will look at the figures of the note circulation you will see that although there are peak periods at Christmas and in the summer holiday time, the level of note circulation is always increasing. Last week it reached an all-time high of£2,150 million. This is what used to be called debasing the currency. Can we be surprised that the value of the pound is continually falling or, to put it in another

  427
  way, that the cost of living rises? I conclude as I began, by hoping that the figures that I have mentioned will speak for themselves, warn us all and bid us think where we are going.
  5.2 p.m.
  LORD MILNE: My Lords, before I make my few remarks I should like to take up some points made by previous speakers. The noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, whom we always enjoy hearing, made some remarks about the expense of the increased bank rate. I have never been a great believer in a high hank rate, but I thought that the sudden increase at that moment of crisis was the best example of the merit of that course. I thought that the noble Lord's remarks were rather in the nature of jobbing backwards. He worked out some figures that might show the expense of the high bank rate, but what he did not say was the expense of devaluation for a country that has to buy all its foodstuffs and a great deal of its raw materials abroad.
  The noble Earl, Lord Cromer, spoke about the high surtax. He failed to say, and the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, corrected him, that in the last Budget the surtax payer received great help. He received allowances against surtax, and increased earned income allowance, so I think that my noble friend Lord Hailsham would have brought him up on that point. The noble Earl also mentioned the small investors. The Truck Act is very tricky and I agree that it should be amended if it is possible, but this year again there has been a small present to the small investors in the shape of reduced stamp duties on smaller purchases, which has been extended not only to house property but to investments as well. The noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, made some remarks about distribution charges, suggesting that they fell more heavily on big companies. But it is the directly controlled small companies which in fact have suffered almost penal taxation. I understand that the average investor in big public companies is only a comparatively small holder and this alleviation of tax on distributions will be of great benefit to the small investors.
  428
  I propose to confine my remarks entirely to the Bill and therefore I reassure your Lordships that I am not going to speak in any great detail and at any great length, since by this date anyone interested will have studied the Bill. It has certainly lost all its freshness. I do not think that in the Spring anyone expected any notable reduction in personal taxation after the increased earned income allowances, et cetera, the year before. Therefore, from the point of the view of the public the Budget held very little interest from the beginning. Such reductions in personal taxation as were going went to the aged and small income groups, and rightly, as they feel the pinch of inflation more than most.
  This year, however, the business community has undoubtedly received a considerable encouragement, in the reduction of entertainments duty, the rationalisation of purchase tax, the amendments to capital allowances and the flat rate of profits tax that we have already heard discussed. All these taxes have been the subject of persistent and adverse criticisms, and certainly the change in purchase tax will be notable. As to the activities of the more ingenious members of society, the usual technical clauses are designed to frustrate their tricks. It would appear from Clauses 18 and 19 that in addition to plugging the old gaps derived from the benefits from artificially manufactured loss claims, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is moving to frustrate rather similar tax reclaims based on existing tax losses Although this may be expensive, and therefore important to the Chancellor, I view these practices more in sorrow than in anger as being a normal reaction in a community so subject to high taxation that tax considerations weigh more heavily in business than orthodox trading. Two more estate duty gaps have been plugged and a few more crumbs from the Chancellor's table complete a Budget to which one might apply the adjectives solid, logical and safe more than important, but which provides as much as we were entitled to hope for in the Spring of this year.
  5.8 p.m.
  LORD AUCKLAND: My Lords, during the past two days we have had two debates of tremendous importance to the whole country. It is logical that a debate on economic affairs should follow

  429
  one on the international situation, because economics and foreign affairs relate to each other very closely. For example, supposing that by some terrible misfortune the oilfields of Kuwait were suddenly taken from us, the economic repercussions on this country would be extremely serious. There are a number of people who "could not care less" about economics. When the term is mentioned to them, they display a sort of disinterested casualness; but if the price of beer goes up 1d. a pint or if the price of tobacco goes up 6d. an ounce there is a very different story: people begin to complain and to blame whatever Government is in power, without considering how all this happens.
  I is all very well to blame the Government in power for the high cost of living; and, indeed, the Government must take a large share of the blame. But surely in these days of comparative freedom of choice the housewife too can contribute towards bringing down the cost of living. May I quote an example? Last Saturday in Epsom, where I live, if one went to the local "Mac Fisheries", or whatever fishmonger it was, one saw salmon at 12s. 6d. a 1b. A few hundred yards away is the market, which operates on Saturday mornings, and similar salmon could be bought there at 8s. a 1b. Some people say: "Oh, I cannot be bothered to queue up in the market." But surely markets are just the places that are helping to bring down the cost of living. The general public can help by boycotting shops that deliberately keep up their prices—and there are shops like that in the country. In towns where there are a number of shops of a similar kind, people will find that not all of them charge the same prices; and if the public are discriminating, the shops that try to "fiddle" them will soon find themselves out of business.
  I do riot want to quote too many figures, hut in yesterday's Daily Telegraph certain figures, which may be of interest, were quoted. This year production of both goods and services was about 1 per cent. greater than in the first quarter of 1957; and purchases by consumers rose by 3½ per cent. One has only to look at the shops at Christmastime to see how many people "flood" the shops, and how many go to the bank. I do not know what bank withdrawals are or have been in the last year or so, but perhaps the
  430
  noble Viscount who is to wind up may be able to supply those figures. They have been quite high, which proves that there is money about and that people are not in a state of financial bankruptcy, as some would have us believe. According to these figures, public expenditure by the central Government and local authorities combined fell slightly. That is surely a point of the utmost importance.
  I work in the City, and in the course of my job I meet people of all classes and all incomes; and the cry of almost everybody is: "What about the cost of living? What is going to be done about it?" I have already mentioned one thing that can be done by the purchasers. Then, they say: "What about Government expenditure?" Government expenditure, of course, is high, and nobody is more keen than I am to see, in my own way, that Government expenditure is kept to a reasonable limit. But if we want the social services, the educational services and all the other services kept to a reasonable level, there must be some form of Government expenditure. People cry, "Enough!," if social services are slashed; but if the Government are suddenly going to say, "We will cut expenditure by Li-million ", people must not be surprised to find that the social services are themselves cut. The main thing which we have to see is that the money is spent wisely; and I contend that under this Government, while it is certainly not above criticism, the social services are being operated with quite a reasonable amount of wisdom and the minimum of money is being wasted.
  Another point I should like to mention is that which the noble Earl, Lord Cromer, raised about a property-owning democracy. This, I think, is important, and it is a matter to which the Conservative Party have pledged themselves fairly closely. It is surely logical to say that the more people who can buy and own their own houses, the better. I feel that the Government could give a greater lead in this respect. A semi-detached, three-bedroomed house in Surrey costs, on an average, today between£2,800 and£3,500. Before the war that same house would probably have cost between£600 and£1,300. Obviously, with the present high cost of labour and materials the price must be considerably higher than pre-war, but I feel that something could he done to make the prices more in the

  431
  range of the buyer or for mortgages to be more easily obtained. At the moment, unless a person is assured of a good, steady income, mortgages of a reasonable amount are difficult to obtain. Rather than have more and more council houses going up, I should like to see houses built for purchase. I have nothing personal against council houses, but one must remember the important fact that the local ratepayers, many of whom earn substantially less than those in council houses, have to subsidise those self-same houses. I think the Government should give that point considerable thought.
  Finally, I want to say a word or two on the Budget itself. I had a particular interest in listening to it, because the brother of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer is the chairman of the board of governors of my old school, and I had the pleasure of meeting Mr. Heathcoat Amory three years ago at an old boys' dinner. A finer and more conscientious man would be very hard to find. He has produced a Budget which, while it may have faults—and after all, to err is human—is undoubtedly one of the best Budgets we have had for many years. How many people can say, in all honesty, that they are a lot worse off than they were a year or two ago? How many people can say that they are a little better off than they were a year or two ago? I submit that a great many millions of people can say the latter. This Budget has been primarily a housewife's Budget and one for the small income groups. As I say, probably there are flaws in it which we can find, but I feel that we are discussing this subject at a time when prospects are a good deal rosier than they were six months ago. I believe that if the Government, aided by the public—who can do their share—pull together as a team, we can come out with rosy prospects ahead.
  5.20 p.m.
  LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I would have taken up one or two points made by the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, but I see that he is not in his place at the moment. I cannot resist the temptation, however, to ask the Liberal Front Bench to answer a question I put to them before on hearing some of Lord Grantchester's speeches—that is
  432
  which particular large items of expenditure they would propose to cut out of the national Budget. So far I have not received an answer, and I have an idea that to-day I shall still not get one.
  We all know that the free enterprise or capitalist system is subject to booms and slumps, but I think it is only a belief shared by Karl Marx and the purer minds of the Liberal Party which says that these things cannot be altered and that we must endure them without complaint. We believe that one can do a great deal to dam the mass optimism of man and to spur his mass pessimism. We have very powerful weapons at our command, and I particularly welcome the new weapon, the bank deposit to decrease the liquidity of the banks. I think that is a useful and perhaps long overdue addition to our armoury. But we must remember that the management of a free economy is a new venture, and nobody yet knows a great deal about how to carry it out. We need new techniques the whole time, and we have not got much experience. Quite frankly, over the last few years we—and by "we" I mean the whole Western World—have not been particularly successful. We have not done it half as well as the copybooks lead us to believe it can be done. We have too long had a boom, and now we are having too deep a reaction.
  The three economic factors of the world are, ultimately, the power to produce the raw materials, the power to convert them and the power to consume them. The trouble about the affairs of men is that those three never march in co-ordination. They go in fits and starts; and that, I believe, is just as true of Soviet Communism as it is of our own system. To-day we have the powers to produce and the powers to convert to an extent that is not matched by the purchasing power. The trouble is that we dare not loose the purchasing power at the moment, because we have just recovered from one spell of wage inflation and to do so might immediately bring us back to another one. When I say, "loose the purchasing power" I mean to free it in the volume which would match the capacity to produce and convert.
  I think there is room for common sense in this problem, because the interests of the trade unions are exactly the same as the interests of the Government and of

  433
  everybody else. They want to see a steady progress marching forward. Fits and starts, jerks forward and reactions with unemployment, are no good to them or to anybody else. If we are to have an increasing productive capacity in this country, we need an increasing purchasing power to consume it and also to encourage the expansion. After all, what is there for a man who invests in productive power? What is the lure which lures him on? It is the increase in population and the growth in purchasing power. That is what he has to go for. Some people would reject outright the idea that there should be an annual round of wage increases. I submit that practically and psychologically that would be quite impossible. After all, the manual labourer in this country is backed by powerful trade unions who see that, by and large, the clerical worker, the white-collar worker, gets an annual increment, and it is only natural that the trade unions should try to establish a similar sort of system for their own people. So we have it with us, I think, for ever.
  I am rather attracted by the idea which the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, put forward some time ago, that the Government should negotiate with the trade unions for a standard rate of increase for a fixed period ahead. I believe that the economy could stand a 2½ per cent. rise a year without a wage inflation. That figure would seem small, of course, to some trade union leaders, but I justify it by he fact that there is a large sector of our economy in which the productivity of man cannot really increase, and that sector has to be carried by the sector where it can. Therefore it may require a 5 per cent. increase in production in the increasingly productive sectors to carry the whole economy.
  Then, of course, the actual cost of the services performed by that part of the economy which cannot increase its productivity will naturally go up if its wages go up, and if the burden is not to go upon the people who buy those services they will have to have it made up to them in another way. That, I believe, is the proper sphere of the Government through the Budget. The increased Government revenue resulting from higher income and higher production should be given as relief speedily, so that people can carry the cost of the increased services. When I say "speedily." I do not mean a year
  434
  in arrear, which is what happens in the Budget to-day. If Budget relief could be given much more quickly, I think we should find that demands for wages would be lessened.
  At the present moment we have reached the position where the price of manufactures is tending to fall and some profits are contracting; and to that extent there may be some lowering of Government revenue, possibly set off by increased income tax from higher wages, which, in turn, is set off to some extent by lower tax on overtime. That is a slightly gloomy picture, but as a set-off to that, on the other side of the picture we have a pound that is strong and reserves which are rising. But we do not really know—I certainly cannot possibly suggest—why or how the reserves are rising. To what extent is it due to money flying from depression in the United States? To what extent is it hot, short-term money from the Continent, and to what extent is it from the lower commodity prices which presumably must make the sterling area more liquid? If it is from the latter, as I believe it may well be, we have a lower purchasing power abroad, and we simply cannot afford in our position a world deflation and increased competition for contracting markets; and that is why we must do our utmost to maintain the overseas markets for goods. I have believed for some time now that we ought to have been using these reserves in giving credits to those countries overseas that want to buy our goods and which have lost their purchasing power owing to the fall in commodity prices. That step would help to tide them over until the tide turns. I see that in the last week or so I have been fortified by the opinion of a very eminent economist who apparently thinks the same.
  That is one reason why I thought my noble friend Lord Hailsham was a trifle complacent, and I believe Treasury spokesmen are too, when they talk about exports keeping up. The exports of to-day are the orders placed a long time ago, and the exports we are worrying about at the moment are from orders that should be coming in at the moment. I do not know how they are coming in. I suggest that they are probably not coming in as well as one would like. I should also favour exploring the field

  435
  of commodity agreements, wherever possible, though I realise the appalling difficulties that lie in embarking on such a course. Whether those commodity agreements should be Commonwealth—guaranteed markets for Commonwealth products—or whether they should be world-wide, would have to depend. I think, on individual commodities. But in this connection one thing I have never been able to understand is Her Majesty's Government's policy in selling commodities from what I believe are called the strategic reserves. If they were strategic I should have thought they were needed now as much as ever. If they were balancing stocks I do not see why they should have been sold on a falling market which has contributed to further falls.
  In the Finance Bill itself I do not think there is anything startling. There is nothing new that is bad, but there is still some old and bad. I am afraid that I am quite unrepentant in regarding the rates of sur-tax on the higher incomes as economically stupid and inevitably tending towards the type of fiscal depravity which we see so much abroad. There is no question about it that from bottom to top, whether it is the expenses of the big business man or the Saturday afternoon work free of tax, we are becoming a nation of tax-avoiders and tax-evaders.
  The greatest problem of Government is one that I have referred to before, and it has remained completely unchanged; that is, the ability to borrow for the public sector. I believe that investment on the whole and money for the investment in the private sector is probably adequate; it matches the consuming power. But when we turn to the public sector we all know on all sides the things that we want built. We all want roads. Many of us want lunatic asylums, looking to the future. Some of us want new hospitals, looking to the present, and so on—new barracks for our soldiers.
  There is an immense amount of Government spending on capital account which ought to take place if the Government were able to borrow to do it. Though the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, would suggest the remedy of cheap money (he can make it cheap in the short term by a low bank rate which
  436
  can be reinforced by printing), for the long term I suspect that the rate of money is the rate at which borrowers and lenders are prepared to meet. Therefore, I do not think a lower bank rate is likely to help very much the problem of Government borrowing in the long term. The trouble is that to-day there is a universal belief in inflation in some degree. The Church Funds Investment Measure, the Variation of Trusts Act, are pointers in the wind. To dispel that belief, I believe, is quite beyond the powers of any Government. It would require years of deflation. It would be politically quite impossible and economically quite disastrous. The only alternative is to "plug" along, and to try to provide stocks which will compete with the real property and equities into which the savers of to-day are putting a large proportion of their funds.
  I have said that the pound is looking up, and the curious thing is that when one surveys the whole scene I do not believe the position is remarkably different from what it was a year ago. Prices are a bit more stable but our export prospects are worse, so from the foreigners' point of view I should not have thought there was much in it. But the pound is looking up and it does show that it is confidence that does the whole thing. It may surprise some of your Lordships to know that, so far as I can make out, the retail prices in this country to-day, measured in terms of either dollars or gold. are exactly the same as they were before devaluation, or within a point or two. In other words, goods which in 1949 would have cost£100, 400 dollars, bought in the shops to-day could be bought for about£150, and that would cost 420 dollars.
  Our pound has lost its value in terms of gold, and of course the dollar has lost its value in the United States to some extent as well. So that our internal price level has just about now caught up with the inflation caused by the devaluation of the pound in 1949. That is why I believe we have the chance of some stability now; things have caught up. The annual wage increase seems to be nearer what the economy can stand, and I am glad to see that the chorus of denigration of the pound, whether it comes from Zurich or from the City of London, seems to have died down. But let it be replaced by a more positive

  437
  attitude. Our pound is not over-valued. We know that devaluation is quite disastrous, as we have learned. We intend to hold it; and all our reserves, visible and invisible, will be behind that task.
  5.40 p.m.
  VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I think the time has come for me to reply to the debate. My notes are inextricably confused, and nearly all those who have taken part have sent me little messages saying that they are unfortunately called away and cannot listen to the reply. I should like to thank the noble Lords, Lord Cromer, Lord Milne and Lord Hawke, for speeches to which I shall not reply in great detail, if only because I found them so helpful as to save me from saying a good deal which would otherwise have fallen to my lot to say. I should like to assure the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, that there is indeed a rather obvious misprint in the Order to which he referred, which will be put right to-morrow; therefore he cannot complain of the promptitude of my service in this respect.
  LORD GRANTCHESTER: The mistake, unless corrected, would have far-reaching effects.
  VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: It might be quite serious if it was not a misprint. I am grateful to the noble Lord for drawing it to my attention and it will certainly be put right to-morrow.
  My Lords, I was very grateful to noble Lords on the Front Bench opposite for their courteous remarks about my opening speech, which was entirely designed to meet their criticisms of last year. I still think it would have been better if I had left two-thirds of it out, but if they like it that way they shall have it that way next year—whether as a reward or punishment it is not for me to say. The only point on the Budget which really requires any answer on my part is the point of the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, who made a long and detailed complaint about the effect of profits tax on co-operative societies. There is absolutely nothing whatsoever in that criticism; it is a naked and quite blatant attempt to get a privilege above all other taxpayers for a particular class of taxpayer. The funny thing about profits tax, to be entirely and thoroughly paradoxical, is that it is a tax
  438
  on profits, and what Lord Alexander of Hillsborough objects to is that it is his profits—or rather those of his societies—which are taxed as well as those of other people, and at the same rate.
  This was put rather clearly by the Royal Commission when they proposed a flat rate of tax. They said:
  " The main principle that we wish to see adopted is that a tax on the profits of corporations should apply to all profits without distinction between corporations the ownership of which is vested in the State and other corporations, or between corporations formed to serve public purposes and those formed to serve private purposes. It seems to us that only by an impartial distribution of the tax whenever and wherever profits are found can there be a fair balancing of costs and prices between the public and private sectors of industry and commerce. And if these factors are not balanced fairly the true relationship between these different activities in respect of their development is itself disturbed.
  " The second principle that we advocate is that profits themselves ought to be arrived at by the usual objective tests and that artificial definitions of profits which depart from these tests do not serve any good purpose, since they tend to obscure the very realities which the main principle aims to throw into relief."
  The noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, for various reasons which he gave us, wants a quite unfair advantage given to a particular class of traders so that their profits are not taxed at the same rate as other people's—a naked and blatant privilege which the democratic Party on this side of the House could not possibly endorse.
  If I may just "polish off" the noble Viscount in his absence, which I regret as much as everybody else, I would agree that he did say that the share capital of co-operative societies is not quite the same as the share capital in other trading companies. This, of course, is true. What he did not say, and what it would have been fair of him to say, was that my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had fully taken all that into account when he allowed, as a special concession to the co-operative societies, interest on share capital to be deducted on the same basis as loan interest, which it more nearly resembles, before ascertainment of profits. There is, therefore, nothing whatever in that point either.
  The noble Viscount also complained very largely of the extra burden of taxation which the equitable distribution

  439
  would throw upon the co-operatives. I do not think there is very much in that. The sales of retail co-operative societies during 1956 amounted to£886 million. It is against this background that the additional burden of£1·3 million has to be observed, and we have the effect, if it was all thrown on to the "divi", which is of course not a dividend, that it would be reduced by one-third of a penny.
  The noble Viscount also claimed that the co-operative societies desired to expand. This, of course, is true. Since the Budget debate, the report of what I understand is known as the Gaitskell Commission on the Co-operative Movement has been published. It says that if the Movement is to increase its share of food trade by one-third and to double its present share of the non-food trade, a total capital expenditure on new assets of some£200 million would be required over the next ten years, which would mean annual expenditure well above the present level. Against this background the increase in profits tax of£1·3 million appears to be a very small burden. I hope that noble Lords opposite will feel that I have done full justice to the arguments of the noble Viscount. Lord Alexander of Hillsborough.
  I turn now to the Budget itself and to the more general economic matters which we have been discussing. To a contemporary Party like my own there is something rather odd in the continual debate we always see on these occasions between the Socialists, who do not appear to believe in freedom at all and would go back, as the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, crudely said, to planning—that is, I suppose, the philosophy of the ground-nuts scheme—and the noble Lords of the Liberal Party whose most articulate speaker on this subject was Lord Esher but whose most thoughtful speaker was Lord Grantchester. I am sorry that Lord Esher has gone, after a delightful and stimulating but not very realistic speech. But the Liberals continue still to believe in the virtue of the Manchester school of economics, in which, I must say, there has always been a great deal and to which, therefore, I am prepared to pay my tribute in its proper historic context.
  But the unreality of both Parties opposite lies in the fact that the Party of the
  440
  noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, appear to think that the only choice is between what they describe as a planned economy and what they describe as a "free-for-all", by which they mean the Manchester school beloved of the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester; and the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester appears to think that we, of the Conservative Government, are living in something like the "Big Brotherism" of 1984. I must say to both sets of noble Lords that that bears no relation to realities whatsoever. We belong to a modern industrial society in which it is generally recognised that public activities bear a greater weight and a greater proportion in a large number of economic and social activities than was probably thought desirable in the middle of the nineteenth century. That makes nonsense of the claim that the Conservative Party believes in a "free-for-all". The idea that in the structure of modern legislation and with an annual Budget running, as we have been reminded more than once, into a total of£5,000 million a year, we are indulging in an economic "free-for-all" would be absolutely ludicrous if it were not apparently seriously believed by the noble Lord, Lord PethickLawrence and his Party. A "free-for-all" could not be, and has not been, indulged in in such conditions.
  What we believe in is a quite small and modest measure of freedom for the remaining sector of the economy, which is, thank goodness, rather more than half. But that measure of freedom is apparently denied by the Socialist Party. The various activities in which we indulge, whether they are in the form of defence at a cost of£1,400 million, or in the form of social services which amount to rather more, cost money, and they certainly bear a direct relationship to the requirements both of the time and of the number of people that you keep alive in this country. That is a fact which it seems to me the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, consistently overlooks in his perpetual Jeremiads about the level of Government expenditure. He reminds me more than anything else of the admirable and wholly praiseworthy Members of both Houses of Parliament in the 18th century who were constantly reminding their colleagues of the King Charles's head of a Standing Army which they were suggesting was perpetually frightening decent

  441
  citizens into a belief that their fundamental liberties were threatened. Again he has turned on the full battery of armaments which were provided in the middle of the 19th century, but which really have little relationship to to-day.
  I must tell him absolutely plainly that, time after time, he comes to us and complains of the level of Government expenditure. He is aways invited to describe one item which he regards as unnecessary, and he never will respond to our invitation. I ask him again, does he think, for instance, that the children's allowance, which costs for the second child something like£500 million, is unnecessary? If he does, by all means let him say so. But the fact is that if you are going to pay a children's allowance your Government expenditure will go up if there are more children. And when he says, with a terrible air of shocked surprise, that he cannot conceive of how a Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer can justify the estimated increase of£250 million, what would he have us do? Would he have us kill all the children, or else abolish the children's allowance?
  LORD GRANTCHESTER: My Lords, with respect, the noble Viscount is surely conjuring nonsense. The Labour Party think they can invest the savings of the people of this country better than the people themselves. There will be investment by the savers if the money is left in their pockets. As I have said, the Conservative Party allow more freedom than the Labour Party would, but not sufficient freedom. That is perfectly fair. Development will go on if people invest their savings themselves in just the same way as if the Government do the investing for them out of forced saving.
  LORD HAWKE: My Lords, did they invest their savings in the mines and the railways?
  LORD GRANTCHESTER: The people have the right to decide the investments they wish to make.
  VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, at the moment nobody is talking of investment. All I am saying is that every time there is an economic debate the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, complains to me about the gross excess of
  442
  Government expenditure; but when he is invited to provide one single modest economy he always delicately declines the invitation. I am putting forward one or two possible substantial economies—education, for example. Just before I became Minister of Education we were spending (including local expenditure) something below£500 million a year. In my year we spent£569 million on education. In this current year we are spending£613 million—a great increase in Government expenditure. Oddly enough, there are more children, and to talk in terms of "extravagance" without taking account of the elementary social realities of a modern State is really to live in the middle nineteenth century. The trouble is that the Liberal Party are deluded into thinking that they are ordinary people—
  LORD GRANTCHESTER: My Lords, this is not playing the game. If I have several children I have to provide for them out of the income that I have left after the Government have taken taxation. All I am saying is that the Government must keep within the same kind of housekeeping that a citizen has to apply to his expenditure.
  VISCOUNT HAELSHAM: My Lords, I should have thought we did so. The actual cost of keeping a child at school under the provided system is grotesquely small; and I doubt whether the noble Lord, with all his experience, is able to keep within a similar housekeeping budget. I must say that I feel that the noble Lord is out of touch with reality.
  That was illustrated very clearly by another Liberal speech—that from the noble Viscount, Lord Esher, who blew in and blew off and blew out, having told us that he was an ordinary man. Of course, he is not an ordinary man: he is a most distinguished man. But ultimately, during the course of his delightful address, it emerged that the ordinary people for whom he claimed to speak, those among whom he apparently perpetually revolves and over whom he sheds his illumination, are ordinary people who live a life in which they pay 18s. 6d. in the pound income tax and surtax and who are so well off that they do not notice when Her Majesty's Government reduce the current rates of income tax and sur-tax and introduce seven successive Budgets with direct taxation

  443
  relief, and who, when they die, pay death duties at 80 per cent. which, I believe, is above the maximum. So the noble Viscount, Lord Esher, speaking as an ordinary man and complaining of the extraordinary gap between the Administration and the people, was not a very good example of what he was describing. I can only say that if I had to introduce the noble Viscount into some of the clubs of my former little constituency of Oxford as an "ordinary man" he would have to wear a very considerable disguise.
  LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I was not in the Chamber when my noble friend Lord Esher was speaking, but perhaps I might be allowed to defend the noble Viscount who has been the recipient of some remarkably amusing "cracks" from the Government Front Bench which we have all enjoyed, in varying degrees of course. The noble and learned Viscount has invited the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, and therefore possibly anybody on these Benches, to give a single instance of a way in which public expenditure could be saved. Time and again in your Lordships' House I and others have tried to draw the attention of Her Majesty's Government to the fact that the expenditure for the Ministry of Defence and the Services is out of proportion to the results achieved, because the staffs are, and have been for too long, too big. This could well be a means of reducing public expenditure—
  EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord? He is in fact making a speech during the reply of my noble friend. If he wishes to make a speech he must make it in proper turn.
  LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I apologise if I have inconvenienced your Lordships, but we on these Benches were asked to produce an instance where expenditure could be saved, and I have tried to do so.
  VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, apparently the noble Lord's suggestion is that we should save money on defence. Having lived through a period of Government consultations relating to the Defence services, I am bound to say that the achievement of my right honourable
  444
  friend the Minister of Defence in reducing Government expenditure on defence in the last eighteen months has been little short of spectacular. In fact, the only plausible criticism I have heard—and I am bound to say that it is a plausible criticism—is that my right honourable friend may have cut too near the bone and may even have gone too near the minimum. That was the burden of complaint in another place yesterday, and I should have thought that that had a good deal more substance than the suggestion of the noble Lord.
  The noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, who I am glad to see has returned to the "firing step", was at pains to conceal the fact that what I really had to tell this afternoon was a success story. It is a success story, the story of a very sound and, to my mind, brilliantly successful Government policy, won at the expense, for a time, of extreme unpopularity. When we last debated this subject in February we on the Government Benches were assailed with almost triumphant jeers from the Benches opposite. I notice a very considerable change of tone to-day. It is true, of course, that the noble Lord. Lord Pethick-Lawrence, endeavoured to "pooh-pooh" our achievement. He said that the increase in our reserves was due to various special circumstances, favourable terms of trade, the export-import borrowings and assertion of our right of bisque in loan repayments. There is a great deal of truth there, for in any period of nine months there are always special circumstances of which partisans of political warfare are able from time to time to take advantage.
  Our reserves have much more than recovered their autumn losses, even allowing for special items since then. Even taking off export-import borrowing and bisque we get a figure of£950 million. which compares with the figure of£850 million a year previously; and what the noble Lord did not appreciate was the importance of the fact that during the same period our sterling creditors had run down their sterling balances by£260 million. So I do not think the noble Lord can really "ride out" by suggesting that this is not a success story.
  He was a little bland in some of his statements. He started very fairly. He always sounds very fair, and I believe

  445
  that he tries to be fair. He said that there were certain things on which we were in accord and certain things on which we differed, and he enumerated things on which we were in accord. I have a note that at one stage of the proceedings he said we were in accord in that the Labour Party were as keen and determined—the noble Lord used the word "determined"—as Her Majesty's Government to combat inflation. I wish I thought that we were in accord about that. I know that the noble Lord is perfectly sincere in what he says, but I do not believe that the Labour Party are in the least determined to combat inflation—and I have good reasons for expressing that belief. I can go back to the devaluation of the pound in 1949, under Sir Stafford Cripps. They did not show a great deal of determination then, although we were subjected to a good deal of austerity. I remember that when they held the General Election of 1951 they were running away from, rather than facing, a crisis which was certain to lead to further devaluation on any measures that they had put forward.
  I have been watching their proposals week by week and year by year during the present Parliament. There is not one of those proposals which would not have directly encouraged inflation. What about their grotesquely inaccurate pension scheme, with its fantastic actuarial inaccuracies? What about the replacement of all Health Service charges with a free service? What about housing? Each one of these several items of policy which are being brought out now week by week and month by month, for the Party Conference, would create in one way or another vastly increased demands upon our purchasing power. It is all very well to say that they are determined to combat inflation, just because "inflation" is a dirty word. But the fact is that the Labour Party are not determined to combat inflation. On every single occasion I can remember they have tried to buy votes by creating inflation; so we are not in accord on that at all.
  LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: My Lords, the noble Viscount is entitled to draw his own inferences, but he is not entitled to say that we are not keen and determined to prevent inflation; and, in spite of the invective which the noble
  446
  Viscount has just delivered, I stand on what I said.
  VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I have said once that I recognise to the full the noble Lord's absolute sincerity in this matter. But determination is proved by resolute action and not by bold words. The words of the noble Lord are bold enough, but when his Party get into power their actions are recklessly inflationary: they attack the anti-inflationary measures of those who have had to bear the responsibility, while at the same time proposing what they think to be attractive electoral schemes like that for pensions which can have only an inflationary effect. Although I do not in the least question the noble Lord's sincerity, or his general desire to do good in the world, I question his statement of fact that the Labour party are determined to combat inflation. I do not think they are. I think that their determination is belied by their actions and their promises alike.
  The noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, amused himself with some very elaborate and attractive calculations as to what he called the economic consequences of Toryism. He did this by an ingenious calculation, and he said, in substance, "If you have a bank rate of 5 or 7 per cent., instead of 2 or 3 per cent., obviously you pay more for your borrowings, and therefore this is a very expensive thing. "The truth is that the noble Lord, so far as I can see, is wasting his time in making these calculations, because both rest on invalid assumptions. He takes an arbitary rate and assumes that the Chancellor of the Exchequer might have borrowed at that rate in the past year. But he ignores the fact that it might have been impossible for the Government to borrow at such low rates, even if they had been inclined to take such steps as would throw their monetary policy to the wind.
  Secondly, he ignores the deliberate calculation which successive Chancellors of the Exchequer have made and defended in Parliament: that the extra cost to the Exchequer has been justified by the overriding need to use the monetary weapon to deal with inflation. It is ultimately as simple as that.
  LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: My Lords, the noble Viscount is really confusing the issue. I never suggested for one moment—no sensible person would

  447
  suggest it—that the Government could have borrowed in the last few years at the rate of 3 per cent. instead of 6 per cent. No one would dream of making the suggestion. My point is that the cost of the method which the Government have adopted to deal with inflation is a very heavy one; part of that cost, the majority of it, arises from their use of the monetary policy in putting up bank rate. Of course, when they have put up bank rate to 5, 6 or 7 per cent. it follows, as day follows night, that when they go to the public to raise a loan they will have to pay this high rate of interest. I say that the total cost of their method of making a roast pig is a very heavy one; it is even as great as burning down the house.
  VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, the noble Lord has now gone even further than he went in his speech. He said in his speech that it would not be as great as burning down the house. The point is that I am doubting the validity of the analogy, and I would put it as simply as this. When the Government are faced, as we were last autumn, with a balance of payments crisis or a monetary crisis, one of the things they need to do is to attract foreign money to this country. One of the ways of doing that is to make it more attractive for people to send it here. Noble Lords opposite still delude themselves with the belief that it is possible to maintain a stable currency without maintaining confidence in its future. In fact, you can maintain a stable currency only if you maintain confidence in its future. You can win your lender's confidence only by offering terms which he personally finds attractive; and fortunately, or unfortunately, the foreigners whose money we wish to attract to this country, both outside and inside the sterling area, are not within reach of a
  448
  Socialist Chancellor of the Exchequer. They will not send money if the terms of bank rate are any more than the reasonable rate for the job.
  In so far as it has an internal effect as well, the internal effect is equally beneficial. If you are faced with a problem of credits, and an inflationary problem, one of the things you want to do is to stop people borrowing so much money, and so you make it slightly less attractive for them to do so by raising bank rate. This is what we think is a rational approach; and over the past twelve months it has proved to be effective, which is more than can be said of any of the remedies offered or imposed by the Socialists, and which they have threatened to reimpose if ever we are unfortunate enough to suffer again from a Socialist Government.
  A curious fact about the Party opposite is that, like the Bourbons of old, they learn nothing, even though they may forget a lot. They have not yet learnt that controls of a physical nature are not a way of restoring confidence, and controls of an experimental nature are not a way to generate expansion. The truth is that the policy which has been exemplified by this Budget of my right honourable friend is a success story, for the reasons which I indicated in my opening speech. I do not believe that there have been any arguments put forward from noble Lords opposite during this debate which would lead people to lose any sort of confidence in it; and it seems to me that the Party which supports my right honourable friend in both Houses of Parliament has the only right among those who have spoken to-day to claim to represent a contemporary and forward-looking economic policy at all.
  On Question, Bill read 2a; Committee negatived.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND MISCELLANEOUS FINANCIAL PROVISIONS (SCOTLAND) BILL
  6.8 p.m.
  Order of the Day read for the consideration of the Commons Amendment to one of the Lords Amendments.
  THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (LORD STRATHCLYDE): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendment be now considered.
  Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT TO ONE OF THE LORDS AMENDMENTS
  The References are to Bill (99) as first printed for the Lords
  LORDS AMENDMENT
  After Fourth Schedule, insert the following new Schedule—

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION
  The Allotments (Scotland) Act, 1922
  1. Section nine of the Allotments (Scotland) Act, 1922 (which requires the councils of certain burghs to establish allotment committees) shall cease to have effect.
  The Education (Scotland) Act, 1946
  2. In section three of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1946 (which relates to the provision of facilities for recreation and social and physical training), in subsection (1), the words with the approval of the Secretary of State' shall cease to have effect.
  3. In section twenty-five of the said Act of 1946 (which relates to contributions by education authorities to the maintenance of certain schools and institutions), in subsection (6). the words 'with the sanction of the Secretary of State 'shall cease to have effect, and for the words 'the Secretary of State,' where those words secondly occur, there shall be substituted the words 'the education authority'.
  4. In section twenty-seven of the said Act of 1946 (which relates to educational research) the words 'with the approval of the Secretary of State 'shall cease to have effect.
  5. In section thirty-four of the said Act of 1946 (which relates to exemption from school attendance) subsection (5) shall cease to have effect.
  6. In section forty-five of the said Act of 1946 (which relates to the provision of transport and other facilities), in subsection (1), the words 'or as the Secretary of State may direct 'shall cease to have effect.
  7. In section seventy-four of the said Act of 1946 (which relates, among other things, to the examination of accounts of education
  450
  authorities) subsections (2) and (3) shall cease to have effect:
  Provided that this paragraph shall not have effect as respects accounts for any period before the year beginning on the sixteenth day of May, nineteen hundred and fifty-nine.
  The National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1947
  8. In section twenty-two of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act, 1947 (which relates to the care of mothers and young children), in subsection (3), the words with the approval of the Secretary of State 'shall cease to have effect.
  9. In section twenty-seven of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act, 1947 (which relates to the prevention of illness, the care of persons suffering from illness or mental deficiency and the after care of such persons), in subsection (3), the words 'with the approval of the Secretary of State 'shall cease to have effect.
  10. In section fifty-one of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act, 1947 (which relates to the duties of local health authorities under the Lunacy and Mental Deficiency Acts), in subsection (3), the words 'with the approval of the Secretary of State 'shall cease to have effect.
  11. The Fifth Schedule to the National Health Service (Scotland) Act, 1947 (which requires local health committees to make the minutes of their proceedings available for inspection by electors) shall cease to have effect.
  The Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1947
  12. In section one hundred and five of the Act of 1947, subsection (2) (which requires county councils and town councils of large burghs to have administrative schemes for the discharge of their functions as local health authorities), subsection (3) (which requires county councils to have administrative schemes for the discharge of their functions relating to roads) and subsection (4) (which precludes county councils and the town councils of large burghs from revoking administrative schemes approved under section fourteen of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1929, otherwise than by making another administrative scheme) shall cease to have effect and any reference in subsection (5) or subsection (6) of the said section one hundred and five to an administrative scheme shall be construed as a reference only to an administrative scheme relating to education.
  13. Section one hundred and seven of the Act of 1947 (which prescribes the contents of certain administrative schemes required to be made by county councils and town councils of large burghs) shall cease to have effect.
  14. Section one hundred and ten of the Act of 1947 (which requires county councils to appoint committees for the purposes of their functions relating to roads) shall cease to have effect.
  15. Section one hundred and eleven of the Act of 1947 (which relates to health committees required to be appointed by county councils and town councils of large burghs) shall cease to have effect.
  16. Section one hundred and twelve of the Act of 1947 (which requires county councils and town councils which are police authorities to appoint committees for the purposes of their functions relating to police) shall cease to have effect.
  17. In section one hundred and fourteen of the Act of 1947 (which relates to the appointment of sub-committees of committees for administrative scheme functions) for subsection (1) there shall be substituted the following subsection, that is to say—
  ' (1) Save as otherwise provided in this Part of this Act a sub-committee of the education committee of a county council may consist to an extent not exceeding one half of persons who are not members of the council:
  Provided that a person who is not a member of the council or of the committee shall not be appointed to a sub-committee except with the consent of the council.'
  18. Section one hundred and fifteen of the Act of 1947 (which relates to the appointment of committees and sub-committees of county councils, town councils of burghs and district councils) shall have effect with the addition of the following subsection, that is to say—
  ' (3) Any committee appointed by a local authority under subsection (I) of this section for the purposes of the authority's functions under the Allotments (Scotland) Act. 1922, the National Health Service (Scotland) Act, 1947, the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act. 1947, or the National Assistance Act, 1948, may to an extent not exceeding one third of its membership consist of persons, not being members of the local authority, who have special knowledge or experience in regard to the functions for the purposes of which the committee is appointed.'
  19. In section one hundred and fifty-seven of the Act of 1947 (which relates to the acquisition of land in advance of requirements) the 'words with the consent of the Minister concerned 'shall cease to have effect.
  The Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1947
  20. Part IV of the First Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1947 (which requires local planning authorities to establish planning committees for the discharge of their functions under that Act) shall cease to have effect.
  21. In Part V of the First Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1947 (which relates to sub-committees), in paragraph 1, for the words 'The planning committee of a local planning authority' there shall be substituted the words 'Any committee established by a local planning authority for the discharge of their functions under this Act '; after the words 'the committee' there shall be inserted the words '(hereinafter referred to as "the planning committee"), and for the words 'not less than three-fourths of the members of any such sub-committee which
  452
  consists of more than three persons 'there shall be substituted the words 'not less than two-thirds of the members of any such committee'; and, in paragraph 3, for the words 'a planning committee established under Part IV of this Schedule', there shall be substituted the words 'a committee to which paragraph 1 of this Part of this Schedule relates'.
  The Local Government Act, 1948
  22. In section one hundred and thirty-five of the Local Government Act, 1948 (which relates to instruction, lectures, etc., on questions relating to local government) in subsection (1), the words Subject to such conditions and restrictions, if any, as the Secretary of State may by regulations prescribe' shall cease to have effect.
  The National Assistance Act. 1948
  23. Part I, of the Third Schedule to the National Assistance Act, 1948 (which requires county councils and town councils of large burghs to establish committees for the discharge of their functions under Part III of that Act) shall cease to have effect.
  The Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act, 1956
  24. Section two of the Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act, 1956 (which requires valuation authorities to have administrative schemes far the discharge of their functions relating to valuation) shall cease to have effect.")
  The Commons agreed to the above Amendment, but proposed the following Amendment thereto:—
  Paragraph 17, line 6, after (" county council ") insert (" or of the town council of a county of a city ").
  LORD STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, I regret having to trouble your Lordships with this drafting Amendment, but it corrects an error in the new Schedule which was added to the Bill in your Lordships' House during the Committee stage. Paragraph 17 of the Schedule as it stands refers only to education committees of county councils. The cities also have education committees, and therefore it is necessary to refer to them. This Amendment puts the matter right. I therefore beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment to the Lords Amendment.—(Lord Strathclyde.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  HOTEL ACCOMMODATION
  6.10 p.m.
  LORD GIFFORD LORD GIFFORD rose to call attention to the increasing loss in dollar earnings caused by the shortage of hotel accommodation, particularly in London; to urge Her Majesty's Government to consider creating more favourable conditions to those wishing to make economical use of valuable sites in the West End for the erection of large modern hotels, which are urgently needed to cater for visitors from overseas; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, your Lordships have spent two long and gruelling days on foreign travel, after which you endeavoured to balance your budgets—always a difficult thing when returning from abroad. It is therefore hardly surprising that a number of noble Lords have preferred their homes to hotels, which will be the subject of my Motion to-day.
  In the debate on the Budget, as in every economic debate that I have heard in this House, more than one speaker has emphasised the importance of building up our exports, particularly to dollar countries. I think this view is held irrespective of Party—it is perhaps the only point on which every economist agrees. My Motion to-day is based on the greatest of all our exports, and by far the largest dollar-earner. I refer to the tourist industry, the importance of which to this country cannot be emphasised too frequently. It is estimated that over 1¼million visitors will come to Britain this year, and that they will spend, including fares, about£190 million. These are enormous figures: 1¼million visitors spending£190 million. Compare this total with about 400,000 visitors in 1947 and less than half a million in 1937, the best pre-war year. In ten years the tourist traffic has increased by about 200 per cent.
  We have to face a probable annual influx of about two million visitors in about five to ten years' time. What are we doing about it? The airlines are doing a great deal. The noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Kirtleside, Chairman of British European Airways, has stated that£1,000 million has already been invested in 1,000 jet or turbo-prop airliners, and that more than five times that number will be required by 1970. These are huge figures, but the money being
  454
  spent on these airliners will be wasted if the passengers they bring cannot be accommodated when they get here. Foreign airlines will carry them to Continental countries which have had the forethought to encourage the building of large modern hotels aided by various Government schemes. I am appealing to the Government to-day to give immediate and earnest attention to this problem, because I believe that every million pounds spent on providing hotels will bring in several times that figure in foreign currency. It has been said that every hotel room of the right type built in this country will earn us£4,000 per annum in foreign currency.
  In May of this year the British Travel and Holidays Association held a two-day conference at the Board of Trade. The Chairman, Sir Arthur Morse, told me that he was calling this conference because he and his staff were getting desperate. They were beginning to feel that their most successful "Come to Britain" scheme and campaign would shortly be a waste of time and money because there would be nowhere to put those visitors who came as a result of their excellent propaganda. Even now it is believed that 10 per cent. more visitors from America would have come here last year if the rooms had been available. The hulk of American tourists are sent here by American travel agents. Some of them, of course, come under their own steam, but great numbers of them come in large or small parties, organised not from here but by travel agents in America; and if those American travel agents cannot quickly and easily obtain hotel accommodation in Britain. their tours will by-pass Britain and will be confined to the Continent, where they get much more help and encouragement from the hotels.
  Now, at the conference to which I have referred it was significant that, although only one of the four sessions was devoted to hotels, the subject kept on cropping up at every single session. In fact, the chairman felt compelled to put his foot down and to rule that any further mention of hotels would be out of order. This conference on tourism was opened by Mr. R. A. Butler, and every one of the four sessions was attended by a Minister or Under-Secretary from the Board of Trade, the Home Office, or the Ministry of Transport: so

  455
  there is no doubt that the Government took a great interest in this conference. I am therefore much encouraged in bringing this Motion before your Lordships to-day by the obvious interest which is being taken in Government circles. I might interpose here that I also sympathise with the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, in that not for the first time he has to answer for several Departments at once.
  Now I come to this point: that there is an undoubted need for far more hotel rooms with private baths. But why are practically none being built? The answer is that with present day costs at somewhere about£5,000 to£6,000 per room it simply is not an attractive proposition. I could give several glaring examples, but I will quote only one. The directors of Quaglino's acquired the adjoining site facing Jermyn Street—the site of that famous pre-war institution the Hammam Turkish Baths, which some of your Lordships will remember. The hotel already had all the necessary restaurant facilities, but what did they do on this site? They merely built a banqueting room in the basement and built an office block on top of it. When one thinks of it, this was an ideal opportunity to increase the number of hotel rooms in London. When I expressed disappointment to the chairman, whom I know well, he told me that with the huge capital cost involved the new bedrooms would not have been an economic proposition. How much greater are the difficulties in the way of anyone wishing to build a new hotel from scratch!
  THE EARL OF LUCAN: Before the noble Lord goes on, perhaps he could answer one question. One of the things he has said puzzles me. As I understood him, he said that the cost of hotel rooms was from£5,000 to£6,000 per room. He has also told us that each room was calculated to bring in£4,000 a year in revenue. How, in that case, is it not an economic proposition to build hotel rooms?
  LORD GIFFORD: In answer to the noble Earl opposite, I can only say that I have not myself gone into the question of building hotels, but it simply is impossible to get finance for building an hotel; and existing hotel interests of great experience are not building new hotels
  456
  simply because their calculations show that it is not economic. I do not think that now is the time to go into this matter in detail, but there are the enormous overheads, the staff, and everything else to be dealt with if you are going to link up those figures. The earlier figure I gave was a figure that the British Travel and Holidays Association worked out on the best information available.
  My first proposal is that cheap capital should be made available to those wishing to build new hotels or to modernise existing hotels which are considered suitable. As I have already said, banks and finance houses do not look favourably on requests from hoteliers, as they do not consider hotels to be an attractive investment. I should like to see the Government establish a body to be known, let us say, as "The Hotels Finance Corporation"—something on the lines of the Finance Corporation for Industry, which would act similarly to that body. Schemes put before this body would be carefully considered, taking particular account of their value as dollar-earners. In suitable cases no-interest loans would be made for this purpose and for major improvements designed to make hotels suitable for overseas visitors, the main requirement being more rooms with private baths. That is what is always wanted by people coming here from America. Many other countries are doing this, particularly Spain and Italy, with a consequent increase in the number of hotel beds since the war.
  Your Lordships have heard my suggestion about finance; but finance is useless and projects are doomed to failure unless hotels can be built on the right sites and can be planned to make the best and maximum use of the ground available. Several big property owners, usually in conjunction with American hotel interests, have been planning large hotels in this country since the war, but all except the Westbury in Bond Street have failed to reach fruition. There have been the Hyde Park Hotel plan, the Manchester Square project and now the Park Lane scheme. Big new blocks of offices have reared their heads all over the West End, but hardly any hotels, and the position has been made worse by the fact that hotels requisitioned at the outbreak of war, such as the Carlton and the Metro-pole, have been permanently lost.
  Why have none of these schemes been carried out? I believe that the answer

  457
  is that they have not received sympathetic and helpful consideration from the planning authorities. These authorities have old-fashioned ideas and seem terrified of tall buildings. And without height no hotel on a central and expensive site can get full value out of the site. It is an axiom that a first-class hotel must be in what visitors consider to be the right position. Many of them stay only two or three days and want to be right in the centre. For instance, Americans will not accept a hotel on what they colloquially know as "the wrong side of the tracks".
  I should like to give your Lordships a few more details about the Park Lane project, because I think it is one of the most important. I do not think I can do better than read from a letter from Mr. Charles Clore, published in The Times on March 24. He starts off by saying that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade had spoken about the necessity for at least 3,000 more bedrooms and about how important it was to expand the hotel industry. He goes on:
  " I can only speak of matters with which I personally have been concerned. Some 10 years ago I and those associated with me came to the conclusion that the changes which had occurred and which were anticipated in travel facilities justified a vigorous policy of expansion in the hotel industry. We decided that it weed be good business as well as in the national interest to venture our capital in an industry which formerly had been regarded as one which was highly speculative. Accordingly we investigated a number of propositions, but our efforts were frustrated by various factors including the attitude of local authorities and Government Departments.
  " Finally in 1956 we were able to acquire a site which is generally agreed to be ideal for a new hotel. Months of discussion between the planning authorities and our professional advisers in efforts to bring the project within the rules and regulations (most of which were not designed to apply to hotels) resulted in a scheme being suggested to us which was clearly an economic impossibility.
  " Accordingly in May, 1957, we made a formal application to the London County Council for consent in principle to the construction of a large hotel on the site in the hope that this would force a speedy decision. In August we were advised that the matter had been taken out of the hands of the London County Council by the Minister of Housing and Local Government. A public inquiry was held in November and we are still awaiting a decision. In the meantime modern hotels to attract the ever growing tourist trade are springing up all over the world, except in Britain."
  458
  Since that letter was written there is still no definite action, and Mr. Clore's associates in the scheme, the Hilton Hotel Group, are becoming disheartened. They have already built large hotels in other parts of Europe, notably in Istambul and Madrid.
  The London hotel planned would have had 700 double bedrooms, each with bath and dressing room. It was estimated that it would earn six million dollars a year, and, of course, tourists would spend many times that amount outside the hotel. There was also to be internal parking for 260 cars, which would help another acute problem in London. The Hilton Hotel Organisation believe that they could arrange conferences and conventions at the hotel, flying Americans over for these conventions, and this would help to fill it during the off-peak seasons. This scheme was turned down altogether in May, 1958, after a whole year of negotiations. The Minister is now considering a scheme for a 500-bedroom hotel as an alternative, but, of course, this proposition is much less attractive; the cost per bedroom rises by at least£1,000, probably more, and the hotel will be much less economic and probably impossible unless some cheap finance goes with it. In any case, there is still no decision after all these months. All we know is that the scheme is under active consideration. I hope that a decision, long overdue, will soon be given. Another group, Messrs. J. Lyons & Company, are considering a large scheme on the Trocadero site. I hope that their plans, when submitted to the Minister, will be dealt with quickly and sympathetically.
  I have spoken about cheap finance and help with regard to planning, but there are several other ways in which help can be given to the hotel industry, and I should like to mention those ways briefly. Many hotels have been built in the United States and Canada since the war. One reason for this is a generous depreciation allowance for tax purposes on all hotel buildings. I see no reason why hotels should not be treated in the same way as industrial buildings, with an initial allowance of 12½per cent. and an annual allowance of 2 per cent. Similarly, hotels should be treated as industrial premises for rating purposes, or rating concessions should be given where bedrooms of a certain standard are provided.

  459
  Hotels must keep their décor up to date and their interior appointments in line with modern taste in decoration. It is only right that this cost of decoration and modernisation should be allowed as a trading expense for tax purposes. There is also a curious anachronism called monopoly value, which is imposed on premises licensed since 1904. Few people realise the existence of this burden and I think that its abolition is long overdue, as it is one more unnecessary straw which may break the back of the industry. Finally, I come to the much argued subject of purchase tax on catering equipment—china, glass, linen, et cetera—the tools of the trade. Passenger ships buy this equipment free of purchase tax. Why not hotels? I know that there are administrative difficulties, but I believe that they could be overcome and I would ask the Minister to give another thought to this matter.
  Before I sit down I should like to compliment the Government on their expressed intention of repealing the Catering Wages Act, which has created many anomalies and has added greatly to the difficulty and expense of running hotels. I only hope that the new catering wages boards will give greater flexibility, which is very necessary to enable hotels, particularly smaller ones, to give better service to their guests. I think it only fair to say that certain existing hotel interests, whose opinion demands respect, maintain that the existing hotels now erected in London cannot be filled throughout the year, but the fact remains that it is most difficult for all those concerned with travel ever to obtain a room in any of our leading hotels. That is an experience common will all travel agencies. My hope is that if some or all of my proposals are adopted, those with the greatest experience of running hotels will concern themselves with building new ones, confident that they can be made to pay, even though there must be some periods of the year when it must be accepted that a substantial number of rooms will be empty. My remarks have been largely concerned with London, but they apply to other large cities where overseas visitors on business or on holiday wish to go.
  I should like to conclude by summarising my specific proposals. First, a finance corporation for hotels. Secondly, much
  460
  greater and speedier assistance from the Government in obtaining permission for tall buildings. Thirdly, generous depreciation allowance on hotel buildings. Fourthly, hotels to be treated as industrial premises for rating purposes. Fifthly, the *cost of new decoration and new décor to be allowed as a trading expense. Sixthly, abolition of monopoly value; and lastly, abolition of purchase tax on the tools of the trade—china, linen et cetera. I believe these are practical suggestions, and they are supported by many people with much greater knowledge of the hotel industry than I have. I therefore commend them to your Lordships and to Her Majesty's Government. When opening the new wing of Grosvenor House last year, the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer said:
  " Everybody knows that there is not enough first-class hotel accommodation in London. Everybody has been saying this for years."
  My Lords, let us stop saying and begin doing. If, in the next twelve months, I can look up and see the steel framework of a modern hotel towering against the London skyline, I shall feel well rewarded for having raised this matter to-day. I beg to move for Papers.
  6.32 p.m.
  LORD HADEN-GUEST: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, has given us a general suggestion about the value of good hotels. I speak as one who for a good many years was the medical officer called in at all times of the day and night to help one of the best known hotels in London—I will not mention its name. I have therefore a great knowledge of hotel life, organisation, and so on. One thing I can tell the noble Lord is that the prices charged by the particular hotel I am thinking about—which I am sure the noble Lord knows well—and the prices he has quoted are out of all comparison. It is not necessary to have prices of the kind he has given. I am not sure whether the noble Lord said£1,000 for a room with a bath, but that seems to me to be nonsensical.
  LORD GIFFORD: I think we are at cross purposes. I am not dealing with existing hotels, built before the war, of which the leading ones are doing quite well and their balance sheets show a profit. But that is a different thing from building a new hotel from scratch now, when the capital costs of building are

  461
  many times greater than they were. It is riot considered possible to build a new hotel which, when completed, will be an economic proposition, because the capital costs are so high. That does not affect the hotels that have already been built which are on quite a "good wicket."
  Loma HADEN-GUEST: I intervene only because of my special knowledge of this matter, and I do not think any very high prices such as the noble Lord suggested—was it£1,000 for a room?—are necessary.
  LORD GIFFORD: I am not talking of what the guests are charged, but about the capital cost of building a new hotel, which is a different matter.
  LORD HADEN-GUEST LORD HADEN-GUEST I agree that that is a different matter, but I think the prices which are being charged are quite excessive.
  6.35 p.m.
  LORD JESSEL: My Lords, I have no interest in the hotel or catering industry other than as a consumer. I am sure your Lordships will all be most grateful to my noble friend Lord Gifford for putting down this Motion, which draws attention to what is obviously an unsatisfactory situation in a large capital city. It s not only the tourists who suffer; people coming here on business have the same sort of difficulties. I have spent many frustrating hours on the telephone trying to get accommodation for overseas visitors coming here on business, especially during the summer months. So there is no doubt that there is a shortage of suitable hotel accommodation, during the week much more than at week-ends, and probably for about three months in the year.
  Here I should like, with your Lordships' permission, to quote a few sentences from the speech made by Mr. Wontner, the chairman and managing director of the Savoy Hotel Company, at their last annual general meeting. He said:
  " Judging by official figures, the peak months last year for- the overseas trade were July, August, and June, in that order, with September and May as the next most important months. In November, December, January. February and March, all five months combined, there were fewer visitors in the aggregate than in the four weeks in July. This demonstrates the essential difficulty about new hotels built for the overseas tourist trade: the demand for rooms is so heavily concentrated in far too short a period of the year."
  462
  So, with present-day building costs and current site values, the total cost of equipping a new hotel would, I think, as my noble friend Lord Gifford said, almost certainly prove to be uneconomic. I think it is true to say that many capital cities and large towns all over the world are faced with the same problem. But I do not think the solution is the simple one of building more new hotels. For instance, I do not think anyone is going to be foolish enough to build a new hotel in Dublin just for the week of the Horse Show, because if they did, they would find it empty for practically the whole of the rest of the year.
  But in spite of this rather discouraging picture I have painted, I am glad to see that, even under existing conditions, there are some optimists about, because I have seen from the newspapers that permission has been recently given for the building in the Lancaster Gate area of a new hotel comprising some 600 to 800 bedrooms. I wish the backers of this enterprise every success. My noble friend Lord Gifford has emphasised the need for helping the promoters of new modern hotels, but I think it would be unfair for the Government to grant any favours only to newcomers, and any concessions which are going to be made should be made for the benefit of the whole industry. I think the most practical way of dealing with this problem is for the Government to encourage existing hotels and restaurants to carry out extensions and improvements. Some could expand and others could bring the standard of their accommodation up to what is now demanded by every overseas visitor who has any money to spend.
  How can this be done? I suggest that there are several ways in which the Government could help to reduce the operating costs of these establishments. For instance, under the present law all expenses on buildings and equipment of hotels which are not specific replacements of existing assets are treated as capital items. So the cost of modernisation has to be met out of taxed profits. But with taxation as high as it is to-day, it is almost impossible to set aside a sufficient amount of money from this source to do what is necessary. It would undoubtedly be a great help if all alterations within the four walls of existing hotels could qualify for relief from income tax and profits tax.

  463
  Another form of assistance, as my noble friend Lord Gifford has already said, would be an extension of capital allowances. I understand, for instance, that these allowances can be claimed on the cost of such items as furniture, curtains, carpets and linoleum, but not, for some reason, on linen, cutlery, plate, glass and china, which are all essential tools of the trade. Another suggestion is that interest-free loans might be given on the lines of the National Industrial Fuel Efficiency Service, which has greatly assisted the installation of modern equipment designed to effect economies in fuel. For hotels, a similar sort of scheme might be put into operation to cover the costs of such work as the installation of new bathrooms and central heating, both of which are demanded by the overseas visitor to-day.
  Another possibility which Her Majesty's Government might consider—and my noble friend Lord Gifford has also touched on this—is the possibility of de-rating. My noble friend has emphasised the need for encouraging the building of new hotels in London, and in my opinion he has made out a strong case for this and has contributed many useful suggestions. I have dwelt more on the need for helping existing hotels to expand and modernise. My hope is that Her Majesty's Government will be able to do something to help both of us. As I see that my noble friend Lord Mancroft is to reply, as he always seems to do on the few occasions when I have the temerity to address your Lordships' House. I am full of hope.
  6.43 p.m.
  LORD LAWSON: My Lords, I think there must be general regret that this debate has come at the end of a long day. It deals with accommodation for visitors to this country, and one of the things I have been pleased to notice, particularly during this summer season, has been the number of visitors from every part of this country, not only going about this great city, but particularly visiting the Houses of Parliament. I say that in order to point out that, so far as increasing the number of visitors is concerned, I should welcome some sort of consideration to it. But let the House be fully conscious of what it is considering—
  464
  "…to consider creating more favourable conditions to those wishing to make economical use of valuable sites in the West End for the erection of large modern hotels.…"
  Now the people who can supply the capital for valuable sites in this great city are comparatively few, and I suggest that this is a piece of special pleading for a particularly small class of people who, so far as I can see, are well able to look after themselves. I would suggest to the Government that they think seriously about this matter before they make any concessions at all. In his Motion the noble Lord is asking for this special privilege to be given to a very small class of people who are more than able to look after themselves. So I suggest to the Government that they should be careful before they give any promise such as has been asked for to-day.
  LORD GIFFORD: May I interrupt the noble Lord for one moment? I am not interested in development as such. I am interested in getting these hotels built, so that this country can earn the dollars. If building hotels was a profitable and economic project in present conditions, they would be built. But they just are not being built, and therefore I think some encouragement needs to be given.
  6.46 p.m.
  LORD BARNBY: My Lords, this is a most interesting subject. I personally have no interest in hotels, and I know nothing about how to run one, but I am often a guest in a hotel—and I refer particularly to the Provinces and not to the Metropolis. I would echo the words of my noble friend Lord Jessel, that we owe a debt of gratitude to my noble friend for moving this Motion. I say that with a profound belief that there is something wrong, and that the lack of proper accommodation and in the services which are given in hotels in this country, particularly in the Provinces, is marked. In that I should find myself in complete disagreement with the noble Lord, Lord Lawson. Far from caring whether the hotel people can look after themselves, what I want is that the people who run hotels should look after their guests. That is a much more important point. It is because I find the services given to guests in the Provinces so infernally bad that I particularly support my noble friend.
  My noble friend laid emphasis on the Metropolis. I repeat that I think more

  465
  of the Provinces. I say this because all those in the big industrial cities want to see as guests the buyers of our products and our machinery, and those who are going to bring skilled knowledge to us. I am confident that compared with hotels in North American towns of much smaller size than our big cities the facilities are insufficient. I will not mention the names of any cities, but your Lordships can all look at the population figures, and many big cities in this country have appallingly poor hotels. The service they give would not be accepted in North America.
  There is no need to support at length the recommendations which my noble friend made, but with the indulgence of the House I should like to add one or two personal reasons why I feel there is scope for something to be done. Much has been said about the finance of hotels. My noble friend suggested a finance corporation, and that thought should be given to the structure of the Trade Facilities Act which was passed after World War I. Much of its terms could be applied to this particular problem. I suspect that in the operation of these hotels there must be difficulties because the reward is not sufficient to produce efficiency.
  My noble friend referred to amenity, and other similar questions. He omitted to refer to one matter, and I should regard this as an important one—that is, the cooking in the hotels. Take the cooking of simple things like vegetables—it is deplorable. There is no training for cooks in this country, and I would submit—and I hope my noble friend who replies will not omit to make a note of this—that if the Home Office would licence the importation of more foreign cooks who know how to cook, they could teach more people in this country and we should be, I am sure, better off. We recently had a debate in this House on the general projection of this country's advantages to the world. What is the good of spending a great deal of money on that if the tourist trade, which has made the most important contribution to our balance of payments position, is impaired by reason of insufficient accommodation to receive the tourists when they come here?
  I could have hoped that many more Members of your Lordships' House would have come this afternoon to
  466
  support my noble friend in this Motion, because there is undoubtedly substance in it. I suppose that the frugal habits of this country make the operation of hotels at week-ends, when people eat at home and will not eat at hotels, difficult; but whatever the reasons are, there should be sympathetic support for the Motion. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, is going to reply. He is, as should be the case, a particularly well-qualified judge of good food and good comfort. He has in addition a particularly acute commercial brain, and with all those qualifications I hope he will, as I believe he will, give sympathetic reception to my noble friend's Motion. I trust we shall get some encouragement to hope for concessions of the character that my noble friend has raised. I have much pleasure in supporting the Motion.
  6.52 p.m.
  THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, it is surprising how the most innocuous-sounding subject can bring up quite controversial matters, and while we have every sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, in his ambition to increase the possibility of earning dollars and foreign currency in this country, his speech and the subsequent speeches raise one or two matters on which I hope the noble Lord the Minister will comment. We had, of course, the financial side, and I thought it a pity that the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, was not here, because there were echoes in it of his speech in the last debate, on the Finance Bill. It seamed to me that there were some traces of pleading for special treatment for special interests, which the noble Viscount castigated in his speech. Then we had the attack on the planning legislation of this country and particularly of this city. I should like to remind the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft—I am sure he has remembered it—that we as Londoners have to live here all the time; the planning regulations are designed to safeguard our city and to prevent undue congestion in the central areas of London.
  LORD BARNBY: May I remind the noble Lord that one of the Members of this House raised the question of the improper siting of the Westbury Hotel; it seemed the most stupid place in London to put it. There were only three noble

  467
  Lords who took the trouble to support the one who raised the opposition to it. I raised it.
  THE EARL OF LUCAN: I thank the noble Lord. I am sure that many noble Lords read the account in Hansard.
  We also had mention of the Catering Wages Act—a very big subject, and a highly controversial one. It was one of the points the noble Lord mentioned in his speech. Finally, there is the question of the standards which the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, is advocating. He talks of hotel interests planning hotels with 700 rooms—I think he said double rooms, each with bathroom and dressing room. I wonder how many of our visitors are really prepared to spend the sums that would represent in room rent. This summer I have seen a number of visitors from overseas, America and Canada. And most of the complaints I have heard have not been that they cannot get rooms of the right standard but that they cannot get rooms at the right price. Many of them would be quite willing to go a little outside the centre of London, and I suggest that the planning authorities should be slow to give permission for further development of this kind right in the middle of London. Let there be development on the Underground lines outside London, from which access to the centre is very easy, but do not let us clutter up the centre with too much new building.
  6.58 p.m.
  THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD MANCROFT): My Lords, I can assure your Lordships that Her Majesty's Government do indeed recognise the importance of the British hotel industry. It is, of course, an integral part of the whole tourist trade, and our tourist trade last year earned£128 million. This year we hope that the constantly increasing number of overseas visitors will spend nearly£140 million in this country. About 9s. 6d. in every one of those pounds is spent in hotels and restaurants. One first-class hotel bedroom can earn between£3,000 and£4,000 a year in foreign currency. This means, if I have done my sums right, that a hotel of about 500 bedrooms can earn at least£1½ million a year in foreign currency. I repeat, therefore: the Government fully recognise the importance of the hotel industry.
  468
  There is a sharp contrast between the rapid growth of transport capacity, especially in the air—a capacity that is obviously likely to increase—and the static condition of the hotel industry. This, unfortunately, is a fact. It will be one of the main questions which will be studied in the course of a review of the long-term prospects of the tourist trade as a whole which the Board of Trade and other Departments are about to undertake. This review is intended to follow up the important conference on tourism, to which my noble friend Lord Gifford referred, held in May by the British Travel and Holidays Association, at which many proposals were put forward for expanding the tourist trade. All these proposals, which include, incidentally, most of the specific points your Lordships have raised this afternoon, will he carefully studied.
  The general economic principle of the Government's policy by which these problems will be judged is as follows. The industry as a whole is largely in the hands of private enterprise. Last year, the number of tourists was three times what it was ten years ago. The Government hope that this evidence of a growing demand for new hotel accommodation will encourage confidence in the hotel industry and stimulate more private investment. There is, indeed, evidence of a renewed business interest in hotels. In the last year or so the financial position of the hotel industry clearly improved. The profits of those companies in the hotel industry whose accounts were published during 1957 were about 20 per cent. higher than in 1956. This figure, I admit, is unevenly spread. London, for instance, is much better off than the seaside resorts.
  The Government's job, as I see it, is to let the hotel business get on with its business, rather than to interfere, yet at the same time to help to create the right atmosphere of confidence—especially in the City—in which that business can flourish. A number of suggestions have been made about the ways in which the Government could help, and these will all be carefully and sympathetically examined. There are, as your Lordships will appreciate, and as the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, and the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, have rightly pointed out, obvious difficulties about granting Govern-

  469
  ment subsidies to one particular industry. If to the hotel industry, which earns dollars, then why not to the motor industry, for instance, which also earns dollars? In any case, assistance of this kind inevitably involves Government inspection and control, and I do not think that that would be welcomed by the hotel industry in general, or even by the Gordon Hotels, in particular.
  There is another difficulty. There are about 50,000 hotels and boarding houses in this country; and a great many of them are obviously more concerned with catering for the domestic holiday maker than for the foreign tourist. The Dorchester and, say the Seaview Private Hotel (" Dogs not admitted ") raise slightly differing problems. Any form of financial assistance to the industry would therefore either have to be selective, which would raise difficulties about distinguishing tourist hotels from others, or it would have to be given to a great many establishments which earn little or no foreign currency. I do not want to pour cold water on the schemes which have been put forward, but these are just the kinds of problems which the Board of Trade inquiry will have to sort out.
  I do not want to prejudge the issues, but let me offer one or two observations on other points that are bound to crop up. My noble friend Lord Gifford suggests, for instance, that modernisation costs of hotels should be treated as trading expenses. Hotels are treated in the same way as other businesses, so far as being able to claim tax relief on repairs and maintenance. If we were to follow Lord Gifford's suggestion we should, of course, be placing hotels in a better position than any other class of business, industrial or otherwise. Improvements generally, moreover, in any non-industrial buildings are treated as capital expenditure for tax purposes: they do not qualify for tax relief. Your Lordships may ask "Well, why not make an exception here? Hotels are, after all, a great dollar earning business." Then I would say again: What about the insurance industry? That is also a big dollar-earning business. I think your Lordships will see that like so many of these suggestions, this matter is not quite so straightforward as it looks.
  470
  Take depreciation allowances. At present these are given only in respect of industrial buildings. Your Lordships will remember, of course, that hotels, like other industries, can claim depreciation allowances on such items as lifts, furniture and carpets. But here again I think it would be difficult to distinguish between non-industrial buildings such as hotels and buildings such as the new Lloyd's. This obviously presents a real problem—but it is a problem I think we shall have to look at carefully again.
  What about the question of de-rating, which the noble Lords, Lord Jesse] and Lord Gifford both mentioned? As your Lordships know, the industry is at present de-rated to 25 per cent., but is to be re-rated to 50 per cent. Once again I think it would be difficult to distinguish between commercial premises, such as hotels, and other commercial premises such as shops or offices. The valuation of hotels for rating purposes already makes due allowance for their seasonal nature. And your Lordships will, of course, remember that hotels secured 20 per cent. de-rating as recently as 1957. I must point out, therefore, that there are sizeable arguments against the fresh de-rating of any particular class of property. Only within the past few days the Local Government Act received the Royal Assent. This Act has the strengthening of the rating system as one of its main objects. It is in this context, and in the knowledge that any extension of de-rating adds appreciably and immediately to the rate burden of all other ratepayers, that any proposal to give hotels a larger measure of de-rating would have to be considered.
  The most difficult example of drawing the line between hotels and other businesses occurs when we come to purchase tax. That it is a burden on the hotel industry. I do not deny; but a great many other people also think it is a burden on them. The honourable Member for Kidderminster, Mr. Gerald Nabarro, does not let us forget this argument; nor have any convincing figures been put forward by the hotel industry to show precisely what sort of burden it is.
  It is levied only at 5 per cent. on furniture; on most other items used in hotels the rate is only 15 per cent. I readily admit that purchase tax is a heavy burden when a hotel is being

  471
  furnished for the first time. It cost the Leofric Hotel at Coventry, I believe, nearly£35,000. I really do not know, however, how we could work out a satisfactory scheme for distinguishing between goods to be used in the hotel industry and those for ordinary domestic use. Purchase tax, your Lordships will remember, is levied at the wholesale stage by reference to the nature of the goods and not to the purpose for which they are to be used. Where again, therefore, does one draw the line?
  What about a special loan? Here there is one strictly limited field in which the Government can possibly make loans to finance the construction of an hotel. I mentioned this to your Lordships on the Second Reading of what is now the Distribution of Industry (Industrial Finance) Act, 1958. The Government now have power to make loans for any purpose likely to reduce, or contribute to the reduction in, the rate of unemployment in any locality in which a high rate of unemployment exists and is likely to persist. I hope that this provision may attract new people into the hotel industry. Such areas as the Highlands and the Islands, or parts of Devon and Cornwall, might conceivably qualify for a loan under these powers. The principal purpose of the Act, I must remind your Lordships, however, is to relieve unemployment, rather than to assist the hotel industry.
  My noble friend Lord Gifford has suggested that planning authorities could be more sympathetic, particularly with reference to multi-storey hotels. We are told that this is the only way that large new hotels can be made to pay. I can assure the House—and I am pleased to do so—that neither planning requirements nor the building by-laws stand in the way of new hotel construction, whether the hotel is to have three storeys or thirty. There is no preconceived objection to high buildings in London, though many people seem to think there is. What there is objection to is badly sited or badly designed buildings—and rightly so. I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, that a new building should not only look civilised but should be a good neighbour and fit well into its environment. This, surely, is particularly important if it is going to be a skyscraper.
  472
  Some hotel promoters have sought permission to erect huge buildings on sites which were much too small to take them. Your Lordships will be aware of the proposal to erect a new hotel of 700 bedrooms just north of Londonderry House, in Park Lane. This would not only have loomed up to roughly the same height as Salisbury Cathedral, but would have been four times bulkier than the size of building which the recognised planning standards would otherwise have permitted on that particular site. It would have stuck out like the proverbial sore thumb. The Government therefore called in the application and refused permission. I am sure that that particular decision was right, but it was not taken just because the proposed hotel was to have been 400 feet high. The promoters, incidentally, have now made another application for two different designs for a smaller hotel of 530 bedrooms on the same site, and this is under consideration.
  Meanwhile, as my noble friend Lord Jessel told us, my right honourable friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government has granted planning permission for another tall hotel, containing 700 bedrooms, on a larger site in Lancaster Gate. This building will be slightly less than twice as bulky as the maximum prescribed by planning standards for that particular site, but it will not dominate its surroundings anything like so badly as did the Park Lane example. I hope your Lordships will realise from this that the planners are indeed prepared to relax the standards to a considerable degree in order to encourage hotel promoters. Altogether since the war, planning permission has been granted for eight new hotels in London. These would produce nearly 4,000 bedrooms. They would also produce nearly as many bathrooms, which a few British hoteliers still seem to regard as an unnecessary refinement; and only yesterday the London County Council granted planning permission for a hotel of 255 bedrooms on seventeen floors rising to a height of 170 feet just south of Londonderry House at 11–15, Park Lane. In addition, as your Lordships know, the L.C.C. are now considering an application for permission to build an hotel of 1,000 rooms on the Trocadero-Corner House site near Piccadilly Circus.
  I readily admit that only one complete new London hotel, the Westbury, has actually been built. My noble friend

  473
  Lord Jessel referred, however, to the extensions that have been carried out to Mount Royal, Grosvenor House, the Washington, the De Vere, the Tavistock and several other hotels, not forgetting the penthouses at the Dorchester. Altogether 600 new rooms were added to London hotels in 1957.
  There has been a good deal of activity out of London, too. In addition to the Leofric at Coventry, there is the highly original Dover Stage Hotel which caters especially for cross-Channel coach tourists. Recent extensions include doubling the accommodation at the Chaucer Hotel in Canterbury, and an ultra-modern studio-wing (whatever that may mean) just opened at the Imperial, Torquay. Modernisation (especially adding bathrooms) can obviously be as important as new construction in coping with the tourist demand. The brewers have set a good example in the Grand, Leicester; and the Royal and Queens, Cardiff.
  But fashions change. Malvern, for instance, has far too many hotels. My tobacconist, who used to go to Cromer, now goes to the Costa Brava. More and more visitors now bring their cars to Britain; and here I agree with the point made by the noble Lords, Lord Barnby and Lord Lucan, that there are other parts to this country than Edinburgh, Stratford-on-Avon and London. We have to persuade visitors to spread their custom more widely. If we are to get the best value for money out of our hotels, we may even have to change our own views about the right month to take a holiday and the wrong hour to take a drink. We may also have to persuade a few lazy hoteliers that the Catering Wages Act does not prohibit them or their wives from rustling up a plate of bacon and eggs for a benighted traveller who arrives when the chef is off duty.
  -Your Lordships will see then that more is afoot than is generally realised. But I do not deny that the business is a chancy one, and to open a new hotel in Britain calls for courage as well as cash. There is many a slip between the blueprint and the grand gala opening day of the new hotel. Planning permission does not automatically result in the appearance of financial backing for the building. I cannot, therefore, guarantee that all the 4,000 rooms for which planning per
  474
  mission in London has been granted will necessarily see the light of day; but what I will guarantee is that this Government have not stood and will not stand in the way, through over-nice adherence to planning rules, of any bona-fide application to make more hotels available both in London and in the country.
  The points made in this debate will be carefully considered in the inquiry which I have told your Lordships is now under way. Her Majesty's Government fully recognise the contribution made by the hotel industry to our economy. New hotel building has not kept pace with the expansion of tourist traffic and transport capacity since the war. Tourists will not come if there is nowhere for them to lay their heads.
  There are, however, serious objections to singling out this industry, important though it is, for special help which will be denied to other dollar earners. The scope for Government help or interference is of necessity limited. Her Majesty's Government look to private enterprise to meet the challenge of the expanding traffic; but the Government will do everything that is reasonable and possible to improve and sweeten the atmosphere in which that challenge can be met. We must now look carefully at the Tourist trade as a whole and see what is reasonable and what may be possible.
  7.15 p.m.
  LORD GIFFORD: My Lords, I should like to thank the four noble Lords who have supported my Motion at this late hour of the evening. I am very grateful to them. I believe that when the noble Lord, Lord Jessel, reads my speech he will see that I appealed for help for improvements as well as for new buildings. I am glad to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, that an inquiry by the Board of Trade will shortly take place. I am also grateful to the noble Lord for his sympathetic answer.
  I should just like to say that I believe that it is quite possible to be selective about this matter and that a committee of some finance corporation could review each case on its merits as a dollar earner. I do not think it is necessary to give the same help to the whole industry. I should say also that, pound for pound, the help given to the hotel industry will bring in far more foreign currency than

  475
  anything else, including insurance. We have had a comparatively short debate because of the hour, but possibly when the report of this Board of Trade inquiry is published it might be a good thing to put down a Motion in wider terms for discussion in the next Session. I should again like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, and all who took part in this debate, and beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
  Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

  BRITISH TRANSPORT COMMISSION BILL
    TEES VALLEY AND CLEVELAND WATER BILL
    Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
  FALMOUTH HARBOUR BILL [H.L.] CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons, agreed to with Amendments: the said Amendments considered and agreed to.
  KILLING POWER OF TEN-MEGATON BOMB
  KILLING POWER OF TEN-MEGATON BOMB