Sitting of 21 December 1960

Preamble
The House met at Eleven o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  TELEPHONE SERVICE

    Equipment (Production and Supply)
    Mr. Masonasked the Postmaster-General if he is satisfied that the group of telephone manufacturers which is responsible for the production and supply of telephone equipment for his Department are meeting his requirements adequately; and if he will make a statement.
    The Assistant Postmaster - General (Miss Mervyn Pike): The answer to the first part of the Question is: in general, yes. As to the second, my right hon. Friend has no statement to make, but if the hon. Member has any point particularly in mind and will let my right hon. Friend know he will, of course, be glad to consider it.
    Mr. Mason: At the time when Mr. Stanley of the Pye Company was taking over the telephone manufacturing ring, he made a promise to the Department that he could assure it of reduced prices. Do I take it, therefore that those assurances have been met and that the Post Office is satisfied that we are to get cheaper equipment?
    Miss Pike: I think that, on the whole, our present arrangements are working very well.

    Public Kiosks
    Mr. Haymanasked the Postmaster-General his policy in regard to the provision of public telephone kiosks.
    Miss Pike: Each case is considered on its merits. Clearly I have to have regard to financial considerations, but I do my best to meet real public needs.
    Mr. Hayman: Are we to understand that the Postmaster-General is now insisting that every new public telephone kiosk must be a paying proposition? If that is so, is that not a complete contradiction of the policy which has been followed hitherto?
    Miss Pike: No, Sir, but in rural areas kiosks are provided wherever a reasonable return can be expected and they are outside rural post offices. In addition, rural kiosks are provided under a rural allocation scheme and the programme is drawn up by the local people. I can assure the hon. Member that we try to provide telephone kiosks where there is a real need for them, but we have to have regard to financial considerations.

  POST OFFICE

    Telecommunications Research Satellite
    Mr. Donnellyasked the Postmaster-General whether he will make a further statement regarding his investigations into the possibility of a British telecommunications research satellite and its commercial application.
    Miss Pike: I would refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend's reply of 1st December, 1960, to the hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason).
    Mr. Donnelly: Is the hon. Lady aware that these Answers are becoming a bit of a bore and that we wait month after month without any clear idea from the Post Office about what it is doing regarding this very important project? Is she aware that suspicion is growing that the Post Office has not the technical competence to form a proper judgment about this very important development in the field of communications? What sort of investigation is actually taking place at the moment?
    Miss Pike: We are very well aware of the importance of this development and our technical staff are working very closely with the Americans. Of course, these are early days, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall not lag behind.
    Mr. Mason: Can the hon. Lady tell the House exactly what research we have conducted? Have any British scientists

    1273
    and engineers taken steps towards the development of a satellite which may be used for communication purposes and to what extent have they worked with Post Office engineers in this matter?
    Miss Pike: That is another question and if the hon. Member will put it on the Order Paper, I shall be glad to answer him.
    Mr. Donnelly: Is the hon. Lady aware that two American companies, Bell and another company, have taken considerable steps towards putting forward practical proposals? Can she tell us whether the British Post Office has got as far in this respect?
    Miss Pike: We are working very closely with the Americans.

  WIRELESS AND TELEVISION

    Advertising
    Mr. Mayhewasked the Postmaster-General when he proposes to consult the Independent Television Authority under subsection (4) of section 4 of the Television Act, 1954, with a view to reducing the maximum amount of advertising in any hour from seven minutes to six minutes.
    Miss Pike: My right hon. Friend does not propose to amend paragraph 2 of the Second Schedule of the Television Act.
    Mr. Mayhew: Is the hon. Lady aware that by permitting in the past up to nine-and-a-half minutes advertising in the hour I.T.A. has bestowed more than £10 million of excess profits on the programme companies? May I ask, first, why this scandal is permitted and, secondly, why the maximum is now seven minutes instead of six minutes as originally promised in the House of Commons?
    Miss Pike: I think that the hon. Gentleman knows the difficulties. There has to be a certain amount of flexibility because of the nature of the programmes. I.T.A. is bringing the time down to seven minutes and we are watching this carefully, but there are difficulties about getting these things just spot on.

  METEOROLOGICAL OFFICE

    Rain (Forecasting)
    Mr. Gresham Cookeasked the Secretary of State for Air whether the exceptional amount of rain this autumn has stimulated research into the causes of periods of heavy rain; whether any lines of research useful for forecasting such periods are being developed; and if he will make a statement.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Mr. W. J. Taylor): The exceptional amount of rain in recent months has been the subject of careful study in the Meteorological Office, but there is still no reliable method of undertaking the necessary long-range forecasting.
    Research continues and is not without promise, but the problems involved are extremely complicated.
    Mr. Gresham Cooke: Would my hon. Friend agree that it would be a great help to poor people in the West Country to make preparations against floods if they could know which seasons are likely to be bad ones from a rain point of view? Is he aware that considerable research is going on in Germany and the United States of America into long-range weather forecasting? Will he make a priority in the Meteorological Office of bringing the matter forward?
    Mr. Taylor: It would indeed be a great help to people in the West Country, and in the rest of the country, to have more accurate, or probably longer-range, meteorological forecasts. The problem will be solved ultimately, we think, but it will probably take years of research to do so. The whole world must be studied and more observations are needed from many parts, especially the tropics and the southern hemisphere. The high atmosphere must be further explored—for example, by rockets and satellites—and elaborate calculations, using the most advanced computers, are likely to be necessary. A report on long-range weather forecasting is being prepared by a Commission of the World Meteorological Organisation and will be discussed at a forthcoming meeting. The possibility of advancing the subject by international effort will be fully considered.

  ROYAL AIR FORCE

    Air-Trooping Contract
    Mr. Bellengerasked the Secretary of State for Air whether, before awarding an air-trooping contract to West Germany for British Army and Royal Air Force personnel to Silver City Airways, he invited British European Airways to tender.
    Mr. W. J. Taylor: No, Sir.
    Mr. Bellenger: Is it not unfair, considering the support which the British taxpayer gives to B.E.A., that it should not be allowed to tender in fair competition with a private undertaking, against which we have heard no complaint?
    Mr. Taylor: Government policy in this matter has been explained to the House on many occasions. That policy, broadly, is that apart from a small number of ad hoc movements which have been undertaken, and apart from carriage of individual passengers on scheduled civil airlines, the independent civil operators carry out the air movement tasks and the national Corporations are asked to concentrate on the task of operating scheduled services in the face of tight international competition.
    Mr. Paget: Is not the party opposite in favour of competition? Why does competition have to be excluded when the taxpayer has an interest in one of the competing bodies? This is very odd, is it not?
    Mr. Taylor: Not at all; the air Corporations have a very important task, and an expanding task. I think that they have their work cut out to keep up to the progress required in that direction.

  SHIPPING

    Motor Boats, Lake Windermere
    Mr. de Ferrantiasked the Minister of Transport when he anticipates being in a position to take action, following the inquiry held at Windermere on 20th September, 1960, with regard to the need for additional safety rules on the lake, in view of the increasing use of fast motor boats.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. John Hay): We are considering the recommendations made by the professional officer who held the inquiry and we expect to be able to reach a decision shortly.
    Mr. de Ferranti: We are most grateful to my hon. Friend for the speed with which he has got on with dealing with the problem, but may I ask him to bear in mind when reaching a decision the very important recommendation that there should be at least two people in a motor boat when it is towing a water skier—one looking where the boat is going and one looking at the skier?
    Mr. Hay: I have no doubt that that point was taken into account by our professional officer at the inquiry, but I will see that it is kept in mind.
    Mr. J. Wells: Will my hon. Friend look at this matter from a national point of view before taking action in a particular area, because it is a growing problem in all areas? Will he take the advice of the Ship and Boat Builders National Federation on the matter?
    Mr. Hay: I have to bear in mind that we are concerned with navigation on this particular lake, but I think we may learn very useful lessons as a result of the inquiry, and to that extent I agree with my hon. Friend.

    Life Jackets
    Mr. Langford-Holtasked the Minister of Transport, in view of the fact that his Department's standard life jacket does not comply with the Merchant Shipping (Life Saving Appliances) Rules, 1958, No. 602, Eleventh Schedule, Clause 3 (a), (b) and (c), except when worn by persons of light weight, what steps he is taking to approve life jackets already being manufactured which fully conform to these requirements laid down by him.
    The Minister of Transport (Mr. Ernest Marples): From tests carried out by my Department, I am satisfied that the standard jacket complies with these requirements even when worn by heavy persons. My Department is always willing to test any design of lifejacket to see if it complies with the rules.
    Mr. Langford-Holt: Would my right hon. Friend look at this matter again, because independent tests recently carried out showed that anybody of 15 stone or more would be turned over on to his face by this jacket? This is a very serious thing in the case of people who are either unconscious or unable to move.
    Mr. Marples: I have looked at the particular demonstration to which my hon. Friend has referred, but the requirement is that the jacket should be able to support the head of an unconscious person out of the water and all these tests have taken place with a conscious person. It is very difficult for a conscious person to simulate an unconscious person.

    Nuclear Power
    Mr. Wallasked the Minister of Transport when he will announce the award of a tender for the construction of the first British nuclear-powered merchant ship.
    Mr. Marples: I regret that I am not yet in a position to forecast when a decision will be reached.
    Mr. Wall: When will my right hon. Friend be able to reach a decision? Is he aware that there is a suspicion that the Atomic Energy Authority and its advisers are dragging their feet in this matter and that several nations will have ships at sea before we can possibly do so? Is he aware that any further delay may have grave repercussions on our future as a shipbuilding nation and even as a maritime Power?
    Mr. Marples: This is a very complicated matter. Not only the Atomic Energy Authority is on this technical committee; there are shipbuilders, shipowners and Lloyd's Register. None of them has complained that the Atomic Energy Authority is dragging its feet. I can assure my hon. Friend that that is not so.

  TRANSPORT

    Motor Vehicles (Emission of Fumes)
    Mr. F. Noel-Bakerasked the Minister of Transport what steps he will now take to prevent the poisoning of the air in large towns by fumes from motor
    1278
    vehicles, including visible smoke from diesel engines, to enforce the testing of engines which have been observed by police officers to emit excessive or unnecessary smoke, and to require the necessary adjustments or improvements to be made to such engines; and whether he has studied regulations on this subject now in operation in the City of Durban, proposals for similar action in the State of California and a report by Mr. Douglas Lister to the annual conference of the National Society for Clean Air at Harrogate on 5th October last at which his Department was represented, copies of which have been sent to him by the hon. Member for Swindon.
    Mr. Marples: It is an offence to emit smoke or fumes from any vehicle if this might cause damage to property or injury or danger to people; the police can, and do, prosecute offenders. Many of the pollutants, especially invisible ones, are, however, difficult to measure. Officers of my Department have power to prohibit the use of unfit goods vehicles and buses, and, when the opportunity arises, urge on those concerned the importance of correct driving and maintenance to reduce fumes; their efforts are having some success. We study all proposals in this field and keep in touch with developments overseas. I have recently circulated a proposal to amend the law to ensure that the excess fuel device cannot be misused to obtain additional power while driving, e.g., on hills, at the expense of clouds of black smoke.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: While thanking the Minister for taking a close interest in this very important matter, may I ask him if his Answer indicates that rings are being run round the law if it is really an offence to emit poisonous fumes? As he knows, in all big cities there is a very high concentration of carbon monoxide, 3–4 benzpyrene and other highly dangerous and poisonous substances. This is becoming a growing problem. Can he assure us that he is looking at it very carefully indeed and watching the increasing concentration of these poisonous gases in our cities?
    Mr. Marples: I can assure the hon. Member that I am very concerned about this problem. The difficulty is to get a technical device which can measure it.

    1279
    No country in the world has yet succeeded in doing that, but we are keeping in close touch with California. As soon as anyone gets a satisfactory device we shall look at it and try to get one of our own.
    Mr. Dugdale: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many prosecutions have taken place and how many have been successful?
    Mr. Marples: Not without notice.

    Light Commercial Vehicles (Speed Limit)
    Mr. Fisherasked the Minister of Transport if he will now relax the 30 miles-per-hour speed limit for light commercial vehicles.
    Mr. Marples: When this proposal was considered last year objections were raised to raising the limit for light commercial vehicles only. I am keeping the general question of vehicle speed limits under review.
    Mr. Fisher: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that there is a considerable difference between a heavy lorry and a light commercial vehicle which might suitably be reflected in a similar difference in the speed limit?
    Mr. Marples: I will. The question of speed limits for all goods vehicles, as well as for public service passenger vehicles, is under consideration.
    Mr. Mellish: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that before any decision is taken in this matter the trade unions involved will be consulted, because they have an interest in the personnel who drive these vehicles?
    Mr. Marples: Certainly. We have already been in touch with them on other matters, and we shall be in touch with them on this.
    Mr. Gresham Cooke: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the light van is built on a car chassis and is therefore the same as a car?
    Mr. Marples: Yes.
    Mr. Mackie: Is it not a fact that if one puts a seat in a light van, one can then drive at the speeds permitted to a motor car?
    Hon. Members: A window.

    Roundabouts
    Mr. Fisherasked the Minister of Transport if he will prepare a code of traffic conduct for motorists negotiating roundabouts from different directions.
    Mr. Marples: I think it would be wise for me to await the report of the subcommittee of the Departmental Committee on Road Safety which has been examining the whole problem of priorities at junctions, including roundabouts.
    Mr. Fisher: In considering the recommendations, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that busy roundabouts nowadays can be very confusing and that if he could incorporate into the Highway Code or some other suitable publication some rules of precedence, it would help motorists greatly to avoid discourtesy and, indeed, danger?
    Mr. Marples: I have been in touch with the Road Research Laboratory on this. The difficulty is to get agreement as to what the priority should be.
    Mr. Gower: Is it not the fact that the rule in France appears to work quite easily and that, provided that my right hon. Friend makes up his mind, there should be no difficulty here?
    Mr. Marples: The Committee has looked at all the systems abroad and will consider any system it sees before making any recommendations.

    London
    Mr. Speirasked the Minister of Transport, in view of the many complaints which are being made regarding the administration and operation of the London Transport Executive, whether he will set up a special committee to study these and other relevant matters and to make recommendations as a matter of urgency.
    Mr. Gresham Cookeasked the Minister of Transport what steps he has taken to relieve traffic congestion in London and cut down waiting time at omnibus stops; and if he will appoint a committee to examine and report on the omnibus services in the London area.
    Mrs. Butlerasked the Minister of Transport what reply he has made to the request sent to him by the London busmen for a public inquiry into the

    1281
    organisation of London Transport Executive.
    Mr. Marples: Congestion in London is being attacked in several ways. For example, I am prepared to see annual expenditure on road improvements within the County of London rise to £10 million. The London Traffic Management Unit continues to apply traffic engineering techniques to relieve congestion. The House will soon have before it a Bill to make possible a large car park under Hyde Park. These measures should improve conditions for all traffic including buses.
    As regards a special inquiry, I have received a petition organised by some London busmen asking me for a public inquiry into London bus services. I am considering this.
    Mr. Speir: Does my right hon. Friend realise that the proposals in paragraph 20 of the White Paper seem to propose only that the name of the London Transport Executive shall be changed to the London Transport Board? Does he appreciate that the label on the bottle does not matter very much and that it is the contents that count? What we want is new men and new methods.
    Mr. Gresham Cooke: Will my right hon. Friend consider recommending to London Transport that it should try to put a new face on itself and should consider experimenting once again with the standee bus of the continental type during the rush hours to clear away these heavy queues which accumulate, particularly during the winter?
    Mr. Marples: I have been in touch with the London Transport Executive and I will bring my hon. Friend's suggestion to the attention of the Executive.
    Mrs. Butler: Is the Minister aware that there are thousands of Londoners who would have liked the opportunity which I have this morning of telling him how tired they are of cuts in services, increases in fares, and waiting for long periods in all weathers for buses? Is he aware that the bus crews share in these complaints? Is he aware that many of these people feel that it is his duty to set up an inquiry to find out what is wrong with the administration of London Transport and how it can be put right?
    Mr. Mellish: To support my hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Butler), may I ask the Minister whether he realises that this petition, organised by these busmen, was in fact on behalf of the travelling public and that it asked for a public inquiry? Any questions of the attitude of the busmen themselves can be developed at the inquiry. Does the Minister understand that many hon. Members on this side of the House take this inquiry very seriously indeed and that we hope that if he refuses it, he will give very adequate reasons why?
    Mr. Marples: I am considering the inquiry, but I cannot add to my Answer.

    Road Accidents, Warwickshire
    Mr. Matthewsasked the Minister of Transport how many persons have died in Warwickshire during the past twelve months as a result of traffic accidents; and how these figures compare with previous years.
    Mr. Hay: A total of 314 persons were killed in road accidents during the 12 months November, 1959, to October, 1960; this compares with 258 in the corresponding period in 1958–59 and 264 in 1957–58.
    Mr. Matthewsasked the Minister of Transport how the record of accidents on Watling Street compares with other main roads in Warwickshire with a similar density of traffic.
    Mr. Hay: There were 17 personal injury accidents per mile of road on the Watling Street during the first 11 months of 1960, compared with 15 per mile on the A.34, 14 per mile on the A.46 and 18 per mile on the A.452. Some of the routes lie in more heavily populated areas than others and, since adequate data on the character and density of traffic on the roads are not available, it is difficult to draw valid conclusions from comparisons of this kind.
    Mr. Matthews: Is it fairly well proved that Watling Street is almost the most dangerous road in Warwickshire? Cannot something be done to speed up the improvement of this road between Atherstone and Wilnecote, at Wilnecote in particular?
    Mr. Hay: I do not think that my hon. Friend was listening carefully to what I said at the end of my last Answer. It is difficult to draw valid conclusions as to the danger or lack of danger of certain stretches of road from comparisons between roads. We will get on with the improvements to the road as soon as we can.

    M.1 Road (Additional Expenditure)
    Mr. Oliverasked the Minister of Transport how much additional expenditure on account of bad weather conditions was incurred by his Department to enable the contract work for the M.1 to be completed on time; what sums were paid and to whom for this specific work: by how much this expenditure exceeded the allowance of £400,000 referred to in question 2035 of the Minutes of Evidence taken before the Public Accounts Committee in the last Session of Parliament; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Marples: As stated in the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General on the Civil Appropriation Accounts for 1958–59, the additional expenditure to counteract the effect of the weather and to permit of winter working amounted to about £1,500,000. This sum was paid to the contractors for the motorway, who carried out the additional works. It exceeds the amount referred to by the hon. Member by about £1,100,000.
    Special measures were necessary because of the difficult soil conditions which were made worse by the abnormally wet weather of 1958. To close down the works would have seriously delayed the opening of the motorway and there could be no assurance as explained in answer 2050 that the final cost would have been less.
    Mr. Oliver: I thank the Minister for that information, but will he be good enough to apply his mind to the Question? I want to know to whom the payment was made and the date on which it was made.
    Mr. Marples: I can say that the payment was made to the contractor, but I cannot give the date without notice.
    Mr. Oliver: Will the Minister be good enough to say who the contractors were? That is what the Question is about.
    Mr. Marples: I do not want to specify a firm if I can possibly avoid it. I would rather say that it was paid to a contractor.
    Mr. Oliver: That is not the point. Mr. Speaker, surely we are entitled to an answer. This is public money that has been spent. The Minister has said that over £1½ million was spent in addition to the contract price. I must press him to give an answer. To whom has the money been paid? The House is entitled to know.
    Mr. Marples: It was paid to John Laing.

    Headlights (Dazzle)
    Mr. E. Johnsonasked the Minister of Transport how many accidents have been caused in the last twelve months as a result of motorists being dazzled by headlights.
    Mr. Hay: I regret that the information is not available for the period asked for. In 1958 the police reported that dazzling by the lights of another vehicle was a contributory factor in 1,130 accidents involving motor cars.
    Mr. Johnson: Has my hon. Friend's attention been drawn to the book by Captain Popkess entitled "Traffic Control and Road Accident Prevention" and in particular to this statement
    "Drivers complained of being dazzled in one out of every eight accidents to service vehicles in January and February, 1946."
    What action is being taken to try to solve this very serious problem of dazzle?
    Mr. Hay: My attention has not been drawn to the book my hon. Friend mentions, but now that it has been I will have a look at it. The figures I have given this morning do not entirely bear out the conclusion drawn in the statement to which my hon. Friend has referred. The problem of dazzle is difficult of solution and any substantial breakthrough on the technical point seems still quite a long way away.

    Vehicle Tests
    Mr. G. Wilsonasked the Minister of Transport when he proposes to make the testing of ten-year-old vehicles compulsory.
    Mr. Straussasked the Minister of Transport at what date he proposes to make compulsory the testing of all motor vehicles over ten years old.
    Mr. Marples: I propose to make the test compulsory on 15th February next.
    Testing of some one-and-a-half million vehicles over ten years old will have to be spread over a period. The procedure will be that owners of vehicles registered before 1st January, 1937, must obtain their certificates before 15th February; those registered before 1st January, 1946, by 15th March; those registered before 1st January, 1949, by 15th April; and those registered before 15th May, 1951, by 15th May, 1961. Thereafter, every owner must be in possession of a certificate on and after the tenth anniversary of his vehicle's registration.
    I should like to take this opportunity of thanking the Motor Agents' Association, the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders and the Scottish Motor Traders' Association for their full co-operation.
    Mr. Wilson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of those interested in road safety will be very pleased with that Answer, in view of the high proportion of old vehicles which have been found to be defective in the pilot schemes?
    Mr. Marples: Yes. This will play its part in road safety. Whilst it is not popular in some quarters, nevertheless if it reduces accidents it is well worth while.
    Mr. Strauss: Is the Minister aware that between him and the industry there has been a delay of five years between the scheme being passed by the House of Commons and the date when it will be put into operation? Although everyone, including the Ministry, agrees that this is likely to save hundreds of lives a year and prevent thousands of accidents a year, no excuse has been offered by the Ministry for its long delay in putting the scheme into operation, except for two legal difficulties which arose, both of which were the responsibility of the Ministry.
    Mr. Marples: It has been very difficult, but certainly there have been no discussions between myself and the industry going on for five years. I have not been
    1286
    in my present job five years. The real point is that we have got a move on with it quickly. The scheme is now being brought into operation. We hope that everybody will co-operate by going as early as possible to get their vehicles tested.

    Goods Vehicles (Abnormal Loads)
    Mr. Boardmanasked the Minister of Transport if he will introduce legislation to restrict the movement of road vehicles carrying exceptionally long and wide loads to the hours between 7 pm. and 7 a.m.
    Mr. Hay: The police already have power to control the time of movement of vehicles carrying wide loads, and we have circulated proposals which would give them the same control over long loads. I think that we should leave this to their discretion in the light of local circumstances.
    Mr. Boardman: Is it not the fact that despite the efforts of the police, these abnormal loads—abnormal lengths and abnormal widths—are cluttering up the roads at peak traffic hours? Is it not completely crazy that this practice should be allowed to continue?
    Mr. Hay: With respect, I think that the hon. Gentleman is not quite right in saying that these loads clutter up the roads at peak traffic hours. Wherever humanly possible, the routeing and timing of these loads are adjusted to ensure that that does not happen. However, as I say, we are discussing the whole problem with the interested authorities, and I think that my right hon. Friend will be in a position to make a statement very soon.
    Mr. Boardman: If the hon. Gentleman doubts my statement on this subject, would he very much mind talking to the police in Lancashire and Cheshire and in that way finding out what is going on? In the North-West, this is a daily occurrence.
    Mr. Hay: I would hesitate to answer for the police in Lancashire and the North-West. I can only say that my information is that, wherever possible, movement of these loads at peak traffic hours is avoided, in the interests not only of the traffic but of the police themselves.

    Road Accidents and Alcohol
    Mr. Haymanasked the Minister of Transport whether road accidents in which alcohol is a contributing factor are on the increase.
    Mr. Marples: So far as can be judged from the official statistics, the number of accidents in which an intoxicated driver or rider is involved is increasing at a rather greater rate than the total for all road accidents.
    Mr. Hayman: In view of the Minister's very serious Answer, and the appalling figures given in the newspapers this morning of those killed in October of this year, will he take strong steps to try to do something to improve this terrible position?
    Mr. Marples: As the House knows, the Government are to bring in a Road Safety Bill which, I hope, will help. Prior to that, I can only say that the time when drinking really does cause accidents is Christmas time. It is these Christmas party arrangements that people have. Most of these accidents take place between 2 p.m. on Christmas Eve and 2 a.m. on Christmas morning. I have tried to make as many appeals as possible, advising people who drink not to drive, and I should like now to reinforce that advice.
    Mr. Strauss: I should like to give every support to the Minister in that direction, but could I emphasise more than he has done the danger of the drunken pedestrian—a danger that is at least as great as that of the drunken motorist?
    Mr. Marples: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for giving me this opportunity also to emphasise that. When the Road Research Laboratory went into the figures for last Christmas, it was found that 56 per cent. of people involved in fatal accidents had been drinking, and that a large percentage were pedestrians. I think that if people go to these Christmas parties and find that they have had a little too much to drink they should ask someone—and they should make the selection—to help them home and look after them. If people have been drinking, they should get their wives or someone to drive them home, rather than drive themselves.

  ROADS

    Motorways (Tolls)
    Mr. Doddsasked the Minister of Transport what progress has been made in the study given by his Department to the charging of tolls on new motorways; when the study began; and when it is expected to be completed.
    Mr. Marples: The study into the question of tolls on future motorways began in October. I hope that it will be completed fairly early in the New Year.
    Mr. Dodds: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that many people think it a very bad thing to start bringing tolls on to our roads? Should it not be our effort to get rid of tolls altogether, because they are costly to collect and traffic is held up in the process of collecting them? Why should we have to do this when the motorists pay so much money for running on the roads?
    Mr. Marples: The hon. Member asks why we have to do this, but nothing has been decided yet. We are merely going into the question.

    Morehard Row-Torrington Road
    Mr. P. Browneasked the Minister of Transport if he will consider upgrading the B.3220 Morehard Row-Torrington Road, in order to relieve traffic congestion on the A.30 road between Exeter and Okehampton.
    Mr. Hay: We considered the classification of this road very recently, but a traffic census held in August did not justify a change in status. We are asking the Exeter Corporation to consider whether any improvement of the direction signing of the Torrington route is possible.
    Mr. Browne: Would my hon. Friend consider the fact that when people go into a strange district they are apt to follow the red road, the A road? If this road were upgraded I believe that it would syphon off a great deal of traffic, both heavy and light, into the North Cornwall and Devon areas.
    Mr. Hay: Yes. I was grateful to my hon. Friend for coming to see me the other day and explaining this matter in some detail. We are looking into it to see what can be done.

    Dartford-Purfleet Tunnel (Tolls)
    Mr. Doddsasked the Minister of Transport the basis of his estimate that it will take about twenty years to repay the money advanced towards the cost of the Dartford-Purfleet Tunnel and to abolish tolls.
    Mr. Marples: In their evidence before the House on 3rd April, 1957, during the passage of the Dartford Tunnel Act, 1957, the promoters, the Essex and Kent County Councils, estimated that an annual toll revenue of £1 million could be raised and that this would enable the advances made towards the cost of the tunnel to be amortised in twenty years.
    Mr. Dodds: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether the standard of tolls has yet been decided and, if not, how soon this is to be expected?
    Mr. Marples: The standard of tolls has not yet been decided and the House will know as soon as it has, because I think it will need legislation. The main point about tolls is to try to obtain some simplified rate of tolls in order to help in their automatic and semi-automatic collection.

    Rule of the Road
    Mr. Robert Mathewasked the Minister of Transport if, in view of the increasing volume of motor traffic between the United Kingdom and the countries of Western Europe and the fact that the rule of the road varies, he will take steps to see that the possibility of an eventual change of the rule from left to right in this country is taken into account when planning traffic legislation and major road constructions, including, in particular, flyovers and cloverleafs, so as to reduce as far as possible both the cost and the difficulty of such change.
    Mr. Marples: I think it is more important to concentrate on making our roads as safe as possible for traffic under the existing rule of the road. If, however, it were ever decided to change the rule from left to right neither our present traffic legislation nor the major road construction now being undertaken should give rise to any serious difficulty. Flyovers and cloverleafs are already designed symmetrically so far as site conditions permit.
    Mr. Mathew: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that Answer, may I ask whether there are not particular difficulties connected with the conversion from right to left or left to right of clover-leafs? Is that taken into consideration when these very expensive constructions are being planned?
    Mr. Marples: Yes. The constructions which are now being planned are quite symmetrical, and if it were decided to change the rule of the road, which would require an Act of Parliament, the new construction would be quite in keeping with that decision.

    A.34, Bullington Cross
    Mr. Denzil Freethasked the Minister of Transport when he hopes to begin work to eliminate the bends on A.34 just south of Bullington Cross, Hampshire.
    Mr. Hay: We hope to eliminate the bends as part of the roundabout scheme, which will be started as soon as the engineering details are finalised and land acquired.
    Mr. Denzil Freeth: While thanking the Minister for that Answer, may I ask whether he can say exactly how much progress has been made in the preparation of these plans and whether at the moment it is a case of his Ministry waiting for the county council to reply or the county council waiting for his Ministry?
    Mr. Hay: I have checked this morning on the current position. It is that the land plans have been received by our divisional road engineer but we are still awaiting the engineering details from the county surveyor.

    A.30 (Dual carriageways)
    Mr. Denzil Freethasked the Minister of Transport what plans he has for providing dual carriageways on A.30 between the top of Kempshott Hill and the junction with A.33.
    Mr. Hay: We intend eventually to provide dual carriageways on A.30 between the end of the Basingstoke Motorway, which will join A.30 near the top of Kempshott Hill, and its junction with A.33 at Popham Corner.

    1291
    We hope soon to authorise work to start on the first section between Blind Man's Oak and Ganderdown.
    Mr. Denzil Freeth: While thanking my hon Friend for that more hopeful reply, may I ask him how much extra, percentage-wise, it would have cost if this dual carriageway project had been carried out at the same time as the recent realignment of the road over the stretch mentioned? Is it not very often penny wise and pound foolish to have all the land acquired, and all the road implements on the site and then to remove them only to get them back at a later date?
    Mr. Hay: I think I would prefer to see that question on the Paper.

    Trunk Roads
    Mr. Emeryasked the Minister of Transport what steps he is taking to remove major hindrances to the flow of traffic on important derestricted trunk roads.
    Mr. Hay: Within the funds at our disposal, we are doing everything possible to improve the flaw of traffic on trunk roads by removing the worst hindrances such as sharp bends, level intersections and level railway crossings. We are also considering the possibility of extending the clearways system.
    Mr. EmeryTo carry out the substance of his reply, would my hon. Friend arrange for the linked traffic lights on the A.4 from Slough to the Slough Trading Estate to be turned off between the hours of 7 p.m. and 7 a.m.? This is a derestricted road. Does the Minister realise that during these hours there is next to no traffic crossing the A.4 and that these traffic lights are, more often than not, being "shot" by people who pay no regard to them at all.
    Mr. Hay: I will look into that. I should say that if any proposal of that kind were put forward we should consult the local highway authority before doing anything.
    Mr. Brockway: May I ask whether, in view of the very valuable work which is being done in Slough as a pioneer safety town in this country, he will discuss the matter with the Slough Safety Council before reaching a decision?
    Mr. Marples: I think that is implicit in the Answer I have just given to my hon. Friend.

    A.1 Road, Yorkshire (Dual Carriageways)
    Mr. Russellasked the Minister of Transport if he will have signs indicating their lengths erected at each end of all sections of dual carriageways as is done on A.1 in Yorkshire.
    Mr. Hay: The signs on A.1 in Yorkshire are temporary ones to help drivers to recognise which sections are completed whilst reconstruction work is taking place over a long strength of the road. We do not think such notices are necessary elsewhere, since adequate warning of change is normally given by the customary "Dual carriageway" and "Two way Traffic" signs.
    Mr. Russell: Would not my hon. Friend agree that it is very helpful when overtaking at night to know the length of a stretch of dual carriageway? Is he aware that two particularly short stretches on the A.5, not long after one gets on to it after leaving the M.1, are very deceptive? One might think that there is quite a long stretch in which to overtake, but it is not at all safe.
    Mr. Hay: I will bear that in mind. I have no evidence at the moment to show that the customary warning signs which we use do not provide an answer to the problem.

    Gower Street-Hampstead Road, London
    Sir L. Plummerasked the Minister of Transport when he expects the projected traffic lights at the junction of Gower Street and Hampstead Road, London, will be working.
    Mr. Hay: The Tottenham Court Road and Gower Street one-way scheme, which my right hon. Friend announced last week, will make these signals unnecessary.
    Plans for their installation have therefore been dropped.

    M.1 Road (Petrol Stations)
    Mr. Dugdaleasked the Minister of Transport to what extent under his

    1293
    regulations motorists are prevented from buying British petrol from stations on the M.1.
    Mr. Marples: There are no regulations preventing motorists from buying British petrol at the two service areas on the M.1. Petrol marketed by a British oil group is now on sale at both.
    Mr. Dugdale: Is the Minister aware that it was about a year before Shell or B.P. sold any petrol at all there, and that it was necessary to buy American petrol because there was no other available? Was that part of the campaign to help the dollar or was it merely due to incompetence on the part of Shell and B.P.?
    Mr. Marples: I will not go so far as to allege that. The Shell people and the service stations had difficulties over negotiations. Who was to blame I do not know, but that has now been solved, because British petrol is now on sale.

    Great Cambridge Road (Lamp-posts)
    Mr. Mackieasked the Minister of Transport how many concrete lamp-posts have been knocked down in road accidents on the Great Cambridge Road between the North Circular Roundabout and the Bullsmoor Lane traffic signals during the last eighteen months.
    Mr. Hay: Twenty-one were knocked down or damaged in that period.
    Mr. Mackie: This is a five-mile stretch of road. Does not the hon. Gentleman think that there is something wrong with the siting of the lamp-posts when in that short period this number was knocked down? Does he not think that they should be put well clear of the pavement on the outside and then wired across and the lights hung from the top, in order to avoid any obstructions in the roadway? That should be general policy in new road building.
    Mr. Hay: I have no information at the moment as to how these various pieces of damage were caused, but I will certainly look into the point, because this is a trunk road and the Minister has general responsibility for them. In this case, similar to the case raised a little earlier, we would have to consult with the local highway authority to make any changes which were felt to be necessary.

    M.1 Road (Anti-Dazzle Fence)
    Mr. E. Johnsonasked the Minister of Transport if he will give details of the disadvantages of using the expanded metal anti-dazzle fence on M.1.
    Mr. Hay: The main disadvantage is that the experimental screen encourages drivers not to dip their headlights, so increasing the danger and discomfort from dazzle in the driving mirror from the headlights of following vehicles. The screen itself only gives protection against glare from approaching headlights. In certain conditions it may help to form snowdrifts. It also detracts from the appearance of the motorway.
    Mr. Johnson: Does not my hon. Friend agree that glare from the headlights of a car following one is a much less serious matter than glare from the headlights of a car coming towards one? Cannot the former be largely mitigated by the use of a rear-view mirror, which prevents that type of glare?
    Mr. Hay: That is a problem of design, which strictly speaking is not for my right hon. Friend. However, I think I should tell my hon. Friend that we are still monitoring this experiment. The Road Research Laboratory is engaged in carrying this work out for us, and we have by no means finally made up our minds about it. My hon. Friend asked for some of the disadvantages, and I have tried to state these.
    Mr. G. Wilson: Is my hon. Friend aware that many motorists in fact like this dazzle screen and that there have been many expressions of approval of it?
    Mr. Hay: I know that there are a number of conflicting viewpoints about it.
    Mr. Paget: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I use this road very often and always look forward to this section enormously? I find it of tremendous advantage.
    Mr. Hay: I am glad to hear it.
    Mr. Hocking: Is my hon. Friend aware, as the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) said, that this is the only safe section of the road and that those of us who use it almost weekly, as some of us do, look forward

    1295
    to it? If the Minister does not like the design of the metal screen, would it not be possible to plant a hedge, which would serve exactly the same purpose and tone in with the surroundings?
    Mr. Hay: This is being considered as well. The Road Research Laboratory is monitoring an experiment in connection with this problem. The Laboratory will in due course let us have its views, and we shall be able to make up our minds.

    Winchester Avenue, Heston
    Mr. R. Harrisasked the Minister of Transport when work will be started on the new South Wales Radial Road in so far as the borough of Heston and Isleworth will be affected; and when he intends to make money available to enable the local authority to provide houses for the owners, occupiers and tenants of houses in Winchester Avenue, Heston, which will have to be pulled down to make way for the new road.
    Mr. Hay: Construction of this section of the South Wales Motorway will be phased so as to ensure its completion simultaneously with that of the Great West Road viaduct. Work should start on the viaduct next spring, and on the remainder of the road about the end of 1961. I regret that I cannot yet give a precise date.
    My hon. Friend has already been told in a letter that negotiations about rehousing have now been started.
    Mr. Harris: Does my hon. Friend, or his right hon. Friend, regard himself as having any responsibility for ensuring that the alternative houses to which the present owners and occupiers in Winchester Avenue will have to move will be of approximately the same value as those in which they are now living, in order that they may not be put to very great extra expense?
    Mr. Hay: It is a difficult problem—and a little difficult to deal with by way of Question and Answer in the House. My right hon. Friend does not possess statutory powers to rehouse people affected by road schemes. In fact, we usually manage to arrive at some accommodation with the local authorities, or by some other means but, without proper notice, I should not like to give a firm
    1296
    answer to the point about the houses in Winchester Avenue. Perhaps my hon. Friend will have a word with me about it.

  RAILWAYS

    Electrification
    Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenportasked the Minister of Transport how many new electric rail services under the capital development programme are to be opened in the near future.
    Mr. Marples: The British Transport Commission plans to complete three electrification schemes in 1961. These are the electrification of the London, Tilbury and Southend line, and extensions to the electrification schemes already in operation on the Kent Coast and Glasgow suburban lines.
    Lieut.-Colonel Bromley - Davenport: Will my right hon. Friend not agree, from his own unfortunate experience in Manchester, that every time British Railways open a new rail service they celebrate the occasion by making all the trains later than ever? For the convenience of the public, therefore, would he consider opening these new services very early on Sunday morning?
    Mr. Marples: Certainly. Especially as I know my hon. Friend is always at church at this time.
    Mr. Strauss: When will the Minister be able to give us some information about the completion of the London to Crewe electrification?
    Mr. Marples: A few days ago I received the revised estimates from the British Transport Commission. I will consider them, and I hope to make a fairly early announcement.
    Mr. Albu: In view of the difficulties which have occurred in electrification recently, will the Minister assure the House that in the new plan of the railways there will be no weakening of the central technical control of the railway system so that the railway engineers are not put in a still worse competitive position vis-à-vis their suppliers?
    Mr. Marples: That can be raised in the debate but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I have that in mind because technically we want to try to

    1297
    put these matters right. It is not a matter for rejoicing but we want to put it right as quickly as we can both in the interests of the travelling public and in the interests of the manufacturers.
    Mr. Redheadasked the Minister of Transport what proposals he has received regarding changes in the capital allocation for the electrification of the railways.
    Mr. Marples: I am not sure what changes the hon. Member has in mind. It was necessary to establish the British Transport Commission's provisional investment allocation for 1961 before a detailed programme for that year was available. This allocation took account, however, of known commitments, including electrification, and made provision for certain expenditure on other schemes. These latter, which have now been specified in a detailed programme for 1961, will be considered on their merits under the existing procedures and in the light of the four-year programme which the Commission has now submitted to me.
    Mr. Redhead: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is essential for his proper and full consideration of any such proposals respecting electrification, that he should at once decide to widen the inquiry that he announced two days ago concerning the failure at Glasgow to include, at least, the similar experience on the Eastern Region where, after eighteen days of operation, an entirely new system broke down and it was necessary for British Railways to announce that all the engines supplied by the English Electric Company were to be returned to the makers for rectification of a serious fault.
    Mr. Marples: The problem is not similar to the one in Glasgow. They have not found out the reason for the failure in Glasgow, whereas in the Eastern Region they think they have.
    Mr Mackieasked the Minister of Transport what capital expenditure he has authorised for further electrification of the railways.
    Mr. Marples: No specific authorisation of capital expenditure has been made for railway electrification schemes other than those already in hand. Other electrification schemes included in the
    1298
    Commission's 1961 programme are at present under consideration. I cannot yet say what investment may be authorised for these schemes which will have to be studied in the context of the Commission's proposed four-year programme which has just been submitted to me.
    Mr. Mackie: Before the Minister authorises the expenditure of any further money on electrification, will he ensure that there is no further debacle such as there has been on the North London line in the last four weeks since it was opened? The hon. Member for Enfield, East has twice had to walk home because of breakdowns. The general public is sick of it. The Minister should examine this matter more fully. Although there were no explosions on the North London line, which is what happened in Glasgow, I want the Minister to be aware that there have been more breakdowns on the North London line than there were on the Glasgow line.
    Mr. Marples: I share the general desire to get the electrification right. I hope that the technical failure recently experienced will be only temporary, but it was one of the reasons for the pause in the modernisation programme and the reassessment of it.
    Mr. J. Harvey: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many Members of Parliament in North-East London have been receiving vast numbers of angry representations from their constituents about the chaos that has developed? We must all be profoundly concerned, not only about the inadequacy of the electrification which has taken place, but about the constant delays in making any definite decision on the Victoria Line, all of which very adversely affect our constituents. We hope that something definite and positive will be done about these matters in the very near future.
    Mr. Marples: I will take note of what my hon. Friend has said.

    Victoria Line Tube
    Mr. Albuasked the Minister of Transport the latest estimates of the cost of the Victoria Line tube.
    Mr. Marples: The latest estimate is £55 million.
    Mr. Albu: Does not the Minister think that the very serious complaints that hen. Members in the London area are getting about London Transport would be much relieved if the Government made up their mind to carry out the urgent and necessary scheme which Committee after Committee have reported would be a major contribution to relieving congestion on London's streets?
    Mr. Marples: That may be so, but this scheme does present financial and other problems which can be assessed only in the light of the Government's general consideration of the British Transport Commission and its undertakings.
    Mr. Mellish: There should be something more positive on this from the Minister. For years it has been delayed when it has been shown to be essential to public needs to get a decision.
    Mr. Marples: I cannot say, because we are considering this in the light of the British Transport Commission's modernisation scheme. I thought that the publication of the White Paper yesterday would have gone some way to convincing hon. Members that the Government are treating the problem seriously.

    New Stations and Buildings
    Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenportasked the Minister of Transport, in view of the large capital expenditure involved, whether he will give a general direction to the British Transport Commission that designs for new stations and other buildings required by them should be submitted to his Department before final approval.
    Sir A. V. Harveyasked the Minister of Transport what capital expenditure he has authorised for the building of new railway stations; and whether he will give a general direction to the British Transport Commission that plans for new stations should be submitted for his approval.
    Mr. Marples: Since February, 1960, all proposals by the British Transport Commission for investment in projects costing more than £250,000 have been submitted to me for consideration. Since that date I have agreed to work proceeding on the reconstruction of six
    1300
    major railway stations, on four of which work was already well advanced. The total expenditure involved is about £5¼ million. The design of buildings is, of course, a matter for the Commission, but the cost of particular designs may well be a subject for discussion. I do not think a general direction is either necessary or appropriate.
    Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: Will not my hon. Friend agree that the new railway station which has just been completed at Macclesfield is a public disgrace and that even the loyal railway staff are ashamed of it? Could he possibly assure the House that no station like this will be built in future?
    Mr. Marples: I have not had the advantage of seeing the station, as my hon. Friend has, but I have no doubt that he is as usual very accurate in his information. I will pass his advice to the British Transport Commission, because they are responsible for the detailed design, and not me.

    British Transport Commission (White Paper)
    Mr. F. Noel-Bakerasked the Minister of Transport at what time and on what day the final version of the Government White Paper on the future of the British Transport Commission reached Her Majesty's Stationery Office for printing.
    Mr. Marples: At 6 p.m. on Wednesday, 14th December.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: But in view of the fact that there was some time to spare, could not the right hon. Gentleman have gone further, instead of leaving the railway managements and public in suspense and ignorance about many of the major decisions that should have been taken a very long time ago? We still do not know what is to happen to the modernisation programme. The way in which this document was produced was highly unsatisfactory. Why did not the Minister make a statement in the House before the White Paper was issued? Why could not the House have had an opportunity to discuss the White Paper before the Recess? Why, above all, have we had no answer to the pressing problem of the future of the modernisation programme?
    Mr. Marples: The Hon. Gentleman's Question asked when the final version reached the Stationery Office, and I have told him. It then took three working days to print the final draft, which is not, I think, unreasonable, and it was then published. The point we had in mind was to give the general public, the Opposition and everyone a chance to study the document before having a debate. It is no use having too short an interval between White Paper and debate with something of this magnitude.
    Mr. Mellish: May I ask whether the Minister will change his mind on the question of now publishing the Stedeford Report, which led to this conclusion, bearing in mind that at might have said something nice about the British Transport Commission and other associated nationalised bodies? We should like to know if that was the case.
    Mr. Marples: No, I am afraid that the Government will not change their mind in that respect. When the Stede-ford Group was set up, it was made quite clear from the outset that its inquiries would be confidential, because it was felt that more evidence could be got from interested people if their evidence was not published—
    Mr. Mellish: Who were they?
    Mr. Marples: The T.U.C. for instance, and others.
    It would be a breach of confidence to publish it now.

    Stedeford Report
    Mr. Straussasked the Minister of Transport when he proposes to introduce legislation to carry out the administrative and financial proposals arising from Her Majesty's Government's consideration of the Stedeford Report.
    Mr. Marples: I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to paragraph 61 of the White Paper "Reorganisation of the Nationalised Transport Undertakings" which I presented to Parliament yesterday.
    Mr. Strauss: May we assume that the financial provisions contained in the White Paper will be dealt with in the Finance Bill this Session? Is it not a fact that If the proposals are not put into
    1302
    operation this Session, it will mean a two-year delay before the structural change comes into operation? Does not the Minister realise that frequent change in the structure of the transport industry is, in itself, exceedingly harmful, but to have such fundamental reorganisation as that set out in the White Paper—which is both imprecise and highly controversial—kept in suspense for two years is bound to create confusion and uncertainty among those running the industry, and does create damage?
    Mr. Marples: Well, I was told that there was uncertainty before the White Paper was produced, and that there would be uncertainty and confusion until it was produced. Now I am told there is uncertainty and confusion because it has been published. It is all most confusing. The real point is that the White Paper has been produced. It sets out some quite radical changes, I agree, and legislation will be required for a lot of them—those relating to statutory restrictions and so on—but quite a bit of the reorganisation can be carried out by the Commission under its present statutory duties. I must tell the right hon. Gentleman that Questions about the Finance Bill are more properly addressed to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    Mr. Strauss: But does not the Minister really know whether the major part of the proposals of this White Paper is to be carried out this year—or is that, too, to be left for two years? Are not the financial provisions to be in the Finance Bill? Further, can the right hon. Gentleman answer the second part of my Question: does he not really think—is it not obvious—that to keep the organisational change in suspense for two years before it can be put into operation—which will happen—is bound to cause a great deal of damage to the transport industry?
    Mr. Marples: Those items that require alteration in the law have to go through the usual processes that Parliament normally adopts. Very complicated, complex and comprehensive legislation will be wanted in some cases, but quite a good deal of the reorganisation can be carried out by the British Transport Commission under its statutory duties. I have tried to explain to the right hon. Gentleman that there may not be delay

    1303
    in a lot of the measures we can introduce.
    Mr. Jay: Surely, the Minister can tell us whether the financial reorganisation requires legislation and, if it does, how and when we shall get it?
    Mr. Marples: I think that that point is better addressed to my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who will be in charge of those provisions.
    Mr. Jay: But the Minister represents the Government in this matter. Does he know what is the position in regard to financial reorganisation? If he does, why does he not tell us?
    Mr. Marples: I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman will have to put that question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because my right hon. and learned Friend is now considering the precise way of implementing the White Paper.
    At end of Questions—

SOUTHERN RHODESIA CONSTITUTIONAL CONFERENCE
The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:
Mr. G. M. THOMSON: To ask the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations if he will make a statement about the progress of the talks on the Southern Rhodesian Constitution.
The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. Duncan Sandys): The Southern Rhodesia Constitutional Conference met on 16th and 17th December and discussed matters of procedure, after which it adjourned. Its meetings will be resumed in January in Southern Rhodesia, and I am proposing myself to go there for this purpose towards the end of the month.
In the interval, preparatory discussions between the Southern Rhodesian delegates will be held under the chairmanship of Sir Edgar Whitehead, with the British High Commissioner attending as an observer. This should enable more rapid progress to be made when the full conference resumes under my chairmanship.
Mr. Thomson: May I thank the Minister for coming to the House to
1304
answer this Question this morning and offer him congratulations from this side of the House on succeeding for the second time in a few weeks in persuading the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia to include Mr. Joshua Nkomo, the representative of the National Democratic Party, in these discussions? May I also ask him whether he is aware that on this side of the House we view with some anxiety the decision to transfer the conference to Southern Rhodesia, because we believe that the political and racial atmosphere there is not such as encourages either the European or the African leaders to arrive at a constructive settlement, on which, in the long run, the future of Central Africa depends?
Mr. Sandys: I should like to say, in regard to the hon. Gentleman's congratulations, that these fortunate arrangements that have been arrived at between Sir Edgar Whitehead and Mr. Nkomo and his party were arrived at by direct discussions between them, in which I did not take any part. With regard to the place for the further meetings, all I would say is that the decision to hold the next series of meetings in Rhodesia has been taken for purely practical reasons. It is easier to move me to Southern Rhodesia than it is to move about 25 delegates and advisers over here. It does not mean that all further meetings of the conference will necessarily take place in Southern Rhodesia.
Mr. Brockway: Despite the right hon. Gentleman's modest disclaimer, may I ask him whether he is aware that back benchers as well as those on the Front Benches will wish to congratulate both him and the Secretary of State for the Colonies on having advanced matters so far as they have gone? May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that many hon. Members of this House will hope that the conference in Southern Rhodesia will be able to repeat what happened in Nyasaland, and what is likely to happen in Northern Rhodesia, in attaining an African majority in Southern Rhodesia, where the Africans are in such a large majority; and whether it is not the case that the whole future of Central Africa will depend on an African democracy in Southern Rhodesia?
Mr. Sandys: I have noted the hon. Member's point of view, but he will not expect me to anticipate the outcome of the discussions.
Mr. Stonehouse: May I ask the Secretary of State two questions arising out of his statement? Firstly, what is being done about the representation of the non-racial National Democratic Party? Will it be increased from the two which have already been agreed? Secondly, do we understand that the constitutional conference has been called at the invitation of the United Kingdom, and, therefore, the final session will be held in London under his own chairmanship?
Mr. Speaker: I rather think that the first part of that question raises a matter for Which there is no Ministerial responsibility, and, if so, it would be out of order; namely, the constitution of the representation at two conferences.
Mr. Sandys: All that I would say at present is that it is not for me to say what is the correct representation for any particular party or group. Of course, since there will be no voting at a conference of this kind, what really matters is that every group and party should have sufficient representation to enable its point of view to be adequately presented to the conference. The question of numbers is not so important. As regards the future arrangements for the final meeting, to which the hon. Member referred, we are still a long way from the final meeting, but any operative session will be held under the chairmanship of myself or some other United Kingdom Minister.
Mr. J. Dugdale: In welcoming the Minister's decision to go himself to Southern Rhodesia, may I ask him whether we are to understand that he will take part in the conference there, and, if he does, will he take the Chair?
Mr. Sandys: Yes, Sir. I said so in my original Answer.

BILLS PRESENTED
  WHITE FISH AND HERRING INDUSTRIES
  Bill to make further provision for financial assistance for the white fish and herring industries (including advances to the White Fish Authority), presented by Mr. Christopher Soames; supported by Mr. R. A. Butler, Mr. Maclay, Sir E. Boyle, Mr. Leburn, and Mr. Vane; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Tuesday, 24th January and to be printed. [Bill 57.]
  SHERIFFS' PENSIONS (SCOTLAND)
  Bill to amend the law with respect to the pensions attributable to the office of sheriff and salaried sheriff-substitute, to regulate the age of retirement from such offices and to regulate the time at which payment may be made of those pensions and of the salaries attaching to the said offices, presented by Mr. Maclay; supported by the Lord Advocate, Sir E. Boyle, and Mr. Brooman-White; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Tuesday, 24th January and to be printed. [Bill 58]
  CROFTERS (SCOTLAND)
  Bill to make fresh provision with respect to the reorganisation, development and regulation of crofting in the crofting counties of Scotland; to authorise the making of grants and loans for the development of agricultural production on crofts and on holdings comparable in value and extent to crofts; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid, presented by Mr. Maclay; supported by the Lord Advocate, Sir E. Boyle, and Mr. Leburn; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Tuesday, 24th January and to be printed. [Bill 59]

BOXING
12.7 p.m.
Dr. Edith Summerskill: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit professional boxing.
I have sufficient faith in the good sense and understanding of hon. Members on both sides of the House to know that my critical attitude to boxing will receive some measure of support. I would recall to hon. Members who were here about 10 years ago that when I raised this matter then the opposition was such that I could not make myself heard. I believe that public opinion is changing, and one reason is due to the fact that television has enabled people to see in their own living rooms two men engaged in violent combat, and consequently this has focussed attention on the subject that I am raising today.
Supporters of boxing argue that other sports, including Rugby football, are equally dangerous. This argument cannot survive examination. In the first place, the primary objective in football is to score points and not to render one's opponent insensible. Of all the major sports, boxing occupies a special position, since the aim is to produce injuries, more particularly to the brain. In the limited time at my disposal, I want to emphasise that I am not alone in my attitude. I have the most powerful medical support. I could quote eminent people in the medical profession, but I will limit myself today to a quotation from the leader in The Lancet, a famous medical journal, in June, 1959. That leader stated:
"Boxing has been condemned by official ringside judges, by sports writers and by boxers of the first rank, as well as by responsible medical writers. And yet not only is nothing done to end this evil, but official bodies such as the B.B.C. extend the spectacle to ever-widening audiences, including children.
"The medical opinion against boxing is now so strong that as doctors we have a clear duty to fight for its total abolition."
Mrs. E. M. Braddock rose—
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
Dr. Summerskill: If I might just conclude this part of my argument—
Mrs. Braddock: Would the right hon. Lady also read the letter from Mr. J. W. Graham in reply to the article in the Lancet?
Dr. Summerskill: I am trying to quote some absolutely objective authorities. A few skilled experts may escape, but after about fifty fights in a few years the ordinary fighter begins to show unmistakable signs of deterioration. [Laughter.] Hon. Members opposite are giving me my case without my having to make a speech. The boxer then fails to time his blows properly because the damage to his brain has caused cerebral atrophy. His defence is inadequate and he is soon a back number. The great tragedy, however, is his loss of mental health, his capacity to concentrate and, very often, to co-ordinate his movements and to hold down a responsible job. No amount of medical inspection can make the sense organs less vulnerable or the bone of the temple any thicker.
It is generally agreed that no instrument has yet been invented which can detect the small haemorrhages and the torn fibres of the brain which a boxer sustains in the course of a fight and which, if repeated over the years, produce the condition of punch-drunkenness. When the symptoms appear it is too late to hope that a rest will result in a cure. These injuries do not heal and the destruction of the brain cells is permanent. The frontal lobes which are damaged in this way are those parts which control man's highest functions, namely, his power to co-ordinate his movements, to restrain his impulses and to exercise his power of self-control.
It is argued that individuals watching fights which are accompanied by hysterical yells as the pace quickens and the contestants show signs of wear and tear are worthy men who should be allowed to enjoy their leisure as they think fit. The fact is that the circumstances of a fight unleash sadistic impulses, which are revealed in the ugly behaviour which so often accompanies a prize fight. I would remind the House that cock-fighting was prohibited not for the sake of the cock but because such a display caters to the basest instincts and is calculated to deprave the onlookers.
Can anybody sensibly suggest that the screaming crowd round a boxing ring

1309
is having implanted in it the fine qualities of pluck, endurance and restraint? We are told by those in this business that the sole object in view is to give the spectators a display of a sport regulated by rules calculated to ensure the maximum enjoyment of boxing techniques. If that is so, why are these bouts accompanied in the newspapers and on the radio by a commentary deliberately phrased to emphasise the brutal element?
I appeal to hon. Members on both sides to recognise that it is of the utmost importance to control by example the destructive impulse. Our prisons today are overfull of young men guilty of physical assault. This is not a problem peculiar to Britain. Other countries have recognised the harmful effect of these displays. Iceland has led the world and has set an example by making boxing illegal, and powerful anti-boxing movements in Sweden and Belgium have succeeded in introducing certain regulations. One cannot speak too strongly about the pernicious example set to adolescent youth who week after week in their own homes watch violent scenes glamourising brutality which yet have official sanction.
Has not the time arrived when Parliament should take steps to protect our young people from the men who organise these displays on highly profitable business lines? Today I am asking permission to introduce a Bill in order that the whole question may be examined.
12.16 p.m.
Lieut. - Colonel W. H. Bromley -Davenport: While I listened to the speech of the right hon. Member for Warrington (Dr. Summerskill), I could not help feeling that she was living in the past—in a bygone age. The conditions she has described may have existed forty years ago, when there was no British Boxing Board of Control, but they simply do not exist today. As a member of the Board, the best thing I can do is to describe how it controls boxing and avoids all the evils alleged by the right hon. Lady.
The Board has authority to issue licences, at its absolute discretion, to all persons connected in any way with professional boxing—boxers, promoters, managers, referees, trainers, seconds, and so on—and without a current licence no one can officiate in any capacity at a
1310
professional boxing tournament. The Board functions from London and is assisted in its duties by eight area councils, spread over the whole country and Northern Ireland. Each council has an expert medical staff.
Every applicant for a boxer's licence is subjected to a comprehensive medical examination, and if he is fit he is granted a licence. Boxers must be examined before and after every contest, and if a boxer is knocked out he must be medically examined before he even contracts to box again. Unless a boxer gets a certificate of absolute fitness from his area medical officer his licence is suspended until he is fit, and, if necessary, it is withdrawn altogether. In the event of a knock-out, all officials have a complete knowledge of first aid.
There are two types of knock-out. There is the reflex, and there is the state of concussion resulting from a series of blows. All the evidence available shows that recovery from the former is complete and almost immediate and that, with rest and abstention from boxing, complete recovery also takes place in the latter case. Nevertheless, we know that rare cases occur when even the medical experts may pass a boxer fit although he is not quite fit and may be suffering from some very mild form of concussion. If that happens, the moment he fights again the expert from the B.B.B.C. who attends will detect at once that the man is not quite fit, and the result will be immediate suspension. In any case, after rest complete recovery takes place, and it is unfounded speculation to say that the evil effects may show themselves years later.
Other measures we have to control boxing are the limiting of the number of contests in which boxers may take part and the limiting of the number of rounds in which young people can take part during a contest. There is the prohibition of foul blows in the ring such as those to the back of the head or the kidneys. These measures, together with instructions to referees about stopping fights in time to avoid unnecessary or undue punishment—which, incidentally, have the full support of the so-called brutal public—have eliminated the possibility of any permanent brain damage.
To sum up the arguments against the contention of those who oppose professional boxing on the ground of possible

1311
serious injury, I will quote these simple figures. Among nearly 100,000 boxers during the past 14 years there have been only four fatal accidents and only six serious eye injuries. As regards delayed or permanent injury due to concussion, I challenge the right hon. Lady to produce examples of such cases. If she can, for every example that she produces to support her case the British Boxing Board of Control will produce 1,000 against, provided that she pays for the expenses.
Why single out boxing from other sports which people enjoy? What about motor racing and the gallant drivers of racing vehicles who kill or damage themselves and who sometimes even kill spectators? What about their multiple injuries? What about swimming? I have known people to be so inconsiderate as to go in for a bathe in the sea and drown themselves in the briny. Are we to stop that sort of thing? What about mountain climbing? There are people who risk their lives in order to go and look at the top of a mountain. They need not go and do that. I can tell them in advance what they will find when they get there; all they will see will be rocks and snow. One could go on for ever quoting examples of sports which are dangerous to the public. If we go far enough and follow the thing to its logical conclusion, playing for absolute safety, we shall finish by being allowed to play only dumb-crambo and tiddleywinks.
There is another aspect to the subject, the benefit to the young. Boxing keeps them fit. It keeps them off the streets. It takes them away from their flick-knives and smoking and puts them into the gymnasium. It is there that they develop self-reliance, self-control, courage and chivalry, and the ability to keep their tempers. They learn another very important thing, that if they have to fight they must fight in one place only, in the ring, against an evenly matched opponent.
Boxing is the most popular sport on television and I refute the right hon. Lady's suggestion that our public is becoming sadistic. I have done my best to show how we on the British Board of Boxing Control avoid all the evils alleged by the right hon. Lady and to defend professional boxing which others are trying to destroy. How easy it is to pull something down. It is not so easy to build it up again.
Mr. F. A. Burden: What about amateur boxing?
Lieut.-Colonel Bromley - Davenport: I want professional boxing to stand on its own merits.
Members of the British Boxing Board of Control have long practical experience in boxing and they are assisted by some of the best brains in the medical profession. Not one of us would control a sport which we felt was harmful to others. Although I know how genuine and sincere the right hon. Lady is, it is the "holier than thou" attitude which we find so nauseating.
As for the medical profession itself, every year the hospitals hold their own boxing championships, and these are attended by all branches of the medical profession. Would medical men support these shows if they thought that they were harmful to others? As my final friendly little blow across the Chamber, I will now cite the instance of the Annual Convention of the British Medical Association this year which was attended by some of the best medical brains in the world. A proposal similar to that put forward by the right hon. Lady was overwhelmingly defeated on that occasion. I ask hon. and right hon. Members of all parties in the House of Commons to do likewise today.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 12 (Motion for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of Public Business):—
The House Divided: Ayes 17, Noes 120.

Division No. 32.]

AYES

[12.26 p.m.

Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

Millan, Bruce

Taylor, John (West Lothian)

Hart, Mrs. Judith

Paget, R. T.

Thorpe, Jeremy

Hayman, F. H.

Parker, John (Dagenham)

Whitlock, William

Houghton, Douglas

Plummer, Sir Leslie

Mackie, John

Redhead, E. C.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

Stonehouse, John

Dr. Summerskill and

Manuel, A. C.

Swain, Thomas

Mr. Robert Edwards.

NOES

Ashton, Sir Hubert

Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

Nicholson, Sir Godfrey

Barlow, Sir John

Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

Oakshott, Sir Hendrie

Biggs-Davison, John

Hastings, S.

Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

Bossom, Clive

Hay, John

Osborn, John (Hallam)

Bourne-Arton, A.

Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

Page, John (Harrow, West)

Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John

Hendry, Forbes

Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)

Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

Hicks Beach, Maj. W.

Partridge, E.

Bryan, Paul

Hiley, Joseph

Pearson, Frank (Ciltheroe)

Bullard, Denys

Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)

Pitt, Miss Edith

Bullus, Wing Commander Eric

Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)

Pott, Percivall

Burden, F. A.

Hocking, Philip N.

Price, David (Eastleigh)

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

Holt, Arthur

Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho

Channon, H. P. G.

Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patricia

Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

Chichester-Clark, R.

Howard, John (Southampton, Test)

Rippon, Geoffrey

Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John

Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)

Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

Hughes-Young, Michael

Russell, Ronald

Corfield, F. V.

Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

Scott-Hopkins, James

Costain, A. P.

Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

Sharples, Richard

Courtney, Cdr. Anthony

Kerr, Sir Hamilton

Shepherd, William

Critchley, Julian

Kershaw, Anthony

Simon, Sir Jocelyn

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

Kirk, Peter

Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)

Cunningham, Knox

Leather, E. H. C.

Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher

Currie, G. B. H.

Lilley, F. J. P.

Speir, Rupert

Dance, James

Linstead, Sir Hugh

Studholme, Sir Henry

d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

Teeling, William

Deedes, W. F.

Longbottom, Charles

Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)

de Ferranti, Basil

Loveys, Walter H.

Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. Peter

Doughty, Charles

MacArthur, Ian

van Straubenzee, W. R.

Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John

McLaren, Martin

Vane, W. M. F.

Eden, John

McLean, Neil (Inverness)

Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis

Elliot, Capt. W. (Carshalton)

McMaster, Stanley R.

Wall, Patrick

Emery, Peter

Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)

Watts, James

Farey-Jones, F. W.

Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest

Wells, John (Maidstone)

Fisher, Nigel

Mathew, Robert (Honiton)

Whitelaw, William

Gibson-Watt, David

Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)

Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

Godber, J. B.

Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

Wise, A. R.

Goodhew, Victor

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

Woodnutt, Mark

Gower, Raymond

Mellish, R. J.

Gresham Cooke, R.

More, Jasper (Ludlow)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Griffiths, W. (Exchange)

Neave, Airey

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport

and Mrs. Braddock.

Motion made, Question proposed,That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Redmayne.]
Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members will notice that we have lost some time for
1314
the Adjournment debates. I thought that the fairest way of dealing with the matter would be to prune each subject a little, with the aid of the House, so that we may restore the fair proportion of time.

NORTH OF SCOTLAND HYDROELECTRIC BOARD
12.35 p.m.
Mr. G. M. Thomson: I propose this morning to say a number of unseasonable things about a number of people in and outside Scotland. However, perhaps the House will permit me to begin by offering our Christmas congratulations to the Joint Under-Secretary of State and to his wife on the birth of a son to them this morning. We apologise for bringing him down to the House on such an occasion.
Mr. Forbes Hendry: On behalf of Scottish back bench Members on this side of the House, may I echo the hon. Gentleman's felicitations to my hon. Friend.
Mr. Thomson: I want to deal with the demands that are being made that the Glen Nevis Hydro-Electric Scheme should not be carried out and that all future hydro-electric development in Scotland should be stopped. It is astonishing and tragic in some ways that such a campaign should be organised at all and astonishing that one should have to take up the time of the House of Commons in defending hydro-electric development, because the affairs of the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board were gone into very thoroughly by this House a few years ago. Our own Select Committee on Nationalised Industries, under a Conservative Chairman, reported in 1957 in these words:
"… the 'history of the Board, developing from small-scale private enterprises to the point at which it now supplies power to 85 per cent. of the households and 55 per cent. of die farms in its area—at the same time assisting greatly in the industrial development of the Highlands—is remarkable and the Committee were impressed by it.… In the fourteen years of its existence, the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board has impressively justified the foresight of its progenitors."
I should have thought that that decisive verdict would be enough to prevent the kind of frontal assault which is being made on the work of the Hydro-Electric Board in Scotland.
I have emphasised that this is not in any way a party matter. The hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. John MacLeod), who apologises that it is impossible for him to be here today, told me yesterday that if there had never
1316
been a Hydro-Electric Board his constituents in remote places like Torridon and Applecross would still be living in the age of oil lamps. On the last occasion that this matter came before the House an effort to stop a previous scheme was decisively rejected by the House by 122 votes to two. From where, then, are the objections to the new scheme and further development coming? Who is running the campaign? Are the objections coming from the elected local authorities in the area? Not on your life, Mr. Speaker!
The two main local authorities connected with the Nevis scheme, Inverness County Council and the Fort William Council, are both behind the scheme. The truth is—and this is why I have raised the matter today—that the real headquarters of this campaign against Highland development are not in the Highlands or even in the Lowlands of Scotland. They are to be found in London, in the offices of an organisation known as "Aims of Industry." The title may be familiar to some hon. Members. It is a typical example of one of the great anonymous empires which are so characteristic of the times in which we live and whose job behind the scenes is to try to manipulate and, indeed, manufacture public opinion in this country. It is a propaganda organisation operated on behalf of big business. It boasts that last year it gained 150,000 column inches of free editorial space in 900 journals in this country. According to one book on the last General Election, it spent £107,000 in the twelve months before the General Election on assisting the Government's return to power.
One of the things which the Highlands have no shortage of is committees, commissions and organisations of all sorts. It is said that there are twenty official and semi-official committees in the Highlands, but I have no knowledge that "Aims of Industry" is one of the organisations helping the Highlands. Who, then, is "Aims of Industry" helping in running this campaign? What is the link between this organisation and the campaign against hydro-electric development in Scotland? "Aims of Industry" is helping the Highland lairds and landlords, and also the big business interests who finance this organisation.

1317
As far as my investigations go, the link is to be found in the person of a gentleman known as Colonel W. H. Whitbread. He is an English brewer and a Highland laird. He is a member of the Council of "Aims of Industry". He is a very busy man. As far as I can discover, he has 25 directorships, but none of them is in Scotland or in the Highlands or is in any way helping Highland development. He may be known to some hon. Members in this House, although not to me, as the chairman of the Parliamentary Committee of the Brewers' Society. He has three homes, one in Surrey, one in Wiltshire, and one in Ross-shire.
I do not confess to know how much time he manages to devote to his Ross-shire home, but the significant thing about the estate which he occupies at Letterewe, in Wester Ross, is that this estate is at present being surveyed by the Hydro Board to ascertain its suitability for hydro-electric development. Colonel Whitbread's estate is in the Loch Maree area, one of the loveliest areas of Scotland. It is scheduled for hydro development under the Board's Fada-Fionn-Maree scheme. This scheme will make another 125 million units of electricity available in the remote north-west of Scotland, where the problem of depopulation is particularly serious.
The public is entitled to know whether, to put it bluntly, this rich English brewer is using his high-powered London propaganda organisation to conduct this public campaign against Highland hydro-electric development as a convenient method of preserving his own private landed interests and those of his friends. We have a lurid history of absentee highland landlordism betraying Highland welfare over the centuries, but it looks to me as if Colonel Whitbread is adding a chapter of his own to this story.
How is "Aims for Industry" conducting its campaign? First, it had to find out where the Highlands were, so it sent an emissary—I am told, a Mr. T. A. Cutbill, who describes himself as editorial director of "Aims for Industry", from Fetter Lane, London. Mr. Cutbill visited Inverness. According to my information, his purpose was to discover and whip up pockets of dissatisfaction with the Hydro Board. He may, perhaps, be consoled to know that he is the latest of
1318
a long but rather ignoble lineage of agents sent up from London to divide and stir up dissatisfaction among the Highlanders. Anyhow, those investigations were made.
Then, the "Aims for Industry" organisation went into that operation at which it is particularly expert. These hidden persuaders started their campaign to brainwash the citizens of Scotland. Since midsummer, they have been supplying the Press with ready-made articles and so-called editorial comments, which have been used in whole or in part by local papers in the area of the Hydro Board. There can be no doubt that very few of the letters which have appeared in the Press supporting the attack on the Board have come from within the Board's area. There is reason to believe that some of the letters which have come from within the Board's area were not written by the individuals who signed them but were passed on to them from outside the area of the Board by friends who asked for signatures.
There was a need on the part of "Aims for Industry" for some sort of Scottish faÇade, what we know in political jargon as a front organisation, so "Aims for Industry" set up what is called the Scottish Power Investigation Committee, of which the ubiquitous Colonel Whitbread is a member. Its chairman is a Glasgow solicitor. One of the more unusual organisations which is a member of this committee is the National Union of Manufacturers. I do not know how strong the National Union of Manufacturers is in the Highland areas. I wish it were a great deal stronger. We could do with a great many manufacturers in the Highlands providing jobs. At the moment, however, I somewhat suspect its membership of this Committee. Amongst other individual members are Mr. Michael Baillie of Dochfour, a Highland laird who, in the Inverness County Council, tried to get an investigation made into hydro developments in Scotland and was defeated in his own county council by 32 votes to 7. There is also Major Macdonald-Buchanan who owns an estate at Scatwell, near Dingwall.
Supporting these landed gentry is the Scottish Landowners Federation. "Aims for Industry" should be congratulated by its subscribers upon enrolling such an influential pressure group. It was the Scottish Landowners Federation that

1319
launched the salmon poaching campaign on which, in due course, the Government gave way and which was followed by salmon legislation. Then, it was the Scottish Landowners Federation which played a big part in the pressure culminating in the Government producing the Deer (Scotland) Act. I hope we shall have an assurance from the Government today that the Scottish Landowners Federation's agitation against hydroelectricity will meet with a decisive refusal from the Government to give way on this issue.
I was pained to discover that amongst the organisations associating themselves with this Committee was my own old love, the Scottish Youth Hostels Association. It is somewhat unusual to find it in alliance with the Scottish Landowners Federation. I have no doubt that the mountaineers, climbers and walkers of Scotland meet occasional irritations from the Hydro Board. I should not have thought that they would compare with the dangers of getting shot in mistake for a stag during the shooting season.
I speak as a Lowlander who is a keen hill walker. As hon. Members will appreciate, there are many times in this House when one sighs to get out of here and away to the Scottish hills. But it is not right for me to ask that the Highlands should be sterilised into a sort of national park to suit my weekend convenience and my holidays. I am consoled to be supported in this view by the Lochaber Mountaineering Club, which is the only one of these outdoor organisations within the area of the Board. I am also consoled that the Scottish Tourist Board should be lending its support to the Glen Nevis scheme.
On the question of amenities, I recollect that when the Hydro-Electric Board was developing Pitlochry, in the neighbourhood of Dundee, there were the most dreadful fears of what would happen there. Today, as a result of the work of the Hydro Board, Pitlochry is a tourist attraction on a much greater scale than ever in the past.
I have looked as closely as I can into the amenity arguments about Glen Nevis and I have studied the evidence of a report which has been made by the
1320
county planning officer of Inverness, Mr. Calder. As far as I can see, the fears on amenity grounds have been, at the very least, greatly exaggerated. It is true that the walkers and hill climbers will find that a waterfall in the area will be cut in half, but it will be cut in half from a waterfall of 400 ft. to one of 250 ft., which still leaves a considerable waterfall and one which will now tumble picturesquely into a loch instead of merely into a meadow area. The walkers will lose a path, but they will get a new path and a new hut built for them by the Hydro Board. The motorists—those who are not active or interested enough to climb up on top—will find in Glen Nevis, as they have found in other hydro schemes, that their opportunity to enjoy Highland scenery will be greatly enhanced by means of the hydro scheme through the extension of the road which is to be constructed in connection with it.
On the question of amenity, I wish to refer to what I feel is the folly of the National Trust for Scotland in associating itself with this campaign. The National Trust for Scotland is an estimable body with worthy aims. It is one which depends a great deal upon public good will. It is wrong for it to get itself mixed up in this kind of political controversy. I have with me its latest bulletin, for December, the "Newsheet of the National Trust for Scotland". It is a tissue of inaccuracies on this matter. I simply do not understand the attitude of the Earl of Wemyss. I assume that most of the stately homes, which the Trust does good work in preserving, enjoy the benefits of electricity. I commend to the Earl of Wemyss words from the Highlands which, perhaps, carry more weight than mine. I quote from the Inverness Courier, which commented:
"Highland amenity is not just confined to scenery; it also embraces the modern amenity of electric light and power, an amenity without which the glens of the rural Highlands will, without any doubt, become more and more depopulated, the haunt only of the grouse, the red deer, and the landed proprietors and their wealthy sporting tenants and guests."
As well as the amenity arguments, economic arguments have been brought against the Board's case. I propose to leave the details of these to other hon. Members who may have the good fortune to speak. I merely want to say this.

1321
One of the things which is being said is that we should stop Highland hydroelectricity and get power from coal in the Lowlands. I do not think that this is sensible on economic grounds, but I would make this historical comment, that all too often in the past the welfare of the Highlands has been sacrificed to the interests of the industrial Lowlands. I speak as a Lowlander. I hope that in this case history will not be allowed to repeat itself, but that the Government will tell us that they have every intention of going ahead with the steady expansion of hydro-electricity, which is the only way in which the remoter consumers in the Highlands can go on enjoying the benefits of electricity. I yield to no one in my desire to preserve the beauties of the Highland scene, but I believe that what is far more important is to preserve the welfare of the Highland people, a task to which the Board has made a notable contribution. I hope it will be allowed to go on doing it.
12.51 p.m.
Mr. Neil McLean: I am sure that all of us who live in the Highlands are grateful to the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thompson) for raising this matter in the House today. There has undoubtedly been a fairly widespread campaign in the Press, organised, perhaps, by the "Aims of Industry" and other people, which has led to a good deal of inaccurate, sentimental, loose thinking and loose logic, letters in the Press about hydro-electric schemes. The hon. Member has put the matter in its true proportion and I should like to associate myself with a good deal of what he said about the Glen Nevis scheme.
I think that when he was dealing with the campaign he allowed his natural Socialism to get the better of him. Just as the late Mr. McCarthy in America always saw a Communist under every bed, so the hon. Member seems to see either a brewer or a Scottish landowner under every bed. I should like to correct him, if I may, on one matter. He said that it was the landowners who were the ones who thought up and pushed forward and organised the pressure group to put through the Deer (Scotland) Act. I can assure him that it was very much the other way around. There was a great
1322
deal of opposition from the landowners, and not least from certain landowners who may be associated with this present "Aims of Industry" campaign, and they opposed the Measure. They perhaps succeeded in holding it up for a time. I think it was the N.F.U. which was keenest that that Measure should be pushed through.
Now I should like to say a few words about the Glen Nevis scheme which is in my constituency. The glen is undoubtedly one of the most beautiful and unique glens in the whole of the British Isles, and all of us who live in the countryside hate to see the natural beauty of it changed and prefer it should be left as it is. On the other hand, people who say that hydro-electric schemes spoil the beauty of the glens should go to look at some of the glens where schemes have been carried out. They are still remarkably beautiful. I do not like interfering with nature, but to say that the schemes completely spoil the beauty of the glens is quite inaccurate. It is very difficult sometimes in discussing the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board and hydro-electricity schemes in the Highlands not to take sides violently one way or the other. It is the nature of people in the Highlands: he who is for me is for me, and he who is against me is against me. Very often the actual facts in these matters get completely out of proportion owing to the strength of feeling on both sides.
I personally feel, having discussed the matter with a number of people living in the area and being in touch with the local authorities, that the amenities in Glen Nevis will not be unduly adversely affected. Most of the local people also feel that, although the scenery may be changed slightly, the scheme will not really affect amenities, and the local authorities have, I believe, got an assurance from the Board that they will get their water supplies and so on.
I do feel, however, that there has been so much heat generated by this matter that it would be in the interests of the public as a whole, and, indeed, of the Board and of everyone concerned, if the Secretary of State were to set up an inquiry into this scheme, so that objections could be made in public. If this inquiry were held people could put forward their views in public and be confronted with

1323
the whole of the facts, and I believe that that would clear the air very much.
There is one question I would ask the Joint Under-Secretary of State, and it is on the question of cost. This scheme, I understand, costs about £4¼ million and will take four years to complete. The scheme is before Parliament; we have all had a chance to study it; but I think that with these schemes it is the duty of Parliament and the Secretary of State to look very carefully at the costs and to see whether they are justified in spending that amount of money. I personally think that on examination it will be found that they are justified, but I think we ought to be very careful to look at each of these schemes on its merits.
It is also very important to note that sometimes when figures are put forward the estimated costs are found to be far less than the actual costs, and I think that if we could have the correct figures of the estimated and actual costs of these schemes which the Board has carried out and the figures for the schemes in hand and compare them it would be a good thing for the public in general, because they would know how the money has been and is being spent.
I would like to pay a tribute to what the Board has done in the Highlands and is doing for the Highlands. It has brought electricity to so many of the outlying parts of the Highlands which would never have had it otherwise, and the first chairman, Mr. Tom Johnston, did a marvellous job, and the present chairman of the Board, Lord Strathclyde, is also doing a splendid job, in enabling the Board to go forward with its work.
I end, if I may, with one slight note of criticism of the Board, and it is that I believe that it ought to pay more attention at this phase of its history to what one may call consolidating the position. It has connected up many farms and outlying places, but there is still a small nucleus in some areas where there is as yet no electricity and this is a great hardship to the people there.
I know of several centres in Badenoch and Skye where the bringing of electricity would be of immense benefit, but the Board often asks some small crofter or farmer to pay £400 or £500 or £700
1324
for the cost of initial installation, and it is far too much for them. I think that the Board—I believe it is doing this—should examine very carefully the methods by which it can bring electricity to the small pockets of the countryside where there is not yet electricity. It might be entirely a matter for the Board to finance the work, or perhaps the Secretary of State himself would be prepared to subsidise the bringing of electricity to those uneconomic areas, but this is a matter to which I would call the attention of the Joint Under-Secretary of State, because I believe it is of the utmost importance to the Highlands. After all, one of the Board's tasks was not only to produce more electricity there for the whole country, but to help the welfare of the people living through the development of the Highlands.
12.58 p.m.
Mr. Bruce Millan: I shall restrict myself to making only two points, because I know the Joint Under-Secretary of State wants some time in which to reply to the debate. On the point which has just been made by the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. N. McLean), the question arises whether or no the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board should continue to be saddled with the responsibility of the high capital costs involved in supplying some of the very remote areas. We have to appreciate that this part of the Board's task is increasingly difficult, because the amount of money required to extend the supply of electricity to some of the isolated communities which are still without it is a tremendous amount compared with any charges that are likely to be recovered from the consumption of electricity.
I think the history of the Board over the last ten or fifteen years has been a remarkable example of self-help in Scat-land, since all this work has been done without a public subsidy. Let us face it, the consumers in some of the bigger centres of population which are served by the Board, for instance, Dundee and Aberdeen, have been helping to pay for electricity supplies to the more remote areas in the Highlands. The hon. Member for Inverness, referring to my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson), mentioned his

1325
Socialism. I think that this electricity supply work is a remarkable example of Socialist in practice, and I would commend it to the hon. Member from that point of view.
My hon. Friend has done a considerable public service in exposing the false nature of the present campaign against the Board—this so-called Scottish Power Investigadon Committee. We have had for a considerable time in one form or another a continual campaign of denigration of the efforts of the Hydro-Electric Board. There is a constant trickle and sometimes a stream of letters in the Press complaining about the Board, some from the point of view that hydroelectricity is uneconomic and making comparisons with electricity produced by steam or diesel generation, and others from the point of view that the Board has been unmindful of the amenities of the Highlands. The Board has a first-class case on both these point.
I do not think that the economic case against the Board has been proved at all but the very opposite. It is a complete travesty of the situation to charge the Board with being inconsiderate in its approach to questions of amenities, whether of the national scenic beauty of the area or for fishing, walking and so on. The case for the Board is unchallengeable in the main on both these issues.
My hon. Friend has drawn attention to the fact that there are now appearing in the local Press in the Highlands and other parts of Scotland letters inspired by a nationally organised campaign but which purport to come from local inhabitants. I should like to see the Board, through its public relations department or however it organises these things, making a far more definite and courageous stand on these letters to the Press and other propaganda against it on this subject.
Hardly a month passes without correspondence in the papers about hydroelectricity. The people who defend the Hydro-Electric Board are not the Board itself but simply interested individuals. Why should not the Board do this for itself? It issued a Press statement on the Scottish Power Investigation Committee. As far as I know, it has not carried on from that statement but in many cases has allowed its detractors to
1326
have things their own way. I know that it is difficult for nationalised industries, because they are subject not only to detailed charges against their administration but to political attacks. I do not suggest that the Board should enter the political arena but where there are letters to the Press giving false figures of comparison between hydro-electricity and steam generation there is no reason why the Board should not answer the charges.
Why does it not do so? This is one of the few things on which the Board can be criticised. I hope that the Secretary of State for Scotland will draw the Board's attention to this point and to the fact that a great many people in Scotland who are enthusiastic about the Board and extremely appreciative of the tremendous amount of good work that the Board has done since its inception would like to see it take a more vigorous and courageous stand. The organisers of the campaign against the Board are simply disgruntled individuals or people with some vested interest who want for some reason or other to have their own way.
1.5 p.m.
Mr. Forbes Hendry: It is very seldom that I find myself twice on the same day in almost complete agreement with the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson). I agree with his tribute to the magnificent social work done by the Hydro-Electric Board in Scotland and his deprecation of the campaign organised from the South against the Board.
I should like to make a plea on behalf of the people in the north of Scotland who still do not have the advantage of electricity. The Board has already connected over 100,000 uneconomic consumers. It has been able to do that by good economic planning but there are over 10,000 people who have not yet had electricity installed and a great many of them are in my constituency. Their only hope of getting electricity and the pleasure of switching on the light, watching television, working an electric iron or getting an electric fan installed is the Board, because hydro-electricity is one of the few valuable exports that we have in the North of Scotland.
There has been a great deal of talk about capital expenditure but when it

1327
is possible to sell electricity for over 1½d. a unit and buy it back for about ·6d. this is very good business. If that profit were not made by the Board there would be no hope for people in my constituency who have been waiting for years for electricity.
Mr. Millan: Is the hon. Member talking about the cost of electricity purchased by the South from the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board? If he is, it should be remembered that before the electricity is connected to the consumer distribution costs and other costs have to be added.
Mr. Hendry: I quite agree, but there is still a profit and if it were not for that profit it would be impossible for the power to be connected to the uneconomic consumers.
The 1959 Report of the South of Scotland Electricity Board deals with this point and pays tribute to the tremendous value to the Board of hydro-electricity which it can switch on at peak times. It is not only good business for the north of Scotland but for the south of Scotland as well and the rest of the United Kingdom. It is one of our few valuable exports, and I feel very strongly against any people in Scotland or elsewhere who propose, without any real knowledge of the facts, to interfere with what the Hydro-Electric Board is doing.
There is a tremendous need in the north of Scotland and we are not asking for subsidies. All we ask is that we should be allowed to continue to put our own affairs in order and conduct them in the best possible way to make sure that in 1960 and 1961 people who have not yet been connected with an electricity supply will have the ordinary amenities Which are an every-day occurrence in the South.
1.9 p.m.
Mr. Ian MacArthur: It is surprising that there Should be any need for this debate, but, as the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) has explained, a curious campaign has been launched against the Hydro-Electric Board, particularly in connection with the Glen Nevis scheme. I agree with nearly all that the hon. Member has said but I am sorry that he attributed sinister motives
1328
to "Aims of Industry" which I think is merely misguided in this matter.
Mr. Millan: Why should the "Aims of Industry" suddenly become misguided about the Highlands when it has never taken any interest in them before?
Mr. MacArthur: One might as well ask why the National Trust should be equally misguided in this matter.
I particularly regret the attack which the hon. Member for Dundee, East made on Colonel Whitbread. To get the whole matter in perspective, it would be useful to remind ourselves of the vast stretch of land covered by the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board. It is about one-quarter of the total land area of Great Britain. The population within that area is only 2½ per cent. of the total population of Great Britain. The average number of potential consumers per square mile is 19 compared with 195, or over ten times as many, for the rest of Scotland and 255 for England and Wales.
This gives some idea of the magnitude of the problem which the Board faces. Despite the enormous distribution problem which these figures illustrate, the Board now supplies nearly 90 per cent. of all the potential consumers within its area. Among these there are over 100,000 rural consumers, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry) mentioned, and these are mostly in the remoter parts of the Highlands and the Islands.
The cost of providing this rural supply is, on average, £350 for each consumer, and in normal commercial terms this would be a hopelessly uneconomic figure, for the Board has no chance ever of recouping this capital cost from these consumers. But the Board is bound by the Hydro-Electric Development (Scotland) Act, 1943, to provide electricity in these remote areas, and the fact that it has connected so many rural consumers at a relatively low total loss demonstrates the extent of its contribution to the improvement of social conditions in the Highlands and the success of its commercial policy.
The only way in which it is possible for this development to take place is by the sale of electricity to the South of Scotland Electricity Board. I am very much in agreement with what the hon.

1329
Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) had to say, but it is not so much the consumers in Dundee, Aberdeen, Perth and so on who finance the heavy cost of connections in the rural areas as the sale of electricity to the South of Scotland, which amounts to about a quarter of the total units sold each year by the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board.
Most people regard the electric light switch as a normal part of domestic equipment. Nevertheless, they can perhaps imagine what their life would be without the provision of electricity. Yet until recently this was exactly the mode of life which most people in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland had to endure. The transformation of private domestic life and community life which the production of electricity brings has to be seen and experienced to be realised. In my own constituency, the remote area of Glenshee has very recently been connected to the electricity supply, and the whole life of the area has changed. There are also, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, West has mentioned, remote areas such as Path of Condie in my constituency, where we hope electricity will be supplied before long. These areas represent the 10 per cent. of consumers who still have to be connected.
At present there are two main arguments in the campaign against the Board. The first is the financial argument. Basically it is that the cost per kilowatt installed in a hydro-electric scheme is about three times as great as that in a thermal scheme. But this is not the complete argument, because a thermal station has a life of only twenty-five years whereas a hydro-electric station dam and power station, though written off over a period of eighty years, actually has a life which is much longer than that—a life of continuing high efficiency at low cost. The running costs of a hydro-electric station are very low, and as the initial cost of the installation is written down, so the provision of electricity becomes cheaper.
The second argument is one based on amenity. It is natural that those who love the Highlands should be disturbed by the prospect of a dam being built in their favourite glen. But I think that these fears are often very much exaggerated. The Board takes great care to do as little
1330
damage as possible. Certainly in the course of building there are great scars on the countryside, but it is remarkable how quickly these are covered over by nature. I remember making an expedition on foot—in a curious enterprise with which the hon. Member for Dundee, East will have much sympathy—in order to view the Glen Affric scheme and the dam at Loch Beneveian. I went on foot from the West Coast of Scotland to Glen Affric, through beautiful Highland country and saw this great dam rising out of the glen. I was astonished not by the harm which it had done to the beauty of the glen but by the way in which it had somehow improved the aspect before my eyes. A dam cannot be hidden or camouflaged. However, the dam rising there in the midst of the Highlands is a symbol of strength. It signals somehow the new life and the new hope which should be welcomed by all those who have the interests of the Highlands and those who live there at heart.
1.16 p.m.
The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. R. Brooman-White): I would begin by thanking the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry) for their kind remarks at the beginning of the debate. We are also indebted to the hon. Member for Dundee, East for transferring our minds this morning from K.O.s to kW.s. The fact that we were earlier concerned with K.O.s has curtailed the time for this debate and I shall try to be very brief. I am sorry that some hon. Members who wished to speak have not been able to do so.
I do not think that the hon. Member for Dundee, East, in spite of some of his remarks, will expect me to make any new pronouncements on policy in this brief Adjournment debate. However, having said that, I must quickly add that this is not because of any lack of enthusiasm for the subject or appreciation of the fact that opportunity has been taken this morning to raise this subject. We are very glad that it has been raised because, as a number of hon. Members have pointed out, there is in the natural course of events bound to be a good deal of criticism of and argument about the activities of the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board. This is in no

1331
way, and never has been, criticism of the management and the personnel; but there is bound, in the nature of things, to be argument about locations and the scope of its operations, and if periodically the opportunity is not taken to state or re-state its record of achievement there is a danger that an unbalanced or unfair impression may gain ground in the country. Equally, we do not want to be unbalanced or unfair about a number of deeply-held objections to certain of the Board's operations on their merits in certain places and at certain times.
To deal first for the moment with the legitimate arguments and constructive criticism at times brought forward about some of the Board's operations, it seems to me that the arguments fall broadly under two headings. The first arises naturally from the nature of the terrain in which the Board works. We have two outstanding natural assets in the Highlands, water power and scenery, and, following the normal human desire to have one's cake and eat it, we want to develop the resources and we also want to conserve them. We want to exploit our water power without damaging our scenery. It is by no means easy to strike the right balance between these things, although there is fairly general agreement, I think, that up to the present the Board has made a pretty good job of it.
It seems to me that the second field of argument is also grounded on equally normal and widely applicable sets of reactions. It really is the usual effort to strike a balanced judgment between the benefits of quick returns on the one hand and the benefits of long-term assets on the other hand. Other forms of electric generation, as has been pointed out, take less capital and are more profitable in the short run. Hydro-electricity takes more capital to get going, but thereafter running costs become almost negligible.
As the House knows, a debate about the relative merits of costing and the economics of this can become extremely involved. One is easily led into a labyrinth of technicalities and statistics where the Minotaur of Kidderminster lies in wait for the unwary, and I hope that the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. N. Maclean), the hon. Member far Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur)
1332
and other hon. Members who have touched on some of these technical points this morning, will absolve me, in the short time at my disposal, from pursuing these dangerous paths.
I have noted what the hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) said about the Board countering some of these arguments. He will appreciate that the Board's publicity is handicapped at the moment because of its statutory position in seeking approval for the Glen Nevis scheme. Argument is bound to arise on these matters and it is not always easy to strike the right balance.
The hon. Member for Dundee, East mentioned the Scottish Landowners Federation in a slightly controversial context. I have the Federation's memorandum. In paying tribute to the Board, it says:
"The achievements of the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board since it was set up, in spite of circumstances never envisaged in the Cooper Report or in the Act, have been tremendous."
The Federation praises the Board, and the memorandum continues with a reasoned and objective case which remains to be assessed.
Hon. Members have pointed out, and I am simply re-emphasising the point, that the Board has hitherto been developing the resources of the Highlands. It has been making a profit and using that money to make electricity available in the remoter parts of the Highlands. As the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire and the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West pointed out, this is obviously a good thing.
I will not take up the time of the House by going over and rehearsing the Board's record of achievement to date. The facts are well known. The hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire and other hon. Members have mentioned various outstanding points in that record. The real problem that we face is that the demand from the Board's present consumers is steadily increasing at the rate of about 7 per cent. per annum. If the Board does not continue to expand its capacity, it will not be able to keep up profitable sales to the South and will not be able to keep up the development work which has brought considerable

1333
benefits to the North. The Board therefore proposes new schemes and these schemes inevitably give rise to the sort of objections and arguments to which I have referred.
The latest scheme is the Glen Nevis one to which the hon. Member for Inverness referred. We know that its publication has given rise to what we must admit is considerable controversy. Is it the right thing to do? Is it the right place to do it? There have been 28 formal objections from national organisations and private individuals, most of whom are concerned about the effects of the scheme on the amenities of the glen. These representations are being considered, and it would not be appropriate for me to comment now on the questions which these objections raise.
I will simply add that the objections are, of course, subject to the procedures laid down in the Hydro-Electric Development (Scotland) Act, 1943, as amended, and that after they have been considered by my right hon. Friend a public inquiry can be held. Moreover, as hon. Members know, before any scheme can become operative it has to be laid before Parliament and it may be annulled by Resolution in either House.
Mr. Frederick Lee: The hon. Gentleman is apparently trying to hold the balance between all these things. My hon. Friend was inquiring about the Government's attitude. Surely the hon. Gentleman can say whether the Government are firmly behind the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board in its attempts to bring more electrification to Scotland?
Mr. Brooman-White: All I can say is that various objections have been made to the new scheme, and that if these objections are maintained there is a statutory obligation to hold an inquiry to assess the merits and the demerits of the case. I think that it would be wrong at the moment to prejudge the conclusions of that inquiry in any way.
Mr. G. M. Thomson: Apart from objections to this scheme, can the hon. Gentleman say whether it is the Government's intention to go ahead in the long term with further hydro-electric development in Scotland?
Mr. Brooman-White: The benefits of hydro-electricity in Scotland speak for
1334
themselves, as does the necessity for developing the natural resources of the Highlands to the full, but these things have to be assessed in the general context of both the economics and the amenities involved. I am sorry that at present I cannot say more than that.
We are glad to have had this debate because hon. Members have set out clearly the background against which these current and very relevant considerations must be studied and weighed.
1.26 p.m.
Mr. Frederick Lee: In the two minutes available may I reinforce what hon. Members on both sides have said. They have paid glowing tribute to the performance of the Board, and they are extremely concerned because there is a possibility that if the present propaganda being waged against the Board spreads and gains credence the electrification schemes which hon. Members have said are so essential to their constituents will be stopped. I should therefore have thought that it was vital for the Government to express their view on the whole subject.
We know that standards of life in any country can be measured by the amount of horsepower available per head. The Board has a phenomenally good record. Tribute has been paid to the Board on the amenity side for not spoiling the beauties of the glens and for giving great consideration to that aspect of the development. There has not been a discordant note struck during the debate. In other words, there is complete unanimity in supporting the Board in what it has done. One therefore feels that one is entitled to expect the Government—I do not press the hon. Gentleman to do so at the moment—to take cognisance of this debate and to realise that, despite the propaganda which has been indulged in and which my hon. Friends outlined, there is a feeling that there should be a proper understanding by the public of the great job of work which the Board has done and of the future possibilities if the Board is permitted to carry on its work.
I think that that is the general feeling of the House, and I hope that the Government will not look on themselves as holding the balance. They have a great

1335
stake in seeing that the people of the Highlands in particular have the power which they need. The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson), who has unfortunately not been allowed to speak today, has said on many occasions that his constituents want more industries in the area. The provision of more industries depends on the supply of more electricity. We therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to consider this closely with his right hon. Friend and to tell us that there will be no going back by the Government in their support of the Board, a Board which has done everything which the House has asked it to do, and done it as regards amenities and everything else. We feel that the Government should be more specific. They should repudiate the propaganda levelled at the Board and give the Board their full support.

UNITED NATIONS AND CONGO
1.29 p.m.
Mr. John Stonehouse: There is not sufficient time to go into all the sordid details of the background of the Congo situation. All the facts show that the Belgians were guilty of criminal negligence in the way in which they handled the Congo situation before independence. There was inadequate preparation for independence. There was discrimination against the setting up of national organisations, and a complete lack of any programme of training for the Congolese to take over positions of authority. When independence came, there were only seventeen graduates in the whole of the Congo and no senior executives. The Belgians held on to all the positions of authority until the last possible moment, and as soon as there was any feeling of uncertainty after independence came the Belgians rushed out of the Congo in great panic. The Belgians, indeed, have a terrible record in their handling of the Congo situation—
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche)rose—
Mr. Stonehouse: I appreciate the point that you are about to make, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I was about to say that this is the background to the situation and I do not want to dwell on it any longer because the situation now is that the United Nations, having been asked into the Congo, are now being undermined in their authority by the very Belgians who were guilty of inadequate preparation for Congolese independence.
I was in Leopoldville at the end of September, a few days after Colonel Mobutu's coup d'etat. It was quite obvious at that time that Colonel Mobutu was acting with Belgian advice and, indeed, Belgian support. It has been suggested that President Kasavubu is the legitimate Head of State. I do not want to enter into that controversy, but I want to make the point—and I think the House will agree with me on this—that President Kasavubu's authority depends on an alliance with Colonel Mobutu; and when Colonel Mobutu, who ihas the army's support, decides to

1337
withdraw his support from President Kasavubu, the Kasavubu régime in fact will have no authority whatsoever.
While I was in Leopoldville the Mobutu troops stopped meetings of the Congolese Parliament. On four occasions while I was there Congolese Deputies attempted to meet and on each occasion they were stopped by the Army forces. What is so worrying about the Congo position now is that Colonel Mobutu, acting without constitutional authority, using a rabble of an army with Belgian support, is in fact preventing the legitimate constitutional authority from operating, namely—
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member can only speak on matters for which there is Ministerial responsibility. So far the hon. Member does not seem to have mentioned any matter with Ministerial responsibility.
Mr. Stonehouse: I have taken only a few minutes to explain the background as I see it. Mr. Deputy-Speaker.
The position now is that the Belgians are using their influence and intrigue in the Congo in an attempt by the back door to reassert their authority, and I believe that Britain now has the responsibility to take a new initiative to ensure that the Congo situation can be solved without the great Powers becoming involved in a sruggle within that territory. That, as I see it, is the position.
We have just had news this morning of the failure in the United Nations General Assembly to reach a majority solution. Great Britain has supported an American resolution which, in my opinion, did not go far enough. Indeed, we understand—and I would be grateful if the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs would clarify this point, because it is not clear from the Press reports—that Britain voted against the Indian and Yugoslav resolution which was supported by a number of newly-independent States. Is that the case? I should like the Under-Secretary to reply to that.
The Yugoslav-Indian Resolution made a number of suggestions which seem to me wholly acceptable: first, that there should be the release of political prisoners; secondly, that the Congolese Parliament should be allowed to meet
1338
under United Nations protection; and further that the United Nations forces should prevent the Congolese Army units from interfering in the country's internal political affairs. It also demanded the recall of the Belgian military and quasi-military personnel. All those points seem to me to be the sort of points which Her Majesty's Government should be supporting, and I cannot understand—I hope the Under-Secretary will tell us—why we have voted against this proposal.
The Minister will be aware that the Belgians have been infiltrating into positions of authority in the last few months. The Ministry of Public Health is now manned with Belgian personnel, and it has been stated publicly that there is no need for a United Nations team in the Congo. Belgians have been advising Congolese officials and, in fact, withholding United Nations documents and reports from the Congolese officials responsible for these Ministries. The Information Ministry has four Belgian advisers who are gradually taking the Information Ministry back to its old techniques. There is a Belgian colonel who is acting as adviser to the Ministry of National Defence in Leopoldville, and Colonel Mobutu himself has a Belgian former warrant officer who is serving as his aide-de-camp. In Katanga there are 114 Belgian officers and 117 Belgian N.C.O.s in key positions and all the key civilian and security posts are held by Belgians. In South Kasai there are Belgian officers and Belgian police organising the régime established there.
I should have thought that the report which Ambassador Dayal provided was absolutely clear on this question of Belgian intervention. I quote from paragraphs 54 and 55 of his report. He says that the influence of Belgian nationals has
"… all too often … coincided with anti-United Nations policies or feelings at the various points of impact. Belgian activities in recent weeks have increased the intransigence of the A.N.C. command as well as of the Katangese authorities, inhibited peaceful political activity and therefore the possibility of an eventual return to constitutional government and the re-establishment of the unity and integrity of the country. These activities have also had their repercussions, direct or indirect, on the technical assistance programme as has been indicated in this and other chapters."

1339
Those words are surely strong enough to have influenced the British representative at U.N.O. to vote for the Indian-Yugoslav proposal.
I want to ask the Under-Secretary this question. What protest have Her Majesty's Government made to the Belgian authorities about their continual intrigue in the Congo? Has Her Majesty's Government been inhibited by the N.A.T.O. connection and Belgium's threat to withdraw from the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation? Is this the reason why they are hesitant in pressing a point of view? Are they too frightened, too vacillating, too inhibited by military alliances to say what they really think; or are we to understand that they actually approve of Colonel Mobutu's suppression of the elected Parliament, his rule of terror and his undermining of the work of the United Nations in the Congo? We want a clear explanation of these points.
The United Nations have reached a deadlock. Do Her Majesty's Government want this deadlock to continue? If not, will they now take a new initiative to resolve it? I believe if they do, and if they get the support of India, Ghana and other Commonwealth countries, as well as of the newly-independent States, they can strike a new blow for the United Nations. If they refuse to act, they will be guilty of helping to undermine U.N.O. and its work.
I therefore propose to the Joint Under-Secretary that he should ask his right hon. Friend to consider Motion No. 34 which has been put on the Order Paper by his hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Pitman):—
[That this House, recalling the United Nations General Assembly's resolution of 19th September requesting the Secretary-General to continue to take vigorous action and to assist the central government of the Congo in the restoration and maintenance of law and order, throughout the territory, and noting the impossibility of fulfilling that resolution in the continued absence of a central government of the Congo which the Secretary-General might thus hope to assist, requests Her Majesty's Government to propose that the General Assembly of the United Nations should appoint a commission to act as the administering authority for the territory and to assist that
1340
commission with the powers necessary to enforce law and order until such time as the General Assembly becomes satisfied that an authoritative Central Government of the Congo has been brought into existence.]
It is supported by hon. Members from both sides of the House and it asks that United Nations should be given greater authority in the Congo until an authoritative central Government has been established.
I should like to follow that with a proposal that Parliament should be recalled with United Nations protection and that, if necessary, within six or nine months' time a new general election should be held. In the meantime the Congolese political leaders should be called together, preferably in New York, to discuss the problem of the Congo and to try to resolve their differences. Unless this initiative is taken there will be a further relapse into chaos and disorder in the Congo. We shall have a situation in which the Belgians will build up their military support of the Leopoldville régime and the Russians will begin to be interested in supporting the Gizenga régime in Stanleyville. This would result in the danger of civil war in the Congo between these rival forces and of the Congo being thrown right into the cockpit of the cold war. There would be the danger of another Korean situation with military forces being brought in on both sides. The country would be torn in bloody conflict and the world itself would be endangered by the big Powers being involved in the conflict in the Congo.
1.41 p.m.
Mr. I. J. Pitman: I shall not follow the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse), not because there is not a certain amount with which I agree in what he said but because time is limited and possibly we may develop a fresh approach. My approach starts with the conception that not all questions have a solution. There are certain problems which are insoluble and there are a lot of problems in which the answer is a choice between two thoroughly bad alternatives. We recently had an example in the problem of Covent Garden, where it was so easy to see the disadvantages of what might be thought the least bad proposition.

1341
Covent Garden was not a matter of very great importance, but I submit that the Congo is a matter of very great importance indeed, with the lives of millions and the future of ordered government in Africa at stake.
I think that ordered government is the keynote, because in my view order is heaven's first law and at the present moment we have the chaos of hell in the Congo. If the choice is to be between two bad alternatives, and I think it may be—because the other choice is that there is no solution to this problem which cannot be solved even with bloodshed over a long time—and if the choice is thus to be between two alternatives both of which are bad, it will need to be a choice between ordered autocracy or chaotic democracy.
If we contemplate Nkrumah in Ghana, we might say that there we have what is clearly becoming, if it has not become so already, an ordered autocracy rather than an ordered democracy. Everybody in the Congo—with the exception possibly of those people sparring for personal power for their own ends would agree that such a period of ordered autocracy would be far the more acceptable of the alternatives; and moreover, that it might indeed be a good alternative if only the order and peace were introduced and the autocratic element were limited in time and by the intention that full democracy was to be evolved during that time.
It is in those terms that a number of hon. Members in this House have put forward that early day Motion. That Motion sets out as the ideal, the establishment of an authority to be legally responsible for order; in other words, an authority, a government. I think also it implies—it certainly does in my mind—that that Commission, which shall be the Government, shall be responsible to the Congolese and not United Nations. In point of fact, it is a denial of democracy far greater than is any ordinary autocracy if the wishes of the Congolese can be voiced and reach the responsible authority only indirectly through Her Majesty's Government representatives at the United Nations and through the representatives of the other 99 Governments or however many they are. The Commission which is to be the Congolese Government should, like any
1342
sovereign Power, be responsible for Government and order and the sole such authority within its territory and it should be responsible to its own population and not to an international organisation of the Governments of other nations.
Secondly, the Motion implies, and I think it should, that in its appointment of the members of any Commission to govern, the United Nations General Assembly should impose limitations in time and intention, and by all means limitation in terms of colour. I do not think any hon. Member would dissent from the view that such a Commission should have on it nobody of a white European race at all. The important point is that there are throughout the world, people of other colours capable of objective, disinterested and competent government who could do so acceptably if only they were given the authority and the legal position so to govern. I think we ought also to call on Her Majesty's Government to recognise such a Commission de jure as well as de facto as the Government of the Congo, and we should urge Her Majesty's Government to invite all other national Governments to accord similar recognition to that ad hoc Government when it is set up.
In the Motion we suggest that it should be the United Nations General Assembly which should appoint such a Commission. In all forms of Government it is essential that there should be somebody who "fingers" and thus determines who shall set himself up as the personification of legal government. In some cases it is a 'president and in some cases a monarch who so designates the man. Taking our own analogy, it is up to the Prime Minister designate who is given the opportunity to form a Government to govern and win acceptability and support. Appointment comes first and acceptability remains to be won and sustained. I think we who have sired democracy tend to overlook the importance of the machinery for rejecting the old government and we over-emphasise the electoral machinery for ensuring the acceptability of the new Government. The real essence of democracy is the acceptance of existing government if it is doing a good job, and of the ability to sack it either after due lapse of time or by the clear fact that it will be overthrown if it does not remove itself from

1343
office and allow a fresh "fingering" to take place. We thus suggest that in the absence of any Government in the Congo the General Assembly should act as President or Monarch and finger a new one.
I should say that with the chaos now ruling, the United Nations Assembly is the ideal and only body for fingering and giving authority to somebody who has to elevate himself, that is to say to a commission to set itself up as the body with authority.
I have read, in connection with organisation and methods work, all the standard works on organisation. I think it is absolutely clear, and that everybody is agreed on this one thing, that in government whether of a nation, a business or a home we get only confusion and disorganisation if the lines of responsibility are not crystal clear, if they are divided over a great number of people and not reposited in one person.
There has been in the Congo not only chaos but a fantastic world-wide confusion as to where responsibility lies. Last August the American Ambassador in Leopoldville, Mr. Timberlake, was reported as "sharply protesting that U.S. aircraft would not land any more at the Congo airports until … the United Nations could guarantee adequate military protection for the aircraft and their crews". Who is responsible for the safety of aircraft landing? Is it really the United Nations and not the Government of the country concerned? Can we imagine that if some American planes had difficulty in landing at London Airport the American Ambassador would hold the United Nations responsible? Is it not absolutely clear that the British Government are responsible for everything that happens in the sphere of things under its control? We need above all a clear definition of a single, solitary authority and power who is to be regarded as responsible for the Congo and all Governmental activities in that territory.
Let us recognise that the United Nations was formed, and still remains, as a club of sovereign nations dedicated to the purpose of guarding their sovereignty and not allowing one tittle of it to slip away. In the Korean situation and the Egyptian situation the forces of the U.N. were there not by any right of govern
1344
ment but by invitation of the local Government, which still remained the effective national Government and without any diminution of their authority by the admission of the troops of a number of nations purporting to be also the troops of the United Nations. In this Congo case, however, there is a new situation which we seem to fail to realise is a usurpation by the United Nations of the authority of the local national Government. This is a tremendous danger because this new development could involve the very survival of the United Nations. I was very pleased to see that our Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in the United Nations drew attention only this week to the fact that no small nation in future would ever dare to call in the United Nations if when the United Nations came in it were coming in on this precedent of usurping the right to govern within that nation's territory.
For every reason, then, I urge Her Majesty's Government to pay attention to that early day Motion and solve this problem of ensuring that there be set up a commission who may be an effective Government of the Congo. If order is heaven's first law, the first step in such a first law is to organise clear responsibility, clear authority, and to see that it is matched with power to carry out the responsibility laid upon it.
1.53 p.m.
Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: I wish to support the plea made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse) and also by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Pitman) that attention should be paid by the Government to the early day Motion, No. 34. I do not think any of us has any doubt that the situation in the Congo has shown a remarkably serious position from the point of view of the future of the United Nations and from other points of view as well.
The whole authority, the whole prestige and the idea of the United Nations as a peace-keeping authority has come very much under suspicion in large parts of the world as a result of what has been happening in the Congo. Mr. Hammarskjöld warned us that unless the United Nations has more authority it will be very serious indeed and the whole United Nations enterprise in the Congo may well collapse. In this

1345
morning's newspapers we have the news that the United Nations has failed to do just that which Mr. Hammarskjlöld has been asking for and failed because of its inherent disunity as to what course should be followed. The whole situation is extremely serious from the point of view of the United Nations.
Having regard to the Charter and the possibilities of the United Nations under that Charter, it does not seem that the situation which has arisen is one which might not have been expected. The United Nations as an organisation and institution has many admirable qualities. I should be the very last person to attempt to undermine its authority or to suggest that it is not an excellent institution, in fact the very best that could be produced, the very best that could have been produced when it was produced and indeed may still be the very best that could be produced. Yet we have the situation in which the organisation itself is disunited about what its servants should do. Therefore, its servants have to do the best they can in quite impossible circumstances without proper authority.
In this situation, contingents of troops contributed by members of the United Nations are gradually evaporating and there is very great danger that that tendency may be increased. We have the appalling difficulty of a force having to try to operate when it has not had previous training, or indeed previous existence in which to train. I saw in a newspaper circulating in my constituency a report that the various forces in the Congo are acting on different frequencies of communication. As the Motion urges, we have to try by every possible means to strengthen the United Nations as it exists. I am certainly not going to be one on this occasion who criticises the Government for having notably fallen down in striving towards their objective. I think they have done something quite considerable towards trying to give the United Nations more authority rather than less. That is precisely What I hope they will go on doing with increased vigour.
Until we have a world security authority we shall never be able to cope with this situation, or indeed with many other situations Which are only too likely to arise as a threat to world peace. The United Nations has most admirable
1346
qualities, not least among which is that it provides a forum for the formation and expression of world opinion. Having regard to the limitations of the Charter, that it can deal with real threats to peace and become a peace-keeping authority I beg leave to doubt very much indeed. I do not think it was ever intended for that because, when it was set up, those who set it up did not believe that was a practical proposition. tion.
Now the situation is utterly different. I ask the Government to give very serious consideration to furthering views which individual members of the Government, from the Prime Minister through a whole chain of distinguished Ministers, have frequently expressed. I do not know if the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs is one, but I hope he may be one after this debate. I hope the Government will give effect to the opinions expressed by those Ministers that at the earliest possible opportunity a world authority should be set up. Pure disarmament might prove very difficult to achieve if looked at by itself, but it may be achieved by means of such a world authority.
The suggestion I make is that an authority should be set up through the United Nations and by it, leaving all the present duties and powers—if it has any—and functions of the United Nations intact to be carried on as before. It should set up a security authority consisting of twelve or twenty—I do not know how many—individuals elected by the veto. That is to say, they would be subject to the veto in the Security Council so that an individual elected to that security authority would have the confidence of the world because otherwise he would have been vetoed. I am asking the Government to carry out the opinions of their own Ministers, expressed by the Prime Minister downwards, and to urge the United Nations to pass a statute—if such be the right word—or an agreement, whereby it would be shown in what circumstances a world security authority which it would proceed to set up should act. In other words, a law should be passed according to which the authority should act.
The authority should then be set up. It would then be outside the bounds of

1347
political interference by the Security Council or the Assembly and it would act as our own police at home would act. It would "do its stuff", and anyone who did not like the "stuff" which it was doing would take the matter to court. This brings me to the third branch of the suggestion, namely, that the Government should urge that a world court be set up in order to administer or apply this statute which I urge that the United Nations should pass. The individuals on the court would be elected subject to the veto, and each would therefore have the confidence of the world.
If these three things were done—the statute passed, the security authority set up and the court set up—there would be a least a prospect of security. It might not be complete security but it would be a better prospect of security than ever there has been before. Only when we have such a prospect will sovereign nations, having regard to their duties to their own people, be prepared to consider disarmament. If these suggestions were followed, we should achieve a significant break-through in disarmament in a very short time.
This suggestion is not concerned only with the Congo but is concerned with the possibility of disturbances of peace anywhere in the world. It concerns other circumstances than those of the Congo. But if such a system had been in existence when the Congo problem flared up, and if the world security authority had intervened in accordance with the statute which I have suggested that the United Nations should pass, to keep the peace of the world, how much better off all concerned would have been today. In the meantime, we have not this authority, and the Motion which we are considering is, I submit, the immediate stop which the Government might take to resolve an extremely serious and dangerous situation in the Congo.
2.3 p.m.
Mr. Humphry Berkeley: I agree with a great deal of the speech of the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse), although not with all of it, and I wish to reinforce his plea that the Government should take a new initiative in the United Nations over the
1348
Congo. I believe that our Government are particularly qualified to do this. Indeed, we are probably the only country in the world which at the present time can do this, both because of our links with the Commonwealth countries and also because of our record in Africa.
In considering what this initiative should be, we should bear in mind two basic facts which affect the interests of Africa and of ourselves. In the first place, I am sure that we should remember that fragmentation is the great danger in the newly independent African countries. We saw signs of this in Ghana after Ghana had achieved independence. There are dangers, fortunately not very great, I think, of fragmentation in Nigeria. We saw the immediate and obvious example in the Congo, with the secession of the breakaway province of Katanga. I am certain that it must be the Government's policy in the United Nations to do all they can to retain the unity of the Congo.
Secondly, we ought to be guided in our policy by a recognition of the fact that it is in the interests not only of the peoples of Africa but also basically of the peoples of the West that Africa should remain an uncommitted Continent and that, in particular, we should do all that we possibly can to see that any aid given in the Congo is given through United Nations auspices.
At times I have been severely critical of the rôle played by Dr. Nkrumah of Ghana in the Congo crisis. I think that he has betrayed a certain degree of naïveté at times, and I also believe that it is not satisfactory, on the one hand, to commit one's troops to United Nations command and then, on the other, continually to threaten to withdraw them if the United Nations is not prepared to do at that precise moment exactly what one wants them to do. Nevertheless, it must be recognised that the prime aim in Dr. Nkrumah's mind is that the Congo should be isolated from world power politics, and at the back of everything which he has suggested, however impracticable and foolish it may seem to be, there is a very genuine desire to avoid any possibility of Russian intervention in the Congo.
This is something which, I believe, we are able to understand because of our

1349
record in Africa but which the Americans have found very difficult to understand. For example, the observation by Mr. Herter that Ghana had clearly gone over to the Communist camp was not only profoundly inaccurate and betraying complete ignorance of the current politics of Africa, but it was also extremely damaging in trying to secure a solution to a highly explosive problem. When we add to that the efforts which the American Government made in the United Nations to secure recognition of President Kasavubu's mission, it is not altogether surprising that the African States, or many of them, feel that the Congo is being used by certain Western Powers as a pawn in a game which will secure them some political domination and political control.
The basic fact which we must face in the Congo is that if the West and the neutralist Powers can come together, a solution can be reached. This is why, in the early stages, a degree of success was possible in United Nations intervention. Equally, we must recognise that if the United Nations fails the only person who can gain from that failure is Mr. Khrushchev. I do not want to go into the question of Mr. Lumumba's position, except to say that it is at least arguable that he is the legitimate Prime Minister of the Congo. I think that the arguments are extremely complicated and extremely dubious, but one thing is clear beyond any doubt, and that is that the régime of Colonel Mobutu has no legal validity whatever. Even if we regard Mr. Lumumba, as I think it would be fair to regard him, only as one of a number of tribal leaders, we must recognise that, however unsatisfactory he may appear to be to us—and I, for one, find him profoundly unsatisfactory—it will almost certainly be impossible to secure any agreement in the Congo without his participation in any discussions which take place.
It would be quite wrong for us to fall for the blackmailing activities of Dr. Nkrumah when he suggests that the United Nations should restore Mr. Lumumba to the Premiership, but equally it must be recognised that if we are to take the initiative and to try to bring the Congolese leaders together, Mr. Lumumba must be released from gaol. Even the Nigerians, our closest and most conservative African friends,
1350
have been outraged by his treatment. He must be released, and he must be included in any discussions which take place.
I believe that our Government are specially qualified to bring a new initiative to bear on this appalling chaos in the Congo. I would further suggest that our Prime Minister might personally bring his unique reputation, prestige and experience to bear to try to solve this problem. The Prime Minister is known to be on excellent terms with Dr. Nkrumah, with Mr. Nehru and with Sir Abubakar Balewa. These three personalities could, I believe, play a key rôle in any initiative that might take place.
In the first place, we have to try to convene a round-table conference, preferably outside the Congo and ideally in New York, of the various contending factions inside the Congo. Ultimately, after that has been done, we have to see to it that proper provisions are made under United Nations protection for the Congolese Parliament to meet. I am absolutely clear in my own mind, from my own experience and travels in Africa, that Africans throughout the continent attach a great importance to legitimacy so far as Governments are concerned. If it is recognised that an Army officer, however distinguished, can seize power without any constitutional backing at all, and can do this with the tacit support of the United Nations, I believe that the faith which the African people may have in the United Nations as an organisation will be destroyed.
I leave the House with three basic thoughts. First of all, our task is to get the West and the uncommitted nations together. If we can do this we can isolate the Soviet bloc. Secondly, we must recognise that if the United Nations fails, the attempt to keep Africa out of world power politics will have collapsed. Thirdly, if the United Nations is to succeed it must have a constitutional and effective Government to work with. That has been half the reason, I believe, for the chaos in the last few months. If our Government, and, preferably, our Prime Minister, can bring their efforts to bear to solve this problem, not only shall we have completed a great task for the Congolese people but we shall also have created a new chapter in the history of the United Nations and the

1351
part it can play in dealing with the problems of these newly developing and highly volatile countries.
2.13 p.m.
Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: I find myself in very warm agreement with almost everything that has fallen from the lips of the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mr. Berkeley). In his remarkable speech he urged that our Government were better placed than any other to take a new initiative. I cordially agree. I believe over the last few months we have, perhaps, compromised our ability to carry Africans and others with us, but we can recover. The hon. Gentleman said that the unity of the Congo must be an overriding aim. I agree. He said that Africa must not be brought into the power of conflict, or into the cold war. Nothing can be more important for Britain, for our interests abroad, and for the world. I agree with the hon. Member that it was a disastrous mistake—a cold war mistake—to seat the Kasavubu delegation in the General Assembly, as the United States insisted should be done.
I will make a few observations on the unity of the Congo based on personal conversations with people who have come back from the Congo since the trouble began. I was in Geneva in July and someone who had just returned said that he had heard a leading figure in the Union Miniére say that, of course, they had supported Tsombe's movement for the independence of Katanga. I thought that was very sinister, and I think it is a matter of grave regret that the Belgians, for whom I have a high regard, have pursued a policy of sending back people to the Congo to work against the United Nations.
I believe that our Government have not done enough to assist the Secretary-General in his demand that the resolution of the Security Council should be observed, that all aid and technical experts should be channelled through the United Nations, and that the Belgians should cease what they have been doing. I hope very much indeed that our Government will now tell our delegate at the United Nations, and tell our Ambassador in the Congo and the Belgian Government in Brussels, that we expect it to comply with the Security
1352
Council resolution; I hope that we shall say that in no uncertain terms. It is not good enough to go on drifting because the Belgians are our N.A.T.O. allies.
I am afraid that we have failed in not giving adequate support to the United Nations in other ways. I believe that, again on the basis of personal conversations with people who have been there, but I quote from Mr. Colin Legum who wrote in the Observer on 11th December:
"Right from its inception Congolese politicians have attacked the U.N.O. in the Congo when they thought they could not get united support for themselves."
Lumumba did it when he was Prime Minister and Mobutu is doing it now.
"Their attitude is at least more understandable than that of several Western Diplomats who spend their time criticising the United Nations and sneering at the people who are running it."
Mr. Legum says of Mr. Dayal:
"The idea that he is following 'an Indian line', put about especially by American observers, is about as absurd as the Russian view of Mr. Dayal's predecessor, Mr. Ralph Bunche, as an 'American imperialist'."
I believe that we must again take a strong line on that, and I hope that the Government will give urgent instructions to their representatives in the Congo to cease whatever they may have been doing in that way and to urge upon all others that they should give the fullest support to Mr. Dayal and his colleagues. It is no use talking about the United Nations, as people so often do, as though we were not part of it ourselves. We have a major responsibility and a major interest in its success.
I agree with the hon. Member for Lancaster that Colonel Mobutu's régime is not the kind of régime to which the United Nations can give its support. Mr. Dayal spoke a little while ago in a report to New York of Mobutu's illegal and arbitrary acts and said that they were one of the greatest menaces to the objectives of the United Nations operations in the Congo. Mr. Hammarskjöld backed him up. The Belgians refused to take any notice and the Americans immediately rallied to their support. We should back Mr. Dayal and Mr. Hammarskjöld, whatever the Americans may do.
I agree with the hon. Member's view of what is the right solution. I believe

1353
that we should now resummon the so-called Congolese Parliament. It was elected and we should resummon it. We opposed that for a long time. I understand now from the latest news from the General Assembly that we have come round to that view. I believe that we should call together a constitutional conference with all the leaders of the different movements in the Congo; everybody from Lumumba to Tsombe.
I believe that this could be done. Above all—this is where a vital change is necessary in our Government's policy—we should stop approaching this in the spirit of the cold war. We ought immediately to co-ordinate our action with that of India and Ghana, with Mr. Nehru and Mr. Nkrumah. If necessary, it would be worth a journey by the Prime Minister to New York to take part in a special meeting of the Security Council, to which Mr. Nehru and Mr. Nkrumah could come, in order that a new start may be made.
Mr. Pitman: The right hon. Member said in effect that a great deal of action should be taken in the Congo. My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Mr. Berkeley) said that Mr. Lumumba should be released. Which is the exact authority, which is in effect the Government, which would take those actions in the Congo about which the right hon. Gentleman has spoken? I do not understand that.
Mr. Noel-Baker: I would summon Parliament and ask it to take the action.
Mr. Pitman: Who is Parliament and is it ever a Government?
Mr. Noel-Baker: The President, of course. Nobody denies that Kasavubu is the President of the Congo and has the power to summon Parliament. We should urge him to do it.
2.21 p.m.
The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. J. B. Godber): I think that last question exemplifies the difficulties with which we are faced. However, I am very glad that we have this opportunity on the last day before the Christmas Recess of debating this very important topic. I am grateful to those hon. Members who have spoken.
All of us in the House are very anxious about the position in the Congo. There is no difference whatever between
1354
us on that. The Congo is still in the state of protracted crisis which has endured ever since it became independent last July. The difficulties under which the United Nations has been working there have been formidable indeed.
The task of the United Nations has not been made easier by destructive and ill-intentioned efforts to impugn the Secretary-General's motives and undermine his authority. The General Assembly has now ended its debate, as hon. Members will have seen from this morning's Press, without agreeing on any resolution. However, I emphasise that the debate at least showed that the majority of the members of the United Nations is firmly behind the Secretary-General in his efforts.
An effective civil administration over the whole of the Congo has yet to be established, though some progress towards this has been made under the authority of Mr. Kasavubu. In Katanga and Kasai the provincial authorities are still functioning independently of the centre. Some hon. Members have referred to the very pressing difficulty of fragmentation.
More recently, a dangerous and disquieting situation has developed in the Orientale Province where followers of Mr. Lumumba have purported to set up a rival centre of Government from that in Leopoldville and have been making brutal and irresponsible gestures of menace against the European population.
The United Nations authorities themselves have found it very difficult to work in proper harmony and co-operation with the Congolese authorities. Finally, certain States have threated to loosen the whole basis of the United Nations effort by withdrawing their contingents from the United Nations force.
This is a most serious matter which needs clearing up. The countries concerned have stated that they will remove their troops from the United Nations force, but so far they have made no move actually to withdraw them from the Congo and there seem to be no arrangements for providing for that to be effected. We very much hope that they will reconsider their attitude and will leave their troops under United Nations command. But the status and

1355
functions of these troops in the Congo should, and indeed must, be left beyond doubt.
The scale on which the United Nations has been engaged in the Congo and the problems which it is meeting there are perhaps greater in scope than anything it has done before. The need to ensure that it does not fail in this enterprise is correspondingly great. Failure could be not only of dire consequence to the people of the Congo, and consequently to the whole future development of this important area of Africa, but a grievous blow to the standing and future efficacy of the United Nations Organisation itself.
In confronting these problems in the Congo our general objectives have from the beginning been constant. I will re-emphasise them to the House. They are those which I hope that the majority of the members of the United Nations are also following. First, we want to see conditions achieved in which the Congolese Republic can develop properly in peace and security as a united and independent State within its present frontiers. For this, the first requirement must clearly be to restore law and order and to fill the economic, technical and administrative vacuum which resulted from the disorder and breakdown of Government following the mutiny in the Force Publique last July. It is the very difficult problem of restoring law and order in which we all become involved when we start talking, as we naturally wish to talk, about the need for a proper constitutional authority and a recall of Parliament.
Secondly, we want to keep the Congo free from unwelcome interference from outside powers and prevent it becoming an arena in the cold war. What has been said today re-emphasises that.
Mr. A. Fenner Brockway: While Mr. Khrushchev and Russia were undoubtedly responsible in the first stages for bringing the cold war to the Congo, since Mr. Dayal's report, which Britain and America have totally failed to endorse, and since the British and American support of Mr. Kasavubu as a representative in the General Assembly, has not the tendency been for the West to bring the cold war to the Congo?
Mr. Godber: I refute that. It is not so, for reasons which I shall hope to show in the course of my remarks. Our whole position has been that we do not wish to back any particular organisation. All we want to see is some authoritative régime arise in the Congo. Mr. Kasavubu is the only one left now who one can say has any shred of authority.
As I was saying, we want to keep the Congo free from unwelcome interference. The danger of this was fully shown during the time when Mr. Lumumba was in power, when Soviet aircraft and other equipment were sent to the Congo outside the framework of the United Nations effort and were used to further plans for invading Katanga. There seems also little reason to doubt that Mr. Lumumba's henchmen in Stanleyville would look in the same direction for help if they had the chance.
The third objective, in a more limited field but of more direct and immediate importance to us, is that of ensuring the safety of British lives and property in the Congo.
In pursuing these objectives we have been guided by the principle that we must primarily rely upon and give support to the United Nations presence and effort in the Congo. Though we have a direct interest in the stability of the area because of the British Territories bordering it, we do not believe that any kind of intervention or unilateral effort to guide its affairs would be justified. This is the nub of the problem.
I must mention, although it has not been mentioned in the House today, that there have been some wild and fantastic allegations in various quarters that we have been seeking to bring the Congo under our control or to return it to some kind of colonial status, and in particular that we have been giving money and arms to Colonel Mobutu for this purpose.
I say with all the emphasis at my command that these accusations are wholly unfounded. I am glad that they have not been supported in any way in the House. But because they have been made I have thought it right to refute them from the Dispatch Box. Throughout, we have given, and continue to give, full support to the United Nations effort. We have contributed substantially to Mr. Hammarskjöld's emergency fund and

1357
have provided aircraft for moving and supplying the Ghanaian contingent of the United Nations force.
The real rôle of the United Nations authorities has been, since the beginning, to assist the Congolese people in solving their problems. The resolution on which the presence of the United Nations force is founded speaks of giving military assistance to the Congolese Government in restoring law and order. The rôle of the United Nations civil operation is to supplement with technical assistance the efforts of the Congolese authorities to administer the country and order its economy.
The independence of the Congo is an accomplished and recognised fact. The Congo's relation with the United Nations is that of a sovereign member of the organisation. There can be no going back on Congolese independence; and the United Nations cannot, in terms of its mandate, exercise anything in the nature of tutelage or trusteeship. It could help the Congolese people towards a solution of their internal political problems and, indeed, we hope it willô but it cannot impose a solution of these problems. That, again, is the difficulty one comes up against in trying to make suggestions, as the right hon. Gentleman did, quite genuinely, to meet their difficulties.
This principle is made clear in the Security Council resolution of 9th August which
"Reaffirms that the United Nations Force in the Congo will not be a party to or in any way intervene in or be used to influence the outcome of any internal conflict, constitutional or otherwise."
The right hon. Gentleman asked us to live up to that resolution; I ask him to remember those words. We believe that it is a correct principle, and it is that which the Secretary-General has faithfully been trying to carry out. These internal political issues are essentially for the Congolese people themselves to work out. They must be given both time and all the help they need to do this.
I think that it is in this light that we must view the suggestions that are now being made by some members of the United Nations—indeed, there have been echoes of them in the House—that the United Nations should pursue certain
1358
courses of action which would amount to invading directly the internal sovereignty of the Congolese Republic and virtually trying to run the political life of the country.
Some of these suggestions were included in the resolution of Ghana and Yugoslavia and other countries, to which the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse) referred when he asked me specifically about action in that respect. I have to tell him that we voted against that resolution and, because it is important, I shall seek in some detail to tell him why. I do not know whether the hon. Member has seen the actual terms of the resolution, but I will deal with the relevant points.
It included, for example, a suggestion that the United Nations should take action to secure the release of Mr. Lumumba. This is clearly a matter of internal jurisdiction for the Congolese authorities themselves. If what I have said up to now has any validity, that point must be accepted, and that is the danger in people talking in such a way, as it is so easy to do—
Mr. Stonehouse: But does the hon. Gentleman accept the authority of any one other than Colonel Mobutu?
Mr. Godber: I will come to that—I am trying to deal with these things one at a time.
It seems that charges including rebellion against the Head of State, corruption, incitement to terrorism, the illegal distribution of arms and planning to set up an insurrectionary Government in Stanleyville have been made against Mr. Lumumba, and that in the view of the Congolese authorities—
Mr. Stonehouse: And of Colonel Mobutu.
Mr. Godber: I am merely recording what has been done and said—Parliamentary immunity would not apply to an indictment of that kind. This is a matter which we must leave to them.
On the other hand, we recognise, and share, the concern that has been shown that all political leaders held under arrest in the Congo should be treated humanely, and in accordance with the rule of law. We have tried to see that this principle is recommended, both in the Resolution

1359
that we supported in the recent debate in the Security Council and in that which we sponsored in the General Assembly—which, amongst other things, suggested that the International Red Cross should examine the conditions under which detained persons were held.
This would apply, not only to Mr. Lumumba, about whose treatment the Congolese authorities have already given some assurances—and, incidentally, he has been allowed to see his doctor—but also to the Congolese Members of Parliament who should equally be considered, who are held in Stanleyville by Mr. Lumumba's followers—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am glad to hear hon. Members say "Hear, hear"; I have not heard that before. There have been disquieting reports about these being maltreated, and one of them, Mr. Songolo, may lose the sight of both eyes as the result of what has been done to him. I ask hon. Members to remember that.
It has been further suggested that Belgian advisers and technicians should be withdrawn from the Congo. I think that there has been a good deal of misunderstanding about this, and it is a point of which hon. Members have made a great deal. The original Security Council resolution called upon the Government of Belgium to withdraw its troops from the Congo, and this was regarded as necessary because of the situation at the time and because the Congolese Government were insisting upon it. The Belgian Government acquiesced in that.
Following the disorders of July, large numbers of Belgians, both in business in the Congo and in the service of the Congolese administration, fled the country, leaving its economy and administration in a desperate state of hiatus. Belgian civilians have now returned, both in a private capacity to resume their business and in the employ of the Congolese authorities at their request.
It has never been our impression that the United Nations effort was intended to prevent the Congolese authorities from making arrangements with Belgian civilians to work in the Congo, any more than that there is anything wrong in British civilians working in the ex-
1360
Colonial Territories. This is particularly the case where these people are Congo civil servants or indispensable technicians returning to their posts. Nor was it our impression that it meant that the Congo should forego the particular contribution that those technicians and officials can make because of their experience in the country. The main necessity seems to be a practical one of co-ordinating this contribution with what is being done by the United Nations and of ensuring that all concerned work together in harmony.
Another proposal, which would, in fact, amount to the United Nations virtually taking over governmental responsibility in the Congo, is that the Congolese Army should be disarmed—
Mr. Denis Healey: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but before leaving the question of the Belgian personnel, may I ask how many are with Colonel Mobutu's commissioners? We have raised this matter several times in the House. As the hon. Gentleman is already aware, Mr. Dayal, in his report in, I think, November, listed a large number of occasions on which the activities of the United Nations in the Congo had been flagrantly interfered with and prejudiced by Belgians attached to those whom the hon. Gentleman calls the "Congolese authorities". Can the hon. Gentleman say whether Her Majesty's Government have taken any action whatever on this very large number of charges that have been made against Belgian personnel by the United Nations High Commissioner?
Mr. Godber: We have, of course, discussed matters arising from this in the United Nations with many of the other representatives there. We have discussed it, of course. We are anxious to see that such Belgians as go back shall play an effective and full part, and shall certainly not inconvenience or incommode the United Nations in any way—that would be wholly contrary to our view, and we have made that clear. But it is not for us to say what the Congolese authorities should do in regard to people within their territory. Otherwise, we would be infringing on the principles that I have so far tried to set out in relation to the attitude of the United Nations in the Congo—
Mr. P. Noel-Baker: But have the British Government made a strong protest in Brussels in support of Mr. Dayal?
Mr. Godber: I do not think that Brussels is the apropriate place for any comment at all. The United Nations in New York, which is where Mr. Dayal's report was made, is obviously the place to discuss these matters.
Mr. Noel-Baker: With great respect, we ought, of course, to support Mr. Dayal in the Security Council and in the Assembly, and I ask the Minister to explain how much we have done there. However, if we want the policy of the United Nations to succeed, we have obviously also to speak very bluntly in Brussels.
Mr. Pitman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not really out of order to suggest that a request should be made to the Belgian Government about something that is clearly the responsibility of the Congo Government—[Interruption.] It is the responsibility of the Congo Government if anybody resident in that area is doing anything that is illegal or improper. The frustration of this debate comes from this wretched impersonal passive, where everyone says that Mr. Lumumba should be released, but refuses to say which is to be the Government that will release him, and also should deal with the protest from the United Nations, which should be lodged by the United Nations with that Government, and not with any other Government.
Mr. Stonehouse: Further to that point of order, this point arises directly out of Ambassador Dayal's report to the United Nations General Secretary, which made allegations against Belgium that Belgian civilians and military personnel were undermining the authority of the United Nations in the Congo. Surely, it is legitimate for us to ask the Minister what steps Her Majesty's Government have taken to protest against this Belgian interference in United Nations operations, and not merely to discuss it?
Mr. Speaker: I have not heard anything out of order, but I have heard two speeches which seem to me to be rather wandering away from the subject of order.
Mr. Godber: I, too, was wondering where the point of order arose. I have
1362
made the position entirely clear. In fact, so far as Her Majesty's Government are concerned, we feel that such discussions of the Dayal report as take place should take place in New York, and we have been involved in those discussions. I have made the position quite clear as to what we have done.
I was going on to talk about the position of the Congolese Army. I have said that the suggestion was made that it should be disarmed. Whatever its shortcomings, the army seems Ito be a potential factor of stability in the State, and the only instrument in the hands of the Congolese authorities for maintaining law and order. The United Nations authorities themselves have been engaged in training it for this purpose. Any attempt to disarm it would be liable to throw the Congo back into total confusion, and to produce an armed cnflict between the United Nations force and the Congolese, which could destroy the whole basis of the United Nations effort. People have to face up to this fact. They tend to talk round them, but these are the facts.
Mr. Julius Silverman: But who pays for this army? We agree with the hon. Gentleman in acquitting this Government, but somebody is paying for it. Could he tell us who is paying?
Mr. Godber: No, I am afraid I could not. I assume that it is paid for out of Congolese revenues, but I do not know. I have assured the House that the British Government have no part in that at all, and certainly no responsibility for it. This is a position which has to be faced, and I do not believe that we could possibly countenance and certainly not support the disarming of this army.
Another suggestion, and this again was contained in the particular resolution to which I have referred, was that the United Nations should secure an immediate meeting of the Congolese Parliament. That has been a proposition of the kind that we would naturally support—the principle of parliamentary Government—and it would be difficult for me to do otherwise, but I should like to think that all the countries which are now so energetically proposing its application to the Congo were themselves as closely linked to parliamentary government as we are. Be that as it may, a

1363
properly established government in the Congo must eventually rest upon parliament, where the constitutional decisions will be taken and ratified. There is no disagreement between us on that. But to be effective, the parliament would have to be fully representative, and members from all parts of the Congo would have to feel free to attend and to express their views. This would require a better climate than now obtains. It seems to us, therefore, that there must first be some practical steps to ensure these more favourable conditions.
The prime need is for a working Congolese authority which can carry on the day-to-day administration of the country, co-operate with the United Nations and bring the secessionist elements into contact with the centre, thus making some progress towards securing the unity of the Congo by peaceful means
Mr. Kasavubu, whose position as President is generally accepted as the only constitutional authority there is in the Congo—he has been accepted by the United Nations in that capacity—seems to be the obvious starting point for this. The authorities at present acting under his aegis are already exercising some administrative responsibility. He also proposes to call a round table conference, which seems to offer an opportunity both to make a start on a constitutional settlement and to lay the foundations of a properly established government. He has already met the secessionist leaders of Katanga and Kasai in Brazzaville, and it is planned to hold further meetings in the New Year. It would seem better to build on this foundation rather than to throw everything back into confusion once more. But the decision on these constitutional matters must, as I have said, rest with the Congolese themselves, though I would emphasise the need for positive action without delay. We hope that the present visit of members of the Conciliation Commission appointed by the United Nations Advisory Committee will help this process along.
It is along these lines of progress towards a properly established civilian authority which can preserve the independence and unity of the Congo, of application of the rule of law, of continued support for the United Nations
1364
effort in its task of keeping the peace and helping the Congolese towards these objectives that our policy in the United Nations is based. This is reflected in the resolution which we sponsored in the General Assembly, which was voted on yesterday. I do not for one moment deny or ignore the difficulties, but I am sure that the path we are following is the only feasible one. The consequences of allowing the United Nations effort to fail are only too easy to imagine.
I think that the best way in which I can conclude my speech is by quoting from what my right hon. Friend the Minister of State said in the United Nations as recently as last Saturday during the course of his speech on the Congo, in which he said:
"At no stage in the Congo tragedy have we sought any national advantage. We have not criticised individual political leaders in the Congo. We have not intervened in Congolese internal affairs. What we have done is to give tangible and whole-hearted support to the United Naitons effort. We will continue to do so with the sole objective of bringing stability and prosperity to the suffering people of the Congo and of ensuring that the United Nations itself performs its task in a manner worthy of it."
That is the spirit in which, on both sides of the House, we should go forward and that is the way in which it should be applied, because of the obscurities in the situation. I ask the House to recognise the very real difficulties and also to realise that the Government have done their best.
Mr. Healey: May I ask one question, which was put several times in the course of debate from both sides of the House? It has been remarked by many Members that the United Nations has failed to give any new directives to its representatives in the Congo, primarily because there is an estrangement between the Western Powers and some of the Afro-Asian countries on the one hand and some other Afro-Asian countries on the other. Are Her Majesty's Government planning to take any steps in order that this estrangement may be brought to an end in order to get some new decision by the United Nations which will permit United Nations representatives in the Congo to act more effectively than they are now permitted to do?
Mr. Godber: I am sorry; I thought I had dealt with that in reference to the

1365
resolution, to which I referred several times, and which we sponsored and was voted on yesterday in the United Nations. [An HON. MEMBER: "It was defeated."] It was not defeated. It did not succeed in getting the necessary two-thirds majority, but it failed by only one vote. That is the way in which we hope we can bridge this difficulty. It was a very moderate resolution and we are naturally disappointed that it did not achieve a two-thirds majority. We felt that this was a means of making progress, and I assure the House that we are as anxious as hon. Members opposite in our objective. As we have failed once in our efforts, we must try again.

STATE SCHOLARSHIPS
2.48 p.m.
Mrs. Eirene White: I can well understand the desire of many hon. Members to take more time to debate the most important subject of the situation in the Congo, and I am only sorry that it had to be dealt with on a day like this when, instead, it should have had a great deal more time. However, as we are now running thirty-three minutes behind schedule, I will turn at once to the next subject, which is that of State scholarships.
I do so because we had an important announcement on this matter from the Minister of Education in the last debate on education on 7th November. At that time the Minister announced that the Government were proposing to make some modifications in the income scale of university awards. He announced a principle, with which we on this side of the House are in full agreement, namely, that in future any student who obtains at least two "A" level passes in the examination for the General Certificate of Education and also a place at a university will be eligible for an award.
The Minister then went on to say that as from the summer of 1962 no further awards of State scholarships would be made. The State scholarship system as we know it now would cease to be. He said no more about it. He did not argue the point, or say which of the arguments in favour of it in the Anderson Report he accepted or which ones he was doubtful about. He simply made the bald statement, and he proceeded to say that in addition to abolishing State scholarships, in future, winners of open scholarships and other university prizes are to be allowed to retain up to £100 a year. He amplified this to the extent of saying:
"We want something to happen as a result of that last decision. We very much hope we shall quickly see the foundation of scholarships at provincial universities. Such scholarships have hitherto been of little interest to benefactors, since the prize money would have led to a reduction in the award from the Ministry. In future, if a scholarship is founded the money will be kept by the scholar."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th November, 1960; Vol. 629, c. 680.]
It seems to us that this subject is of sufficient importance to ask for a very much fuller explanation from the Parliamentary Secretary than we had from

1367
the Minister on that occasion. I am making no complaint about the Minister not having gone into the matter more fully then, because we were discussing many other matters, but this subject is of extreme interest to schools, universities and scholars themselves.
It was dealt with in some detail in the Anderson Report, which devoted the whole of Chapter 4 to the question and came to a certain conclusion. It is also touched upon in a note of reservation by Professor Brinley Thomas, who disagreed with his colleagues on this matter. The main body of opinion on the Anderson Committee came to the conclusion that the State scholarship system had outlived its usefulness, and in its report it used rather picturesque language when it said:
"This complex system has now become stranded, like some prehistoric creature, in a world for which its qualities are no longer fitted."
Professor Brinley Thomas took up the cudgels particularly in favour of the scholars from smaller grammar schools in this country, and he also used picturesque language in his note of reservation. He said:
"The abolition of state scholarships will make university and college scholarships the sole peaks of prestige surrounded by a flat plain of local authority awards."
We should discuss the differences of viewpoint which underly these two statements.
In order to enlighten any hon. Members who are not familiar with the very complicated system of State scholarships, I should explain that at present there are four types of State scholarship. There are the ordinary ones, the ones which are supplemental to awards made by universities and other bodies, a small number of technical State scholarships, and scholarships for mature students. I shall deal with the last type later on. The scholars with wham I am particularly concerned today are the ordinary State scholars who obtain their award as a result of their G.C.E. "A" level and "S" level examinations. At the moment the target figure for these is about 1,850 each year. As some fall by the wayside or obtain other awards which are supplemented, the number allotted is rather more than 2,000 in any one year. The method of award is that a certain num
1368
ber of scholarships is allotted by the Ministry to the nine bodies which conduct the G.C.E. examinations throughout the country, in proportion to the number of candidates in their regions who have been entered for two or more "A" level subjects.
The interesting thing to note about this is that although the precise requirements for State scholarships vary in detail between the nine examining bodies they are all governed by the Regulations laid down by the Minister, and they are all very much higher than the two "A" level passes now to be taken as the standard for local authority awards. In other words, our State scholars have had demands made upon them which have not been made in respect of local authority awards and, as we understand it, will not be made in respect of them in future. There has therefore been a recognition of extra ability and academic achievement.
It is also true that, generally speaking, the State scholars in their subsequent academic careers have done better than the holders of ordinary local authority education awards. Nevertheless, in recent years, with greater uniformity and scaling up of the ordinary local education authority awards, the State scholars have had virtually no financial advantage; it has been a matter of acknowledgement of academic achievement and excellence. As the Anderson Report, in paragraph 74, says:
"In short, the financial rewards attaching to state scholarships are no longer any better than those attaching to the general run of local awards and a case can no longer exist for maintaining state scholarships as a means of setting a standard of emoluments; this function has been swallowed up in the development of the awards system as a whole."
Incidentally, it points out that State scholarships are not generally awarded in Scotland, and it gives that as one reason for the proposed abolition. I could suggest, in passing, that the standard of achievement in Scotland might be even higher than it is if State scholarships were awarded there.
I accept the statement that State scholarships are no longer needed simply to supply the basic necessities of academic life. That is no longer their function; we have caught up with that. We should now ask ourselves whether there is another function for which

1369
State scholarships should nevertheless be retained. I believe that there is; I believe that the principle of some extra incentive—provided that we have made the necessary minimum provision for everybody who is capable of qualifying at a reasonable level—has a real value. I am fortified in this opinion by the comments on the proposal to abolish State scholarships made by certain associations who also feel that some incentive is worth while. Professor Brinley Thomas made this point cogently in his note of reservation. The Headmistresses' Association has also come out strongly in favour of retaining State scholarships on this basis, and the Headmasters' Association, while not suggesting that we should continue with the same procedure, is also in favour of retaining some kind of comparable incentive to the State scholarship.
There is no doubt at all that for a boy or girl of outstanding intelligence there is a very strong case to be made for encouraging the stretching of that intelligence and the work which should go with it to the utmost. For the able boy or girl, I feel that this is a thoroughly healthy thing to do. Like anything else, of course, it is open to abuse, but, properly handled, this idea that one should have something to aim at which really stretches one's powers is worth while and should be encouraged. It is something which should lead to the general maintenance of a higher standard of academic ability in the schools and subsequently, on the foundations there built, in the universities.
If this is so, I must take issue with the contention of the Anderson Committee which, in paragraph 83 of its Report, said that
"it would be wrong to make from public funds additional or 'bonus' payments to a particular class of award holder … the maximum value of an award should be enough to cover a student's assessed needs but none should look to the taxpayer or ratepayer for the payment of sums above this maximum."
I do not accept that as a matter of principle. It may be a matter of expediency, and one must look at the other possibilities, but as a matter of principle I contest it. If it is granted that incentives of the kind I have described would have the general effect of improving the standard of academic excellence in schools and universities, it
1370
seems to me that this is a perfectly proper field in which public money should, with discretion, be employed. Therefore, I do not accept the principle enunciated in that paragraph. It does not seem to me to be a matter of principle at all. If the incentive is a valuable one, then it is, I should have thought, necessary to support it out of public money, and the question whether it is or is not required becomes a matter of judgment and expediency in relation to any other provision which may be made in the matter.
The question whether the State scholarships should not be completely abolished but should be brought within the proposal that a certain amount of money should be kept by the scholar should be looked at in the light of the existing and potential provision. The Minister in making his statement, and the Anderson Committee itself in paragraph 87 of its Report, suggested that if one allowed the scholars concerned to keep, as they are not at present allowed to keep, emoluments from awards other than State scholarships, even though scholars might be obtaining a certain amount of maintenance from public funds, that would be such an encouragement to benefactors that provision from public funds would not be required. Not only would the existing endowments be more attractive because people would be allowed to keep a certain amount but also benefactors would be encouraged to add to the number of scholarships available.
In the hope that you might select this subject, Mr. Speaker, I took the trouble to write to the registrars of several provincial universities. I express my gratitude to them for their kindness. They were good enough to send me a great deal of information about the position at the universities other than Oxford, Cambridge and London. I did not attempt to guage the situation at those three universities because I thought that it would be too complex and in any case they are sufficiently strong magnets and they have sufficient endowments, I think, to be of less importance in this matter.
I found, as I expected, that in the provincial universities of England and Wales there is considerable disparity in the amount of endowment available.

1371
Some colleges are reasonably well endowed and they have a fairly large number of entrance scholarships, while others have very little indeed. Manchester, for instance, is fairly well endowed and even some of the relatively smaller universities, for reasons of history or local patriotism, are fairly well endowed, but, at the other end of the scale, Swansea, for instance, has only six very modest entrance awards and the University College of North Staffordshire at Keele has none at all. There is a very wide range in the existing universities and a considerable disparity between what one or another can offer to prospective students.
There is also a very considerable disparity between the number of awards at the disposal of the university and the number of State scholars who are studying there at present. In other words, there are some universities which cannot offer very much relatively in the way of entrance awards but which are extremely popular among State scholars and therefore have at present many people of academic distinction studying there. To give one example, the University of Bristol can offer 33 entrance scholarships or exhibitions, although they are relatively modest. The scholarships are £50 a year and the exhibitions only £40 a year. But it has currently 340 State scholars. Some of them may be taking more than a three-year course, but about 100 State scholars a year choose to study at Bristol. There will be no additional recognition in future unless Bristol is able to obtain a great deal of benefaction.
What are the prospects of extra money being available to the universities to offer some incentive awards to people who would now be State scholars? Again I contacted the registrars. I was able to obtain only their personal opinion, but I found very few who were in the least optimistic that the suggestion of the Minister would be fulfilled. They pointed out that there are at the moment very large building appeals for new universities as well as for existing universities. They also pointed out that the industrialists who finance a certain number of scholarships will certainly not alter the basis of these scholarships as long as a parental means test remains.
1372
The object of many industrial scholarships is to provide the wherewithal for parents who get nothing from public funds and who are not likely to get anything while the parental means test remains, even in a modified form. It is also true to say that, on the whole, the industrial benefactors favour science rather than arts students and men rather than women. Therefore, if we are to rely on future benefactions we must recognise that there will be these discrepancies which I have mentioned. Some areas will be more favoured than others and it is likely that they will be weighted in favour of science and men students.
In addition, if State scholarships are abolished and incentives are increased in the universities which are well endowed, students will be attracted from the colleges which are less well endowed to those which are better endowed even more than they are at present. There is, of course, the flow towards Oxford and Cambridge, but it will be the business of the headmaster or headmistress to advise boys and girls to look round to see which "Redbrick" colleges have good endowments and to suggest that their students should try there rather than at other places.
There will be this shopping around, not merely for entrance, but also for awards. Once a person is allowed to keep up to £100 per annum of an award, it becomes something which is well worth trying for and there will be extra strain on pupils in the schools, not merely to try to secure entrance, but to try to get awards in places where the largest awards are available. Many of us believe that that can be a thoroughly unhealthy proceeding, especially for pupils from smaller schools which have not as good lines of communication to the universities and colleges as the large endowed schools and grammar schools, which are accustomed to sending each year large numbers of students to the universities.
It seems to me, therefore, that the premise on which both the Minister and the Anderson Committee are working is at least questionable that there will be, in anything like the near future, certainly not by 1962, a considerable increase in the number of benefactions. At present, they are very unevenly spread, both in

1373
incidence and in amount, and it seems quite unreasonable that at the same time as allowing up to £100 a year to be kept out of existing awards, the Minister should abolish altogether the State scholarships.
My proposal to the Minister is that the matter should be reconsidered and that a number of State scholarships should still be available for children from all over the country, although they would be of particular value to those from the small grammar schools. At the same time as the ceiling is being raised on what may be kept from other awards, the State scholars should be allowed to have over and above their maintenance, which will be available to anybody else, a sum, I suggest, of about £50. A ceiling of £100 would be too high. What is wanted is a rather small sum, just a matter of recognition, for which I should say that £50 all round would be adequate, with the proviso, which already exists, of the once-for-all maximum of £100 permitted as a prize for somebody of outstanding merit and not as a regular maintenance award. This would be a much healthier approach to the whole question of State scholarships and would avoid the difficulties which I have mentioned.
I want briefly to refer to the mature students and students who might wish to take their first degrees, not in a British university, but in a Commonwealth university. Mature students are referred to several times in the Report of the Anderson Committee, which states in particular the view that no special provision need be made for them because
"we are confident that the special classes of student"—
the Committee was referring to mature and technical students—
"… should have no difficulty in securing ordinary awards, and that it is unnecessary to retain limited competitive schemes for them."
I cannot believe that the members of the Anderson Committee had any real knowledge of adult education and of the way in which the mature student scholarships are awarded. I have discussed this in detail with those, for example, at Coleg Harlech and at Ruskin, who have great experience in the matter. These students ought not to be expected to take two or more A-level subjects in G.C.E. examinations. That is a foolish way of tackling the problem. The present
1374
method of essay and interview is far more suitable and I hope very much that the Ministry is proposing to deal with these people on these lines.
The students who might wish to study at Commonwealth universities are a new problem. The Anderson Committee discussed it at some length. It laid no difficulty in the way, but, equally, it made no positive proposal about how they should be dealt with. I am sure that this matter cannot be left to local education authorities. Until we know exactly what proposals the Minister has for dealing with university awards in general in relation to the education authorities, one cannot comment beyond saying that I hope very much that the Ministry has ideas in view which would make it possible in exceptional cases for people who might wish to take their first degrees in Commonwealth universities to be enabled to do so. I shall be glad to have an assurance from the Minister on these two relatively small but important points. On the main question, I hope very much that the Minister will reconsider his proposal at the same time to abolish the State scholarships and to allow much Increased monetary incentives to the holders of other awards.
3.15 p.m.
Dr. Horace King: I have pressed for a number of years that there should be a minimum academic standard which, if the sixth former succeeded in achieving it, would gain him as of right a university grant, and, indeed, a place at a university. Therefore, I want first to congratulate the Minister on accepting the Anderson Committee's Report as far as that goes and in recommending to local authorities that two subjects at advanced level plus acceptance by a university should qualify for university grant.
Having said that, and not having time to argue the case for what I have just said, I believe in the reward of extra merit. Like most Socialists, I am not an egalitarian. Our criticism of society is not the difference between the rewards it gives to citizens but the unjust nature of the distribution of rewards.
During most of my teaching life the State scholarship we are discussing now has been a mark of distinction and I should be sorry to see it go. In later

1375
years the small prize it carried escaped the means test—a means test which I would still urge the Minister to abolish.
Here I would interpose that the National Union of Students, of which I have the honour to be a vice-president, is unanimous in recommending to the Minister that he should still have second thoughts and abolish his objection to the recommendation of the Anderson Committee that the means test should go. An undergraduate is an adult and he has a right to be treated as an adult, and he is earning his living while at the university, and that means test militates against the independence of these young men—and women.
It is true that the number of State scholarships has increased from the handful it was in the days of the first Labour Government, who set them up, to several thousand now, thanks largely to a big expansion under the late Ellen Wilkinson and the late George Tomlinson, but though the number of State scholarships has increased the standard is still very high. It is also true that the modern system of financing university grants levels out any financial advantages which a State scholar used to have, but all State scholarships are awarded on the scholarship papers taken in G.C.E. and they indicate that at any rate at the moment of award—I am not sure that future developments are all truly predictable, especially among several thousand—the best academic brains in our grammar schools win in an all-nation competition.
It is an honour to win such an award. A school is proud to record it triumphs in this field, and it means something to the universities looking for keen intellects among candidates seeking admission, and a sixth former who wins a State scholarship has a better chance of securing a place at the university of his or her choice than one who does not. Moreover, the continued award of these 2,000 or 3,000 State scholarships can relieve the universities of some of the burden placed upon them and local authority interviewing committees of selecting the intake into the universities. If we can relieve the universities of the burden of sorting the wheat from the chaff, those who have not reached the high academic standard of the State scholarships, we can do them a service.
1376
I am still troubled about social selection which still goes on in the universities. A recent report from the universities called "Application for Admission to the Universities" contains some valuable tables. One shows that of the intake to the universities in 1955, 74 per cent. came from the professional, managerial and clerical classes, 21·7 per cent. from skilled manual workers, 3·4 per cent. from semi-skilled manual workers, and 0·9 per cent. from the children of manual workers. I have said before that unless one believes in the transmission of acquired characteristics there must be born into the humblest families in this country as into the noblest lads and lassies of ability. There are still barriers all along the line. Universities are not yet what I believe they will some day become, a social cross-section of this British community of ours. Similarly, the figures for Oxford and Cambridge show that only 34 per cent. of the Cambridge undergraduates come from the State schools where there are 6½ million children, whereas 59·8 per cent. come from the private schools where there are only 250,000 of our children. For Oxford the figures are 40·5 per cent. from the State schools against 44·4 per cent. from the private schools.
There are still closed scholarships in private schools which at some time should be merged into the national pattern of national scholarships. The State scholarships, at any rate, have the advantage that they are open to all on exactly the same basis, and as State grammar schools rapidly approach parity with the best public schools—and they have already surpassed the worst—the children have a nearer and nearer equal chance of what I regard as a high honour and distinction.
As this year ends the Minister is coping with grim problems of providing enough teachers for the next critical two years. I can understand sometimes the feeling that his Department must have after this terrific achievement of fifteen years of school building, of expanding the size of the teaching profession and the extension of training provisions. At present the Department must be exasperated at the demand made again and again for more. But 1961 will be a crisis year in a number of ways which I cannot mention at the moment. There

1377
will be a crisis in the supply of teachers and a crisis caused by the simple fact that, despite our expansion of the training colleges, we are faced in 1961 with a larger intake to the universities than we can possibly cope with.
The Parliamentary Secretary, coping as he is with all his problems, will have the full backing of everyone on this side of the House in 1961 if he tackles them with energy. I ask him to leave this question of the university State scholarships just where it is. Let us say to the sixth formers in 1961, "Go all out by all means for the minimum qualification of two subjects at "A" level which with university selection will guarantee you a university grant, but do not be content with the minimum". I ask the hon. Gentleman to say to all sixth formers, "Aim high and see whether you can bring to yourself and your school the glory of winning one of these scholarships". I ask him to consider seriously what my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) has said.
3.23 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education (Mr. Kenneth Thompson): Like the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King), I am grateful to the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) for bringing forward this subject on our last day of term. It is a subject which well deserves the airing that her introductory remarks have enabled us to give it. I hope that the House in considering the matter, and bearing in mind the observations of the hon. Member for Itchen, will be willing to look at the whole of the recommendations of the Anderson Committee together, and particularly at those which my right hon. Friend has informed the House the Government are prepared to accept and put into operation as soon as can be conveniently arranged.
We cannot look at the proposals relating to the four different kinds of State scholarships in isolation from some of the other recommendations. First, we must be clear that my right hon. Friend's acceptance, so far, embraces a recommendation that a student who gets a minimum of two "A" level subjects in the G.C.E. examination and is accepted by a university for a place there will qualify for an award. This is the underlying condition upon which we must rely
1378
in our consideration of all the other matters to which reference has been made in the debate.
A new situation will arise for the universities and the students as a result of that recommendation. It means that everyone who gets those qualifications—two "A" levels and acceptance by a university for a place—will qualify for an award based on the scale which is to be announced very shortly and which we are at present discussing with the local education authorities, and whose outline my right hon. Friend announced to the House a few days ago.
Once that situation comes into operation—in 1961, we hope—it will be unnecessary for there to be a separate system of awards to ameliorate financial hardship. The system of State scholarships inaugurated some years ago and developed in recent years to provide the means by which a student could take up a place that he had otherwise won, no longer applies. Under the new system a student will not be in the position of having to seek from outside the local education authority by some different means the financial support to enable him to undertake his course at the university; so that the financial basis of the State scholarship system is removed.
I come now to the point to which the hon. Lady referred and which was added to by the hon. Gentleman, that there is a prestige significance attaching to the winning of a State scholarship. Under the old system State scholarships were awarded to students who did well in the G.C.E. "A" level examination. I put it briefly: they were those who passed at the top of the various lists relating to each of the examining boards for the G.C.E. "A" level examination. They were assumed to be, and in most cases were, able to take honours degree courses at the university of their choice or at the university which had finally accepted them. But they were by no means the only honours students in the universities. They were surrounded by a very large army of similar students in the universities in addition to their colleagues who, like themselves, had State scholarships. So the distinction that they had was more in name than in anything else. Their distinction as honours scholars was very widely shared indeed, and the flat plain which Professor Brinley Thomas talks

1379
about is not really quite so monotonous as he would have us believe, and his picturesque description of the situation is a little less accurate than it might have been had he chosen his words more carefully.
Mrs. White: Surely the hon. Gentleman will agree that the qualifications for State scholarships are considerably higher than the qualifications for local authority awards now envisaged?
Mr. Thompson: The hon. Lady continually relates her criticism of our proposals to the system which applied before the other recommendations of the Anderson Committee were accepted, and I hope to show that this is so. What I am now saying is that the State scholarship holders were not by any means an exclusive body of honours students in our universities and that the plain was, as I have said, not as flat as Professor Brinley Thomas described it.
What is happening now is that all students with the two "A" levels and a place at a university will qualify for and will automatically receive a local authority award. Leading to that situation, they will find themselves in competition with all the other students who would have places in universities. But the House knows full well that the number of places in our universities, although it will grow increasingly rapidly, is still very far from sufficient to meet the demand. There is no need, therefore, for this additional incentive to spur students on in their sixth form to give of their best. Two "A" levels will, in fact, become increasingly the minimum which is long left behind, and better than two "A" levels, and probably a good deal better, will be very much needed by any student who hopes to be accepted by a university. The incentive to do well will in short be provided by the competition in the race itself. I have no doubt that it will be sufficient of a spur to make sure that those who have these ambitions will, in the course of their sixth form careers, be compelled to stretch themselves to the limits of their capability.
Dr. King: Surely the argument the hon. Gentleman has put up so far applies to every prize in the world? It applies to open scholarships. If a boy wins an open scholarship to Jesus College,
1380
Oxford, the boy who did not get it but who just failed to get it is just inferior to him in ability. The argument so far is an argument for abolishing all distinction.
Mr. Thompson: I will deal with the effect of the new situation upon the competition for the open and closed scholarships in all the universities. I am bound to tell the hon. Gentleman, in reply to his specific interjection, that there will always be both successes and failures, and all kinds of degrees of success, but that is a facet of life which neither he, nor I, nor any machinery that we can devise will alter. We might as well learn to live with it.
I have said that the incentive to get a place in a university in an increasingly competitive field will itself provide the spur for the students to give of their best in their sixth form days. I hope that will be so. We are, of course, aware of the fact that this intense competition for places in the universities will have imposed some strains on the courses which students will follow in their sixth form careers. The curriculum of the sixth form is already heavily overloaded, and all who consider this matter are concerned that we should do what we can to lighten this pressure.
I think the House should know that we are now ready to have discussions with the responsible authorities of the universities and the colleges to see how far the new arrangements can help to ameliorate the bad results of these pressures. The Secondary School Examination Council has already put up some proposals on which we are seeking opinions before we make recommendations.
It seemed to me that the hon. Lady confused her thinking about how the new system would deal with this question of the prizes that can be won by those who do exceptionally well or who are exceptionally bright. Indeed, she went so far as to say that she would quote some universities which had exceptionally few prizes but nevertheless had many State scholars. That seemed to me to cut right across her earlier argument that one needed some special incentive. She quoted the State scholarship as attracting students to any given university, when in fact it works the opposite way in some cases. Indeed, that is evidence of the

1381
complicated nature of the whole system of university admissions. It is true that Oxford and Cambridge, for example, have a larger proportion of prizes to offer to would-be entrants and therefore it is not unnatural to find that the competition for places in Oxford and Cambridge is so keen that they have the pick of the cream of the students from all over the country.
Mrs. White: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that, under the future arrangements when holders of open awards will be allowed to keep up to £100 of those awards, the position will be very different? The universities which at present have State scholars but no endowments are fearful of that situation. They say that at the moment it does not make much difference, because holders of open awards do not keep the emoluments thereof, but if in future they are allowed to, as these universities have no counterbalancing awards to offer, students will be attracted to places where open awards are available.
Mr. Thompson: I am about to deal with the situation resulting from the offering of this higher proportion of prizes, exhibitions, and awards in the colleges of Oxford and Cambridge.
Mrs. White: I was not thinking of Oxford and Cambridge, which have hitherto had their own private means test.
Mr. Thompson: They still have, as far as I know, and I see no reason why they should not. That is a matter for them.
The position after acceptance of the proposals announced by my right hon. Friend will be that the colleges and universities will be able to offer prizes and allow those prizes to be retained by the winners. This will mean that there will be competition for those prizes. But the competition for those prizes will be nothing new. Indeed, that is the very competition about which a good many critics have already complained.
The fact is that whether there are extra prizes or not, whether the student can retain them or not, will not alter the attraction of Oxford and Cambridge colleges for the best students in the country. We have to take account of the fact that Oxford and Cambridge have
1382
over 500 years of history, 500 years or more of fame, and students will be attracted to seek for themselves the benefits of this. But we believe that as a result of the student being allowed to retain up to £100 of the prize that he wins in each of the years he is in college, other benefactors will be encouraged to offer prizes at more of the civic universities in different parts of the country. I certainly hope that that will be so.
The hon. Lady referred to two other points to which I feel I should reply. The House should know why my right hon. Friend made his announcement in the form that he did about the State scholarships, leaving out any special reference to technical State scholarships and mature State scholarships. We propose that the technical State scholarships should go, since there is a recognised avenue along which applicants for those scholarships can proceed from their technical college, or whatever it may be, to the university that they want to join. But we propose that mature State scholarships shall be retained mainly in their present form. The present system of a paper and an interview is to be kept and the familiar processes already known to those who are interested, will continue to be followed.
There are still discussions to undertake in some of these matters before the system is finalised, but that is broadly the basis on which we hope the system will work in future.
The hon. Lady referred to the Commonwealth scholarships and to the suggestion that British students should study in Commonwealth universities. Here again, this is largely a matter for the local authorities which will be responsible for administering these awards, and we propose to bring this matter forward in discussion with them, since we entirely concur with her view that there are real advantages to be gained by British students following courses at colleges in other parts of the Commonwealth. I hope that we shall be able to announce a successful outcome to those discussions before long.
I am aware that the cover that I have been able to give to the wide subject which the hon. Lady introduced has been inadequate, and I apologise for that fact.

1383
She knows that the House is at present under some pressure for time, and I have no wish to spoil the opportunities for the airing of other subjects which remain to be discussed. I hope that if there is any part of the ground which she regards as important and which I have not covered, she will let me know, and I shall do my best to give her further information.

COMMUNICATIONS SATELLITE PROGRAMME
3.39 p.m.
Mr. Airey Neave: I believe the subject of a British communications satellite programme to be one of momentous importance to the House and to the country, and I very much regret that the House cannot have more time in which to debate it today. I hope that those hon. Members on both sides of the House who are associated with me in this matter will have time to speak, but I am sure that they will understand that I have not a long time to present a case which involves an historic decision—that is no understatement—by the Government.
In the Blue Streak debate I said that a nation which allows the main branch of its technology to stand still and which fails to direct its scientific manpower cannot expect to be competitive in the twentieth century. Since that debate nothing of a practical nature has happened to indicate that the Government appreciate the significance of this point in respect of its application to certain fields of space research. The Government must expect criticism of a far sharper nature on these matters today and in the future. I am bound to say that in regard to the application of satellites for communication purposes the Government still do not seem to have grasped the technological and commercial possibilities. They are, says the Post Office, making studies, but for how long have they been making them? I know that they have sent a mission to the United States and also that their engineering department has some knowledge of the subject, but what machinery have they set up of an effective kind, beyond some desultory talks with certain firms and scientists? They really must come clean on this matter for, as I shall
1384
show, time is running very short for Britain to maintain any kind of independent position in the field of space communications.
Is this due to an attitude of mind on scientific subjects on the part of the present system of Government? I think it is and I think it is for back-bench Members of this House and of another place to seek by debate an approach to these problems which is up to date and not hidebound by classical methods of administration, and, in some cases, ignorance of basic scientific concepts. As Members of Parliament we can seldom be technicians in this field, but I think we can show a willingness to follow scientific progress. I think, too, that many people both inside and outside this House feel that only schoolboys will see the first benefits of satellite communications. This is absolute nonsense. My hon. Friend the Assistant Postmaster-General—I am glad to see that she is present for this debate, as most of what I am going to say is directed to the Post Office—in answering the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Donnelly) this morning about what studies had been made into these possibilities, said that it was "early days".
Early days in what sense? It is certainly not early days for the American programme, about which I wish to say something to the House. It is not early days to make proper investigation into the feasibility of a communications satellite, particularly as we have not even decided yet on the launching vehicle. If this is the attitude of the Government Department which is chiefly concerned, that is to say, the Post Office, then my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister ought to order an urgent inquiry into the whole problem. I am going to suggest that he should set up a space communications committee, a special body, at Cabinet level and give it publicity throughout industry, both public and private. It is not a question of early days; this application of space research is virtually in the engineering stage, as I shall show.
As I said, I am glad to see my hon. Friend the Assistant Postmaster-General present, but my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aviation, who, I understand, is to reply to this debate, has always shown a very

1385
intelligent and keen interest in the subject. I speak as one of his predecessors in answering awkward debates in the past, and I hope that my hon. Friend will not take personally what I am saying, but that he will, of course, look at the record. We have had several debates on space research of a rather nebulous character and many hon. Members have taken an active part in bringing this matter before the Government. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. D. Price) has done Trojan work in the Council of Europe and the hon. Members for Bosworth (Mr. Wyatt) and Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas) have for several years pressed this matter, as has the hon. Member for Pembroke.
Although this debate is limited to satellite communicants, I would make mention of what has been happening in the past in regard to space research as a whole. As long ago as May, 1959, the Prime Minister said that design studies were being put in hand for adopting military rockets for space purposes, and in a debate on 22nd February, 1960, my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield) was informed that work was still in hand on the Blue Streak and Black Knight projects for space research. On 29th July, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aviation said that we should not have to wait very long. Well, in my opinion, we have been waiting much too long. The question is, how long can de Havilland's and the taxpayers be expected to keep the Blue Streak programme going without any sign from on high as to what is going to happen?
I agree that there should be international discussions and I am speaking of a British programme in the widest sense of that word. But I am not of the opinion that Her Majesty's Government's decision depends on these international discussions. We have already been told by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Aviation that Blue Streak would be available to those taking part in a European programme and it is clear that we have something to sell. If things go on as they are, I am afraid it will be too late to reactivate the Blue Streak programme. That would be a complete disaster.
1386
The House and those in another place formed an all-party committee on space research, of which I had the honour to be chairman, in the earlier part of this year. Hon. Members from both sides of this House and noble Lords have had discussions with the representatives of various firms—de Havillands, Hawker Siddeley, E.M.I. Electronics and Pye Telecommunications. We are indebted to the representatives of those firms, particularly to Mr. Pardoe, Dr. Hilton, Mr. Brinkley of Pye and others for the very useful information on their studies into the possibility of an intercommunications programme. We are also indebted to the British Interplanetary Society. The object of our all-party committee is to get reliable information on these matters.
We have studied proposals for using British satellites and British launchers and most of us are convinced that it is an attractive economic proposition for this country. On this basis the cost of the further development of Blue Streak and Black Knight is justified. My hon. Friend should impress this on the Augustan scholars of the Treasury, because I believe it can be established that this is a feasible proposition. There are also other potential benefits in space research which we shall not have time to discuss today.
On the question of communications, the future responsibilities of the Post Office and possible commercial benefits to the Post Office, it is relevant to say that at the moment the British Commonwealth handles half the world's international traffic through our successful investment in the past in long-distance submarine cables and radio-telephone systems. I should mention the proposal for a new round the world cable, the so-called Commonwealth cable, which, I understand, is to cost about £88 million.
Although that is so, there is imminent and immense competition from the American telephone companies through the Bell Telephone Company and the American Telephone and Telegraph Company, which are launching vast programmes for satellite communications. I hope the hon. Member for Bosworth will be able to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, because he knows a great deal about the proposals of the Bell Telephone Company. The A.T. and T. has a proposal

1387
for twenty-six ground stations and fifty satellites in operation, producing 600 telephone channels and one television channel. That is the sort of scale on which the Americans are proposing to work. If these proposals were accepted it is thought that they would provide part coverage of the world—and we are talking about a world telephone service—possibly in three to five years.
My theory, which is shared by many who are associated with me in these studies, is that our customers will lose interest in our cables if that development of American satellites takes place on a world basis without our doing anything to supplement it by a British satellite system. In any event, our cables are at present overloaded. I wish to make a few remarks about the actual proposals for the use of satellites for communication purposes and how they should be launched. It is well known to those who have studied the matter—although I certainly would not claim technical knowledge of these questions—that a satellite's height above the ground makes it a very suitable vehicle for use as a radio relay station. We can have a passive satellite simply reflecting radio waves back to the earth or an active satellite deriving electric power from the sun through solar cells to drive radio equipment and to retransmit signals. These are the types of satellite which we are considering when talking of a global public telephone service.
I hope that other hon. Members will have a few minutes in the debate, because they are aware that de Havilland and Hawker-Siddeley have made some very constructive proposals and have gone into the economics of these matters. They have proposals, for instance, to launch satellites of 300 and 400 lb. into orbit at 5,000 to 6,000 miles altitude. The proposals of the two firms differ slightly, one of them being on a 24-hour basis and one only for the day-time, but they all agree that these are feasible with the Blue Streak—Black Knight type of rocket launcher. Whether the programme is limited to daylight or not and whether different emphasis is put on the type of orbit used, there can be no doubt about the economic possibilities.
I ask again how much the Post Office knows about this. May we be told what
1388
they are doing about it? I believe that this matter needs co-ordination, as I said earlier in my speech, at a very high level and that it is a matter for the Prime Minister himself. If the Post Office does know, how far has it advised my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General to investment in these proposals for the future benefit of the Post Office and what plans has it made?
The second point is how are these satellites to be launched? Again, I cannot go into the matter in any great detail. In the debate on Blue Streak I mentioned that I am a director of a firm which has a financial interest in Blue Streak, and I should mention that again. I should like the Government to come down very definitely in favour of the Blue Streak—Black Knight programme. Woomera is an ideal launching site, and by making Black Knight the upper stage of this launching vehicle I am sure that it could be done efficiently, because we know that Black Knight is accurate and we know that Blue Streak is technically of a high order. This would best be done through a single agency or a consortium for manufacture.
I turn to the economics of this problem. Rough estimates over a 20-year programme allow for £1 million for each attempted launching of the rocket and £1 million approximately for each ground station—and we shall be using ground stations. There is a set of figures which have been produced and which I hope will be studied by the Post Office and the Government generally most carefully. They show that this is an economic proposition. I need hardly say that I hope that the technical supervision by the Government which the Public Accounts Committee has recommended for guided missiles will also be applied here; I should say that as a matter of responsibility. But over a 20-year period it would cost only £70 million for launchings—that is to say, 70 launchings; and £7 million for the maintenance of the satellite. The maintenance of the ground stations would cost more—£160 million—making a total outlay of £243 million in a 20-year programme. The actual cost in the first year would be £7 million, rising to the highest annual outlay of about £20 million.

1389
The next thing is the cost rate per minute per channel, in which hon. Members and the Government no doubt will take an interest when discussing this problem in the future. The subject merits a far longer debate than that we are having today, and I hope that on a future occasion we shall be able to have a much more full-dress debate on it. It is calculated by these companies that the cost rate per minute per channel would be about £1 for the first three years and 10s. for the next three years. The income shows a gross profit of £90 million in the third year. In the seventeenth year we should be down to 6d. per minute per channel, with an annual gross profit of £50–£60 million in the later years. If hon. Members will study those figures, I think they will agree that they would compare very favourably with almost any trend of reduction in the present high international telephone rates of from £1 to £1 5s. per minute. In any case it would show an economic trend.
These costs exclude research and development on Blue Streak; the total cost, as the House has been told, was £70 million up to April, 1960. If we allow £70 million for the subsequent space development programme these costs could certainly be borne by the communication system itself and could be amortised on a basis which would prove economic. They are rough estimates, but they should be urgently studied.
I will finish so that other hon. Members can say what they wish about this very important matter, but I conclude by saying that this House should insist, if necessary, on further discussion after the Recess on this question of an all-British system. Using American satellites is not, I consider, a serious proposition. I think it is an absolute fallacy to say that it would be less expensive. This is a civil and commercial programme. What would the Americans think they were entitled to charge us? In the commercial field I do not think the Americans would give the General Post Office the same facilities as they would give the American telephone companies in competition. On the question of launching sites and facilities, I do not believe that the use of American satellites would make sense economically.
I believe I have shown figures which, if they are studied, will show that we
1390
are completely justified in undertaking our own satellite programme and our own launching programme as well.
I repeat that in my opinion the solution is for my right hon. Friend to set up an organisation linking industry and the Government at Cabinet level to get things going at top priority. I have some experience at a junior Ministerial level of how difficult these things are to do, but I am sure that is the right way to do it. I hope that I have convinced hon. Members and my hon. Friend that British space vehicles are justified in their own right and I repeat to the House that this is a most momentous and historic decision. I hope that it has fired the imaginations of hon. Members and of the Government and that there will be a desire for action.
3.57 p.m.
Mr. Woodrow Wyatt: Fortunately, the shortage of time has not prevented the hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) from making a most excellent and comprehensive speech. In it the hon. Member has put forward the bones of an argument for a British space programme and, in particular, for a communication satellite, which we are talking about today. The trouble behind this is that the Government do not realise that the competitive position of Britain is all-important for future exports. It is no use coasting along on yesterday's ideas when other nations are pushing ahead. The technologies are important. It is not science fiction, as the Government seem to think. It is hard cash. Yet the Government go on dithering without making a decision.
In February this year I sent a memorandum on behalf of the British Interplanetary Society to the Prime Minister. That memorandum urged immediate action. We were sent to see the Minister of Science and his advisers. They seemed to be almost totally ignorant of the practical and commercial possibilities of space and they asked us for a further memorandum to explain these commercial and practical possibilities. We sent that second memorandum immediately. Eight months later the Government still have not grasped the point.
On Monday of last week the Minister of Science gave a fatuous and frivolous interview on Southern Television on

1391
space. In that interview the Minister for Science said the whole of his Ministry could be put into an omnibus, thus glorying in the British addiction to amateurism and showing that he did not care a hoot about space. The Minister also said that he thought no sort of proof had been produced that a space programme, whether for communication satellites or anything else, could show a commercial profit. This shows a horrifying complacency and a terrifying unwillingness to find out the facts. The Government know. Indeed, all the facts have been brought to them by private individuals. They have never gone out to try to find out about this themselves. We have had to bring them information.
The hon. Member for Abingdon has demonstrated effectively how a communication satellite system could be profitable, and I would like to reinforce that.
In October this year the American Telephone and Telegraph Company and the Bell Telephone Company officially put forward a comprehensive scheme to the Federal Communications Commission in America. As the hon. Member said, this involved a worldwide communication network using space satellites which initially would cost £60 million, but they estimated the revenue from the operations at something like £1,000 million a year. As the operating costs are very low, nearly all of this would be profit. This may be exaggerated. On the other hand, I think that the British estimate is very much too low. Any way, somewhere between the two estimates lies the probable profit to be made out of this, and it may be between £500 million and £1,000 million a year.
In America private enterprise is wilding to spend the money on the capital cost, because it can also take the profits from the operation, which is where the major profit lies. In Britain, the Post Office naturally takes the profit from operating our communications system. If it does not show the same initiative as American private enterprise is showing, it will fail the nation. It is no good saying that it is a nationalised industry. The Government are in charge of it. It belongs to the nation, and the nation is entitled to see that the Government show the same sort of initiative as private enterprise would in getting for Britain the enormous potential profit which lies
1392
ahead. If we do not do that, we shall be dependent on an American satellite system from which they will reap a major profit, both in operation and in the development and manufacture of the satellites, to say nothing of advancing their competitive position in the world while we stand still.
Such a scheme is easily within our grasp. Development of Blue Streak continues at a cost of £1 million a month. Blue Streak and Black Knight between them could easily set up a world-wide communication system by satellites. We have already incurred much of the capital cost by the money we have spent on Blue Streak. It would be criminal to waste that money by not now going ahead with our own space programme.
It was we British who pioneered the cable communication system throughout the world in the last century, with enormous profit to ourselves. We also pioneered the radio-telephone at a big profit. Future generations will curse us if we are left out of this new development.
The Government are now making a space programme conditional on European co-operation. That is the wrong way round. We should go ahead with our own space programme and the Europeans and the Commonwealth can come in if they please. When they see that we are making a success of it, they will fall over themselves to do so.
Australia is already very keen, and the Woomera Range is an ideal place from which to launch a satellite communication system. We must wait neither upon Europe nor upon America. If we wait upon America, as I believe the American-owned Standard Telephone Company is urging our Post Office to do, because it is one of the big features of our telephone ring in this country, we shall lose impetus to our industry, we shall lose commercial prestige throughout the world which we could otherwise have, and we shall be less able to export in the future.
There is no time left if we are to keep in the race. As the hon. Member for Abingdon said, the programme of Blue Streak cannot be kept ticking on indefinitely. Some decision must be made. We have the know-how. We have the scientists. We have the industry. We have the ability. All we lack is a Government with any boldness or belief in

1393
Britain's future. Our Victorian grandfathers would be amazed to see what spineless descendants they have sired. I urge the Government to wake up and do their duty.
4.3 p.m.
Mr. David Price: In the very short time available to me I wish to discuss one proposed satellite communication system to illustrate the very cogent and telling argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) and the hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Wyatt), and to show the House that in terms of hard cash there could be money in space for this country now if the Government were so minded.
To illustrate my argument I will take the design studies of de Havillands. They propose a system of eight equi-spaced satellites in orthogonal orbits. At an altitude of 6,500 miles full 24-hour continuous global coverage is ensured. That makes allowance for an effective radio horizon of about 7½ degrees above the true horizon.
The launcher for such a system is available, if we continue work on Blue Streak, Black Knight and a third-stage combination. Such a combination is capable of placing satellities weighing between 300 lb. and 400 lb. in the required 24-hour orbit. This capability is adequate, even when using audio-modulation, and conventional components and methods in a satellite with an initial capacity of from 100 to 200 telephone circuits.
That is a figure substantially above anything proposed in the Commonwealth cable link. Frequency modulation, multiplexing and pulse coding, when applied, will increase the circuit capacity many times, and the application of micro-miniaturisation techniques will produce satellites, of the same weight or less, having a capacity of 1,000 or more telephone circuits—plus one or two television circuits.
This proposed system is on a tiring programme of three attempts a year for the first five years, and five attempts a year subsequently, if and when required. American experience of success in firing, I may say, is much lower than ours. Nonetheless de Havillands allow in their design studies for a 50 per cent. initial success in firing, rising
1394
through 75 per cent. after twenty firings. They are working on the basis of an operational life of one year, rising through a 5-year operational life for satellites launched in the fourth year to a 25-year standard for satellites launched in the fifteenth year. The final aim is to establish a completely duplicated thousand-circuit capacity, 25-year life system within twenty years of the first satellite being launched.
The costings show that it would be possible, as my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon said, to reduce trans-Atlantic telephone calls from the present £1 a minute to 6d. a minute in about the fifteenth or sixteenth year. As a result of this study we believe that it is possible, on the basis of market survey so far carried out, to increase the telephone communications round the world by a factor of ten.
The profit figures to which my hon. Friend referred—and which I could have developed further had there been time—show a return of over £450 million over twenty years on an outlay of about £300 million. That is good profit in any terms, even for a Government, and when we think of the capital outlays on which Her Majesty's Government have lost a lot of the taxpayers' money, I should have thought that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, like a previous one, would have a song in his heart and welcome the project enthusiastically.
I should like to ask the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the developments that are taking place in America, the Post Office intends to go ahead with the proposed Commonwealth round-the-world telephone cable link which is estimated to cost somewhere between £80 million and £100 million and which will be obsolete before it is laid. I wonder, too, whether the right hon. Gentleman the Member far Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson), looking into the future, might get his Public Accounts Committee to give its mind to this.
I now ask the question: what is holding up de Havillands at the moment? What is holding things up is Government indecision. There is indecision over Black Streak—I hope that my hon. Friend will tell us, that, at last, the Government have made up their minds to go ahead. Or are we to have continual shilly-shallying? The second

1395
thing that is holding things up is the Post Office. It is no good saying that this is something that private enterprise should do. Private enterprise cannot do it, because the responsibility is the Government's.
Viewing our affairs from the relative calm of the back benches, I begin to doubt whether the Government—or, for that matter, their democratic alternative—grievously overburdened with the affairs of the world today, understand intellectually and emotionally how man's entry into space is already shaping the world of tomorrow. Mankind is obviously entering a long new phase of exploration and development comparable to the conquest of the air and of the oceans, and vastly exceeding these in scope.
The discovery of Africa and America and the sea route to the East in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, led to changes in European life so far-reaching as to amount almost to a revolution. How much more revolutionary will be the changes arising from man's discoveries in space? Viewed historically, Britain dare not stand aside from space. At the same time, we have to recognise that we cannot possibly hope to compete on equal terms of expenditure and diversity of projects with Russia or America. Therefore, we have to select with greater care and with greater imagination than either of the continental giants those space projects which we should support. Our resources are so much smaller but they are by no means negligible. Do not let us underestimate them, as I believe Her Majesty's Government are doing at the present time.
We believe that a communications satellite system is one such project. I beg the Government to take this project seriously. I realise, of course, that to some of the older members of the Government and of the Opposition Front Bench this project must sound like space fiction, but the world has moved on. The science fiction of yesterday is the common practice of today. Dear me, Jules Verne is almost a "square" today.
I beg the Government to take courage. Too frequently on space matters the language of the Government has been
1396
the language of lions, but the actions of the Government have been the actions of mice. We hope through the alchemy of Parliamentary debate, and if necessary of Parliamentary censure, to persuade the Government that it lies within their power if they are so minded to become lions.
4.11 p.m.
Mr. Frederick Peart: I promised the Parliamentary Secretary that I would be brief. I should like to congratulate the hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) on raising this subject. Indeed, I should like to congratulate all hon. Members who have spoken today, the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. D. Price) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Wyatt), who have put clearly the need for Government action on this matter.
I would only say to the hon. Member for Eastleigh that I can assure him that the Opposition are not indifferent. He has indicted his own colleagues in very strong language, and we feel that there should be a decision on this matter. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) has pressed the Government time and time again, and my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Donnelly) has been trying to obtain from the Government some statement of their attitude. Only the other day, on 12th December, my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke pressed the Minister to make a statement and the Parliamentary Secretary in reply mentioned the discussions with the French Government. Then he went on to argue that we had signed an agreement with ten countries—I assume in Europe—to set up a preparatory commission to study the possibility of establishing a European organisation for co-operation in space research.
I say to the Government that I am all for co-operating with Europe, but I believe that Britain should take a lead in this matter and that we should rather have co-operation with the Commonwealth first. As has been pointed out today, we already have facilities in Australia. I was recently in Canada, where I saw developments of the possible exploitation of mineral wealth, and when I think of the potential wealth of Canada,

1397
linked with the possibilities of Australia, with the personnel which are already there, I cannot understand why Britain should not quickly make a decision to co-operate with the British Commonwealth in a space programme. We have asked the Government over and over again to take a decision on this question. Is it that the Tory Party is indifferent to action with the Commonwealth?
Why not an agreement with the Commonwealth on this? I am sure that we could initiate discussions with the Canadians as well as with the Australians, because we have all the resources there. Why should we be out of the race, as against the United States Government and, indeed, the Soviet Government? I hope hon. Members have read their Press this morning, because one of the Soviet Ministers has announced that more resources of the Soviet Union are to be diverted to space research. We cannot delay, and I would hope that this Government would at least believe in the Commonwealth. If they do not like the term "Commonwealth", they can use the term "Empire" if they like, if they think "Commonwealth" too new-fashioned, but at least Australia, Canada and this country with their combined resources could give a lead in this direction.
I know that there are a lot of political queers on the other side and that they are keen on being entangled with Europe, but let us have some action with British leadership. I do not wish to go into the details, because we shall return to this matter later on, but we cannot afford to keep out of this race. It affects the whole field of technology and engineering. It has a link with other industries, and it affects skilled manpower. Space research, in the present state of the world, excites the imagination of scientists and technicians. The whole field of electronics and metallurgy, and certain branches of chemistry, are all affected by it, and they can develop only if we are prepared to embark upon a space research programme. I hope that all those hon. Members who have spoken today will continue to press the Government vigorously and constructively to this end. Hon. Members on this side of the House will return to the subject when we resume after the Recess, and we will press it vigorously.
1398
In many ways, however, it has become a non-party matter. The British Interplanetary Society, to which my hon. Friend referred, has already performed admirable work in this field. I hope that the Government will take heed of what has been said. Although I may be critical of the Government I wish the Minister a merry Christmas. If Santa Claus comes to us in a space ship we hope that the hon. Gentleman will take heed.
4.16 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aviation (Mr. Geoffrey Rippon): My hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) has raised a subject which must be of great and growing interest to every hon. Member, even to those who are absent from our deliberations this evening. In this short debate we have been discussing issues of immense significance for the whole future of mankind, and all the speeches have shown a proper awareness of that fact.
I welcome the opportunity of keeping the House informed of what the Government are doing to ensure that we are in a position to participate in heavy satellite technology. I say "heavy", because communication satellites involve the use of a powerful launcher. There is a clear distinction between what we have been discussing today and the programme based on Skylark, the successful firings of Black Knight and the joint programme in the United States, using the Scout, and even the Preparatory Commission which has been set up to study the possibilities of establishing a European space research organisation.
I am glad that everyone who has spoken has adopted an eminently practical approach. If we are going to adopt a programme of this kind the public wants to know what beneficial results can be expected. A recent report presented to the United States Congress on "The Practical Values of Space Exploration" opened with this refreshing declaration:
"The United States has not embarked upon this formidable program of space exploration in order to make or perpetuate a gigantic astronautic boondoggle."
The report goes on to list what it calls the "pay-offs". They cover a wide variety of matters, and they have been referred to in the memorandum of the British Interplanetary Society, to which

1399
the hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Wyatt) referred. I can assure him that this has been studied widely and with great interest. The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) also referred to these other possibilities.
They are all worthy of study, but in determining whether or not a United Kingdom satellite programme would be a profitable technological investment I am sure it is right, as my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon has done, to consider, first, the possibilities of a communication satellite. This is no astronautic boondoggle. Both British and American experts are confident that the purely technical problems can be solved within the next few years. There seems no doubt about that.
To this end Post Office and Ministry of Aviation scientists and engineers are already making a joint study of the design of ground stations and satellites, as well as the important question of overall system design. These studies are concerned both with the technical and with the economic aspects of satellites. Naturally, we shall at the appropriate stage seek the co-operation of private industry. We are well aware of the thought that private industry is devoting to this matter. Reference has been made this afternoon to the work of the advanced projects groups of Hawker-Siddeley Aviation and de Havilland.
Mr. Neave: Will my hon. Friend say something about my proposal that the Government should set up some kind of Committee which included industry for these studies?
Mr. Rippon: My hon. Friend and all speakers have made the point that this is a historic subject of immense importance. The Cabinet itself is, naturally, acting in collaboration on a matter of this kind, and I do not believe that we shall solve the problem by having another joint committee.
Many different types of system have been proposed. For example, a system might be constructed using a large number of satellites in the form of passive reflectors of radio waves. The experimental American satellite called Echo I was of this type. It does, however, raise several problems. In the first place, very
1400
large radio power would be needed at ground transmitting stations. Secondly, receiving stations would not only have to move their aerials so as continuously to point directly at the moving satellite but they would frequently have to switch from one satellite to another as each one moved across the sky.
The alternative system, which is the one both American and British experts seem to favour today, would make use of active satellites, that is to say, satellites which would carry radio receivers and transmitters which would receive, amplify and retransmit the signals instead of just reflecting them. With this system, the ground stations would be much simpler but the satellites themselves would more complex. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh went into some of the possibilities, and we certainly have in mind all he said.
The problem of system design includes the study of the type of orbit to be chosen for the satellites, which can be circular or elliptical, close to the earth or far away. It is possible to choose a particular circular orbit for a satellite at about 22,000 miles from the earth which results in the satellite appearing to remain stationary when viewed from the earth's surface. Three such satellites could be so placed as to result in one or other being visible and therefore potentially available for communications purposes from every country in the world except for certain limited areas near the Poles.
This system has some disadvantages, and it may well be better to have a larger number of satellites in closer orbit. At 5,000 or 6,000 miles from the earth, a dozen or two dozen satellites would be needed. At 2,500 miles the number of satellites might be increased to at least 50. Although I believe that the purely technical problems may be overcome, whatever orbit is chosen, there will be formidable difficulties. A large number of satellites may well be involved in a single system. Each must be kept accurately in its orbit and accurately tracked by the associated ground stations.
All these technical problems, albeit they may be overcome, make estimates of costs necessarily speculative at this stage. I note with interest what hon. Members have said, and a great deal has

1401
appeared in the Press on this subject. One really cannot be very definite about costs at this stage. Of particular significance in this respect will be the continuing charges, including depreciation and maintenance. These cannot be known until we have rather more reliable information on the useful life of a satellite. Clearly, experiments are needed to guide us towards the answer to these important questions.
The most promising area for the tests is in the North Atlantic. We have had preliminary talks with our friends in Canada and in the United States, and my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General, as he has told the House, hopes to be able to take part in very valuable tests. I hope that they will take place within the next year or so. We envisage putting two or three satellites into polar orbit. We would share the information resulting from the tests, but, of course, that does not necessarily imply a joint communications programme.
Much has been said about the potentially large communications capacity of a satellite system, and we may certainly expect a growing demand. Some experts believe that the growing demand for communications will force the world to use satellites within the next decade. Undoubtedly when they are fully developed they can be expected to carry several hundred simultaneous telephone conversations and to act as television relay stations. We are aiming at about 1,000 channels for an active satellite. There is no limit to the number of channels for a passive satellite. Clearly this is a sphere in which we must have a direct interest in view of the leading part which we in the Commonwealth have played for so many years.
It is a thrilling prospect, but we must bear in mind that the extent to which the new system will prove to be an economic proposition must depend, first, or the results of the tests which we hope will commence as soon as the technical developments permit, and, secondly, the availability of a launcher, about which I will say more in a moment. In the meantime, we will continue with the construction of the submarine cables to provide for the communication needs of the Commonwealth. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh referred to a figure of between £80 and £100 million. The
1402
only part of that programme which is approved would cost between £35 and £40 million. The United Kingdom's share would be less. That relates to the cable between Canada and the United States in 1961 and between Canada and Australia in 1964. The communications authorities in the United States are also continuing with their cable plans, including a joint project for a further trans-Atlantic cable. The United States believes, as we do, that cable and satellite communication should co-exist for a substantial time. We may find that they are really complementary indefinitely. I cannot accept what my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh said about submarine cables necessarily being a waste of money.
As I said earlier, although the satellite communications programme must be found to be both feasible and economic, it cannot be implemented without a sufficiently powerful launcher. I now wish to say a word or two about Blue Streak and its potentialities, to which hon. Members have referred. When the Government decided not to proceed with the development of Blue Streak as a military weapon, we also decided to keep in being those aspects of the project which could be of use in developing a satellite launcher, while full consideration was given to the problems involved. This has permitted the preservation of scientific and technological skills and the retention of teams necessary to develop a satellite launcher. We have not run down the work below the level needed to maintain a satellite launcher programme.
Reference has been made to the delay. Should such a launcher be developed, the work that we have done and are doing will enable us to formulate a programme which will enable us or any other participating country to put satellites into orbit in the course of the next five or six years. There is no fear that the development of a launching vehicle such as we have in mind would be too late to produce valuable results.
Mr. Wyatt: The hon. Gentleman may be saying something very important. Is he saying that we are to go ahead with our own launcher and satellite and not depend on the Americans for their satellite and launcher?
Mr. Rippon: I said that we are in a position, if we choose, to develop our

1403
own launcher to carry out this work either ourselves or in collaboration with other countries. Perhaps I may refer to the question of collaboration. We have kept the work on Blue Streak going and we can develop it if we choose. In the meantime, we have reached the conclusion that if a heavy satellite launcher is to be developed outside the United States or Russia, there are substantial advantages for all concerned in doing it in co-operation with our friends in the Commonwealth and Europe. My right hon. Friend has had talks in Australia and Canada, and we are keeping in close touch with those countries and other members of the Commonwealth. I can assure the hon. Member for Workington that there is no question of the Commonwealth not being consulted and being brought into these matters. Australia, in particular, has been our partner throughout and has a direct interest. If we carry the Blue Streak proposals to completion, the facilities at Woomera would be used.
Mr. Peart: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that there should be a British initiative and a British Commonwealth initiative as distinct from a link-up with Europe and the United States?
Mr. Rippon: There is no reason why there should not be both. We have taken an initiative both with the Commonwealth and with Europe. As I have said, my right hon. Friend has had discussions with Australia and Canada and other members of the Commonwealth. We have also had lengthy discussions with representatives of the French Government on the joint development of a satellite launcher based on Blue Streak These discussions have envisaged collaboration in both finance and technology.
I should like to say a brief word about some immediate matters. So far, the House will be pleased to know, our discussions with our French friends have gone well. We must, however, recognise that just as this is a major decision for us to take, so it is a major decision for any other country. On the technical side, we have established that it is practicable to develop a satellite launcher using a first propulsion stage formed from our own Blue Streak and a second
1404
propulsion stage based on French development work. On the policy side, we came to the view that the next step is to ascertain which other countries would wish to join in sponsoring the development of such a launcher and to undertake other parts of the development.
To that end, and following upon my right hon. Friend's recent visit to Paris, the House will be interested to know that we and the French Government have it in mind that interested countries should be invited to join in a conference early in the New Year. We hope that from such a conference will emerge a sufficient indication of the degree of interest in this project to enable us to take firm decisions. As a preliminary to this conference, we are inviting individual countries to send their experts here for discussion and to judge for themselves the technical soundness of our proposals and the distance we have already gone in development. I agree with the House that we have gone a considerable distance. I cannot say more at this stage as the matters which I have described were settled in Paris only last week and we are now working out the detailed steps which will lead up to the conference which I have announced.
Meanwhile, we are keeping the Blue Streak work going at what, we think, is the right level, striking a balance between the need to limit expenditure to the minimum in advance of policy decisions and the need to obtain a viable nucleus of the many skills which must be deployed in strength once the policy decision to go ahead is taken.
In deciding how much we can invest, either on our own or in collaboration with others, we must balance the potential benefits against what we can afford, not merely in money, but in the diversion of scientific and technical manpower from other desirable objects.
Mr. W. R. Williams: Are the Government setting any time limit to these negotiations? It seems to some of us that time is of the very essence of the matter. Whilst I am not opposed to negotiations with other nations, the time has come when there must be a limit to the time in which these negotiations take place and a decision is made as to what we will do.
Mr. Rippon: Obviously, time is a relevant factor. I have said that just as this is a major decision for us, so it is a major decision for the French and other Governments concerned, including the Commonwealth. I have also said enough, I believe, to show that there is no such delay as to prevent us from launching a programme within a reasonable time that will give worthwhile results if we so choose. In arriving at these decisions and in weighing these matters, the Government will undoubtedly have, and ought to have, regard to the vigorous and informed contributions which have been made from both sides of the House this afternoon.
4.33 p.m.
Mr. Desmond Donnelly: I rise briefly to say how disappointed I am with that answer. It was couched around with a number of qualifications which show the indecision of the Government, even at this late stage, about this important matter. When we raised the matter at the end of the Summer Session, the Parliamentary Secretary said that the Government would be in a position to give an answer shortly. When I asked him what "shortly" meant, he said "shortly". We are very much in the same position today.
It appears to me as though the Parliamentary Secretary today has been saying, in effect, that he would like to go ahead with this plan but that he cannot get sufficient support within the Government to take the final decision about it. This just is not good enough for the House. Unless we have a more satisfactory answer when we come back at the end of January, to borrow the language of the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. D. Price), we shall be applying pedo propulsion to the posteriors on the Treasury Bench.

INDEPENDENT TELEVISION AUTHORITY (NEWSPAPER ADVERTISING)
4.35 p.m.
Sir Leslie Plummer: The truest words spoken today in the House were those of my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. W. R. Williams), that time is the essence of the problem, and I have been watching the erosion of time with some anxiety because I wanted to raise with the Postmaster-General what I regard as an important matter, and I hope that my hon. Friends who have been engaged in their speculations about space will not think me rude to them when I say that I am trying now to bring the House back to earth.
Last summer the Daily Worker, an established newspaper in this country, wanted to advertise on commercial television. There was no objection, so far as I know, from any of the programme companies to acceptance of the advertisement, because they had accepted advertisements in 1960 from such newspapers as The Times, the Daily Sketch, the Daily Herald, the Daily Express, the Daily Mail, The Guardian, the News Chronicle—the fate of the News Chronicle is an awful warning to would-be advertisers on television, it seems to me—the News of the World, The People, the Sunday Dispatch, Reynolds, the Sunday Times and the Sunday Pictorial, all of these papers, of course, existing for two purposes, one to make profits for their proprietors and, the other, to advance the political aims of the newspapers.
When the advertisement was offered to the programme companies no objection was raised, but an objection was raised—I will deal with it later—by the Independent Television Authority. I must take a moment or two to discuss the political aims of the newspapers because it is the kernel of the argument put forward by the Authority in refusing permission to the programme company to accept the Daily Worker advertisement.
Mr. Speaker: I do not want to waste the hon. Member's time, but can be satisfy me that there is some Ministerial responsibility for this decision?
Sir L. Plummer: Yes. On 7th December, the Postmaster-General replied to my Question asking him
"what consultations he has had under Section 4 (5) of the Television Act, 1954. with

1407
the Independent Television Authority concerning the nature of the newspapers and other journals whose advertisements may or may not be accepted."
Replying to me he said:
"That Section does not in any way prejudice the duty of the I.T.A. under Section 4 (3) which says that no advertisements shall be permitted by any body, the objects of which are wholly or mainly of a political nature."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 7th December, 1960; Vol. 631, c. 1264–5.]
In addition to that the Minister has, I think, this responsibility in his oversight of the Authority, which is made clear in Section 4 (5) of the Television Act, 1954, which says:
"Without prejudice to any of the duties incumbent on the Authority otherwise than under this subsection in relation to advertisements, it shall be the duty of the Authority to consult from time to time with the Postmaster-General as to the classes and descriptions of goods or services which must not be advertised and the methods of advertising which must not be employed and to carry out any directions which he may give them in those respects."
Mr. Speaker: My difficulty is just that. The direction seems to be limited to those respects, goods and services, and the rest of the matter seem to rest with the Authority under Section 4 (3). My difficulty is that refusal of the Daily Worker advertisement would seem to be in the exercise of the Authority's duty under subsection 3.
Sir L. Plummer: Yes, but the Postmaster-General also replied to me:
"After taking legal advice, the Authority made its decision, and it is not my responsibility to interfere."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th December, 1960; Vol. 631, c. 1265.]
He does not say he has not the power to interfere. In fact, with all respect, Sir, the Postmaster-General has this authority and power written into the Act.
Mr. Speaker: Yes, but could the hon. Gentleman help me as to where—I am sorry to waste his time but my duty obliges me—the Minister has responsibility to interfere with the duty of the Authority to do these things under subsection (3)? Subsection (5) does not touch this particular refusal.
Sir L. Plummer: Yes, but surely in Section 4 (5) there is an incumbent duty
"on the Authority … to consult from time to time with the Postmaster-General"
1408
and he can at the same time give the Authority directions. I propose to argue that now is the time for directions to be given, and further to ask in the course of my speech whether in fact those consultations mentioned in subsection (5) were made by the Independent Television Authority.
Finally, I want to put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that if I am out of order, I was out of order in asking the Question on 7th December and the Postmaster-General was out of order in replying to the Question on that date, which was on the same subject, quoting the relevant paragraphs.
Mr. Speaker: I am afraid that I have not the Answer before me, but it sounded from what the hon. Member was saying that the Minister said that it was not his responsibility. It may be that the Question should not have been allowed. I do not know without having it before me, but my difficulty on the hon. Member's argument under Section 5 is, as he will see, that the consultations taking place under that Section are specifically limited by the terms of the Statute as to certain matters, namely,
"… classes and descriptions of goods or services …"
and the directions are limited as to those respects. That is my difficulty.
Sir L. Plummer: I see that, but with respect, may I say that, having had the Question tabled and answered and having announced in the House that I was dissatisfied with the Answer and proposed to raise the matter at the earliest opportunity on the Adjournment, and having got from you, Mr. Speaker, an Adjournment debate today, it is disconcerting to find now at this moment with eighteen minutes to go and when already eight minutes of my time has gone that there is now doubt cast on whether I am in order on something which was clearly in order when I raised it on 7th December.
Mr. Speaker: I am sorry to have to do this, but the hon. Member will realise my difficulty and I have my duty about this. The hon. Member gets his Adjournment de bene esse and I have to try to consider when he raises the topic whether he is in order. I am at present of the opinion that in seeking to raise

1409
the decision of which he seems to complain the hon. Member is out of order in view of the Statute.
Sir L. Plummer: There is the fourth paragraph of the Second Schedule which provides that
"In the acceptance of advertisements, there must be no unreasonable discrimination either against or in favour of any particular advertiser."
One of my arguments is that there has been discrimination against a particular advertiser.
Mr. Speaker: I quite accept that. The hon. Member will appreciate that the Second Schedule lays down what is prescribed under Section 4 as the duty of the Authority under subsection (3). That is where it arises. It says:
"It shall be the duty of the Authority to secure that the provisions of the Second Schedule of this Act are complied with …"
Sir L. Plummer: On your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, if the Authority does in fact show discrimination against any advertiser, those of us in Parliament are quite unable to raise this with the Minister. We have no power under the provisions of the Act which we debated and on which we voted to raise what we regard as an act of discrimination. It seems to me that your Ruling robs us of our constitutional right and our duty to raise a question of discrimination when we think we see one.
Mr. Speaker: I sympathise with the hon. Member. It may be that there is a remedy in law because the Statute imposes the duty on somebody else, but the rules of the House require me to limit discussion to Ministerial responsibility.
Mr. Christopher Mayhew: I have searched the Act for the Section—but I have not found it—which entitles the Postmaster-General to amend or in any way alter the Second Schedule of the Act. I am sure that you would agree, Mr. Speaker, that that entitles my hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer) to raise the matter.
The Assistant Postmaster-General (Miss Mervyn Pike): I may be able to help the hon. Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer). I think that perhaps under Section 4 (4) of the Act we can find the powers that he is talking about.
Sir L. Plummer: The words there are:
"After consultation with the Authority the Postmaster-General may make regulations by statutory instrument amending, repealing, or adding to the provisions of the said Schedule."
Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will pursue that, for that is better. I am sorry to have consumed so much of his time.
Sir L. Plummer: I am very much obliged to you, Mr. Speaker. I am now having to think fast to discover how I can now complete my speech within that framework. Because time is passing and I must give the Assistant Postmaster-General time to put the case that the Postmater-General wants her to put—and she has been sitting here for an hour—I will merely say that what I think has happened here, and what needs some action on the part of the Postmaster-General within that Section of the Act, is an act of political discrimination, because other advertisers have been given the facilities which have been denied to the Daily Worker.
In raising this point about the Daily Worker, one is, of course, always open to being regarded as taking a certain line for a political reason. I should like to tell the hon. Lady that during the height of the McCarthy campaign in America a man wrote a letter to a newspaper, and in the letter he said "Dear Sir, I am not a Communist, I never have been a Communist and I never will be a Communist, but it is still my view that the telephone directory should be printed in a larger type." That was the sort of defence which an American then had to make in introducing any controversial subject.
I am introducing the controversial subject of the discrimination against the Daily Worker for the following reasons. Whether we like it or not, this is a newspaper published in this country. It has political aims like any other newspaper. It should be given exactly the same treatment—no better and no worse—as any other newspaper. It is a journalistic effort. It is small. Under the terms of the Act which debar advertisements of bodies whose aims are wholly or mainly political, it may look more of a political paper than many of its rivals, and I think that that is due to its smallness.
I am afraid that if this decision by the Independent Television Authority goes

1411
through unchallenged it will establish a precedent and work to the detriment of the free Press of this country in the years to come. I should not like to see it used against a newspaper having Conservative views by people who do not share the hon. Lady's political views.
For these reasons, I ask the Postmaster-General—I trust that the hon. Lady will make representations to him—to take advantage of the Section of the Act under which I am speaking to have discussions with or issue instructions to the Independent Television Authority, despite its reasons and excuses, with a view to this discrimination against the Daily Worker ceasing.
4.47 p.m.
Mr. Christopher Mayhew: If the hon. Lady, the Assistant Postmaster-General, will allow me to speak for two minutes, I should just like to make this comment. This is the first time that the Independent Television Authority has strictly enforced the Television Act. Over and over again, when it has suited the interests of the programme companies, it has allowed the programme companies to ride a coach and horses through the Act. On this occasion it seems that the programme companies wished the Act to be meticulously enforced, and the Independent Television Authority enforced it with a meticulousness which would have pleased a medieval theologian.
I put it to the Assistant Postmaster-General that it is a strange thing that after the interpretation of the Act which the Independent Television Authority has given in matters such as the natural break, the amount of advertising—about which I questioned her today—balance of programmes and the monopoly element in I.T.V.—in all these matters where the interests of the programme companies required that the Independent Television Authority should be extremely lax in its interpretation of the Act, the Authority has been incredibly lax—on this one occasion it appears that the programme companies required a meticulous interpretation of the Act and the Independent Television Authority has taken a totally different view.
It bears out the contention which I think is shared on both sides of the House, if I read correctly a recent report
1412
from a Conservative Party committee, that the Independent Television Authority is not enforcing the Act overall with sufficient fairness and strictness. One gets the impression that the programme companies use the Authority as a kind of public relations office and that the Authority sometimes uses the Postmaster-General—not the hon. Lady—as a messenger boy. If the Act is to be strictly enforced, I should like to see it strictly enforced against the interests of the programme companies as well as in their interests.
4.50 p.m.
The Assistant Postmaster-General (Miss Mervyn Pike): The discussion we have had this afternoon I think demonstrates the difficulty we have in this particular instance in discussing this matter. Although I have little time at my disposal, I think that should again state the constitutional position as it affects the Post Office in this case.
The provisions of the Television Act were designed to ensure political impartiality on the part of the I.T.A., both in regard to programme content and in regard to advertisements. Section 3 (1, g) of the Act lays on the Authority the responsibility of satisfying itself
"that no matter designed to serve the interests of any political party is included in the programmes"
broadcast by the Authority. The only qualification on this is in respect of party political broadcasts, and in respect of the inclusion in its programmes of properly balanced discussions or debates where the persons taking part express opinions and put forward arguments of a political character. I mention these qualifications only to remind hon. Members—if indeed they need reminding—of those programmes which the Authority does provide, in which many hon. Members on both sides of the House have participated, and in which people of declared political opinions which are not represented in this House have, in the appropriate forum, appeared from time to time.
The Second Schedule of the Television Act refers directly to advertisements which the Authority may or may not accept. Paragraph 6 of the Second Schedule states:
"No advertisement shall be permitted which is inserted by or on behalf of any body the

1413
objects whereof are wholly or mainly of a religious or political nature, and no advertisement shall be permitted which is directed towards any religious or political end or has any relation to any industrial dispute."
This paragraph, though no less specific, is wider in its scope than the one I quoted earlier to hon. Members since its terms are not confined to political parties or to the policies of political parties.
The position of the I.T.A. is therefore clearly defined in this matter. It is, as I have no doubt hon. Members will recognise, in a special position inasmuch as there is no similar statutory restriction on any other advertising media. All political parties can buy newspaper or poster space to appeal for support or commend their policies or to seek increased membership. They may not do so on television; they may not advertise for any purpose whatsoever, however devoid of political content the advertisements may be, or may appear to be.
I shall refer to the special position of the I.T.A. later, but the important point—in fact the crux of the matter—which I wish to make clear to hon. Members is that Parliament has laid on the I.T.A. the obligation of ensuring compliance with paragraph 6 of the Second Schedule, and, indeed, of enforcing the other relevant provisions of the Act. Whatever the content of the advertisement, the I.T.A. must ask itself certain questions, and in the case of advertisements these questions relate to the body or organisation which wishes to advertise. If the objects of any body wishing to advertise are wholly or mainly of a religious or political nature, the Authority must refuse to accept advertisements from that body, and the decision in such cases rests with the Independent Television Authority.
Hon. Members may ask why the I.T.A. came to the conclusion that it did in the case of the Daily Worker, and, in particular, why, if one newspaper is ruled out because its objects are wholly or mainly of a political nature, should not all other newspapers be ruled out for these reasons? I am not in a position to say on what evidence the I.T.A. and its legal advisers came, as they did, to the conclusion that they would be contravening the Act if they accepted adverts from the Daily Worker. I hope that I have explained the position of the
1414
Authority under the Act, and its responsibilities. I can certainly say that the I.T.A. in its considered view is interpreting the words of the Act with strictness and accuracy, and does not feel the slightest doubt that the objects of the Daily Worker are mainly political. Hon. Members are entitled to differ from the I.T.A., but the decision in these cases rests fairly and squarely on the shoulders of the Authority: and Parliament has put it there.
I would, however, like to say this. Although hon. Members, and others outside this House, have suggested that other newspapers besides the Daily Worker exist mainly for political ends, no one has suggested that the real objects of the Daily Worker are not wholly or mainly of a political nature.
Hon. Members have pressed my right hon. Friend to intervene in some way, for instance, under the provisions of Section 4 (5) of the Act. Consultation under Section 4 (5) of the Act is not in point, because the Authority has a separate statutory duty laid on it to comply with paragraph 6 of the Second Schedule, and consultation under Section 4 (5) is without prejudice to that duty. I should add that, under the terms of Section 4 (5), my right hon. Friend could in any case only tell the Authority what it must not advertise. He cannot overrule provisions of the Act and instruct the Authority to advertise something which contravenes those provisions.
Hon. Members say that my right hon. Friend should take action under Section 4 (4) of the Act to amend the Second Schedule so as to exempt newspapers from its provisions. But if it is argued that newspapers form a special category, I would ask hon. Members what about publications of all kinds—weeklies, monthlies and quarterlies? Are all these to be removed from the ban under paragraph 6? It is difficult to see how this exemption could be confined to newspapers in any case. There would also be the question of amending Section 3 (1,g). One must ask oneself where this would stop. Would it not involve a radical alteration of the whole Television Act-We believe it would.
Hon. Members have spoken of the freedom of the Press, and, indeed, have made out an extremely good case on this occasion. They have spoken of the need

1415
to allow all shades of opinion if we are to maintain a healthy democracy. But that is surely not the point here. Parliament has decided that we must proceed in certain well-defined ways so far as the television medium is concerned because of the special power of that medium. I must remind hon. Members that at the time of the debate on the Television Bill in 1954, the issues which I have just rehearsed were aired in this House and hon. Members had an opportunity to comment on the provisions of paragraph 6 of the Second Schedule. There was no adverse comment on these provisions at that time. Indeed, the concern of hon. Members on both sides of the House was lest the medium should be abused for political or religious purposes, and the Government paid due regard to this concern by introducing the safeguards that I have mentioned. There is no ban on freedom of expression in general. It is a ban on one medium which is of special application laid down by Parliament, and it will be for Parliament to review it in due course.
1416
Both my right hon. Friend and I recognise the tremendous power of television for good and evil. It seems to me that all these points that have been raised by hon. Members come within the scope of the review of television and broadcasting generally, on which the Pilkington Committee is now working. I am sure that they will have noted these matters, and I will certainly undertake to draw their attention to the views which have been expressed here today.
Mr. Mayhew: Perhaps the hon. Lady will give a welcome assurance to viewers at Christmastime that in future other parts of the Act will be enforced with equal strictness?
Miss Pike: I should like to say that I hope all viewers of television will have a happy Christmas.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at two minutes to Five o'clock, till Tuesday, 24th January, pursuant to the Resolution of the House yesterday.

ROADS
  Crick-Doncaster By-Pass
  Crick-Doncaster By-Pass
  Severn Bridge (Approach Roads)
  Severn Bridge (Approach Roads)
  Accidents
  Accidents
  Clearways
  Clearways
  Pedestrian Crossings, Hayes and Harlington
  Pedestrian Crossings, Hayes and Harlington
  Parking Meters, Jermyn Street
  Parking Meters, Jermyn Street
  A.27
  A.27
  M.1 (Grade Separated Junctions)
  M.1 (Grade Separated Junctions)
SHIPPING
  Shipping Industry
  Shipping Industry
  Pontoon Docks, Aberdeen
  Pontoon Docks, Aberdeen
  M.1, M.10 and M.45 (Accident Rates)
  M.1, M.10 and M.45 (Accident Rates)
  North-East Coast
  North-East Coast
RAILWAYS
  White Paper
  White Paper
  Electified Services, Glasgow (Withdrawal)
  Electified Services, Glasgow (Withdrawal)
TRANSPORT
  London Traffic (Survey)
  London Traffic (Survey)
  A.27
  A.27
  Waterways
  Waterways
  Boats (Safety Standards)
  Boats (Safety Standards)
  WEST GERMAN FORCES (DEPOTS AND TRAINING FACILITIES)
  WEST GERMAN FORCES (DEPOTS AND TRAINING FACILITIES)
  CHINA
  CHINA
  CONGO
  CONGO
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Armed Services (Recruitment)
  Armed Services (Recruitment)
  German Forces (Training Facilities)
  German Forces (Training Facilities)
  N.A.T.O. Forces (Training Facilities)
  N.A.T.O. Forces (Training Facilities)
  Capital Works Expenditure, Kenya
  Capital Works Expenditure, Kenya
  Departmental Bodies
  Departmental Bodies
  N.A.T.O. (Air Defence System)
  N.A.T.O. (Air Defence System)
  ALGERIA (UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION)
  ALGERIA (UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION)
  LAOS (NEUTRAL SITUATION)
  LAOS (NEUTRAL SITUATION)
  UNITED NATIONS (UNITED KINGDOM CONTRIBUTIONS)
  UNITED NATIONS (UNITED KINGDOM CONTRIBUTIONS)
  CONGO (UNITED NATIONS FORCE)
  CONGO (UNITED NATIONS FORCE)
  SOUTH-WEST AFRICA (U.N. RESOLUTIONS)
  SOUTH-WEST AFRICA (U.N. RESOLUTIONS)
  BRITISH TRADE FAIR, MOSCOW
  BRITISH TRADE FAIR, MOSCOW
  EGYPT (COMPENSATION ORDER)
  EGYPT (COMPENSATION ORDER)
EMPLOYMENT
  Retired Regular Officers
  Retired Regular Officers
  Aberkenfig, Tondu and Brynmenyn
  Aberkenfig, Tondu and Brynmenyn
  Shops, Offices and Railway Premises (Safety, Health and Welfare)
  Shops, Offices and Railway Premises (Safety, Health and Welfare)
  Wage Claims (Arbitration Awards)
  Wage Claims (Arbitration Awards)
  Swindon
  Swindon
  Industrial Dispute, Tannochside
  Industrial Dispute, Tannochside
  Industrial Workers (Earnings)
  Industrial Workers (Earnings)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Milk Testing
  Milk Testing
  Hops
  Hops
  Sheep Scab Order
  Sheep Scab Order
  White Fish Authority (Grants)
  White Fish Authority (Grants)
  Foot-and-Mouth Disease, Aberdeenshire
  Foot-and-Mouth Disease, Aberdeenshire
  Fertiliser Subsidy
  Fertiliser Subsidy
COLONIAL TERRITORIES
  Reports
  Reports
KENYA
  Dalgleish Report
  Dalgleish Report
  Venereal Disease
  Venereal Disease
FIJI
  Sugar Industry (Commission of Inquiry)
  Sugar Industry (Commission of Inquiry)
MALTA
  Family Allowances
  Family Allowances
  Dockyard (Development Plan)
  Dockyard (Development Plan)
ST. LUCIA
  Hurricane Damage (Government Grant)
  Hurricane Damage (Government Grant)
MINISTRY OF AVIATION
  Air Traffic Control
  Air Traffic Control
  Britannic Freighter Aircraft (Contract)
  Britannic Freighter Aircraft (Contract)
ROYAL NAVY
  Reserve Fleet (Refits)
  Reserve Fleet (Refits)
  Committees and Working Parties
  Committees and Working Parties
  Malta Dockyard
  Malta Dockyard
ROYAL AIR FORCE
  Committees and Working Parties
  Committees and Working Parties
  Methwold Airfield, Norfolk
  Methwold Airfield, Norfolk
MINISTRY OF EDUCATION
  National Council for Awards in Art and Design
  National Council for Awards in Art and Design
  Widdicombe House School, Devon
  Widdicombe House School, Devon
NATIONAL FINANCE
  £ Sterling (Value)
  £ Sterling (Value)
  Tate Gallery (Loan of Pictures)
  Tate Gallery (Loan of Pictures)
  Lower Judiciary, Scotland (New Salary Scales)
  Lower Judiciary, Scotland (New Salary Scales)
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Chiropody Service, Swindon
  Chiropody Service, Swindon
  Committees and Working Parties
  Committees and Working Parties
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Approved Schools (Home Leave)
  Approved Schools (Home Leave)
  Committees and Working Parties
  Committees and Working Parties
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Committees and Working Parties
  Committees and Working Parties
PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE
  Deferred Retirement Pensions (Wives)
  Deferred Retirement Pensions (Wives)
  Contracting Out
  Contracting Out
  Graded Pensions (Cost in 1991–92)
  Graded Pensions (Cost in 1991–92)
  Leigh, Atherton and Tyldesley (Administrative Costs)
  Leigh, Atherton and Tyldesley (Administrative Costs)
POST OFFICE
  Satellite Communications
  Satellite Communications
TELEPHONE SERVICE
  Call Charges, Dartford (Accounting)
  Call Charges, Dartford (Accounting)
WIRELESS AND TELEVISION
  Licence Fee (Deaf and Dumb Persons)
  Licence Fee (Deaf and Dumb Persons)
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Motor Industry
  Motor Industry
  Restrictive Trade Practices (Proceedings)
  Restrictive Trade Practices (Proceedings)
  Grey Cotton Cloth
  Grey Cotton Cloth
BRITISH ARMY
  Committees
  Committees
  Recruiting Offices
  Recruiting Offices
MINISTRY OF WORKS
  Big Ben
  Big Ben

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before twelve of the clock, The LORD MERTHYR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of St. Albans

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES BILL [H.L.]
11.50 a.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be again in Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Dundee.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair.]
Seventh Schedule (continued):
[SOLID FUEL]
PART I
General
4.—-(l) A local weights and measures authority may make byelaw, subject to the confirmation of the Minister of Power, for any of the following purposes, that is to say—

(a) for securing that on any premises or vehicle within their area on or from which solid fuel available for purchase in a quanity of two hundredweight or less is sold or kept or exposed for sale there is displayed a notice specifying the price of the fuel; and

(b) for prohibiting the sale on or from any such premises or vehicle of any such fuel at a higher price than that so displayed in relation to that fuel.

PART II
Weighing of solid fuel at buyer's request
6. If the buyer of any solid fuel so requests before delivery thereof is completed, the seller or his agent shall cause the fuel to be weighed in the presence of the buyer at the time of, or as soon as reasonably practicable after, delivery, and any such weighing shall be carried out on weighing equipment stamped by an inspector; and if this paragraph is contravened, the seller shall be guilty of an offence.
LORD LATHAM: The Seventh Schedule deals with solid fuel. The purpose of this Amendment is to delete the limitation as regards quantities
974
which are 2 cwt. or less. I think that it will be found that this limitation has its origin in the fact that local authority by-laws made under the Act of 1889 were limited in this way. But we shall all admit that conditions have changed. At that time, coal was a very cheap commodity. For many years now it has been a dear commodity, and is becoming dearer, and it seems to us that a limitation which was appropriate some 50 years ago is now inappropriate and, in my submission, inapt. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 76, line 39, leave out from ("purchase") to ("is") in line 40.—(Lord Latham.)
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (THE EARL OF DUNDEE): This is an interesting point because this is the one occasion where the Bill touches upon the price-ticketing of goods, a matter which, in the Government's view, is really extraneous to a Weights and Measures Bill. This Amendment relates to paragraph 4 of the Seventh Schedule, which gives power to local authorities to make by-laws for securing the exhibition of price boards at premises and on vehicles from which solid fuel is sold, and also for prohibiting the sale of such fuel on or from such premises at a higher price than that displayed. These by-laws will be subject to confirmation by the Minister of Fuel and Power, while existing by-laws of these kinds, made under current weights and measures legislation, are preserved under the paragraph until they are revoked.
Weights and measures legislation relates only to one aspect of consumer protection, and the general question of quality and price protection is now being examined by the Molony Committee under wide terms of reference. Apart from the self-contained field of weights and measures, the Government wish to avoid piecemeal extension of legislation until the question of consumer protection can be considered as a whole, in the light of such advice as the Molony Committee eventually offers. The Government, therefore, feel that it would not be right to extend the powers given in the paragraph to a wider field than that to which they extend already. Under the Weights and Measures Act, 1889, under which the great bulk of these bylaws have been made, local authorities

975
are restricted to making by-laws regulating the sale of coal in quantities not exceeding 2 cwt. and this limitation has been included in this paragraph as it is now drafted. For these reasons, we should prefer not to extend a power which really is related to price and quality rather than to weight or measurement of coal.
LORD LATHAM: That is a formidable statement. I think, however, that it is correct to say that the Hodgson Committee did not approve of the limitation to be found in the by-laws made by local authorities. I may be wrong about that.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I think that the noble Lord is right, but I should like to look it up.
LORD LATHAM: In the circumstances indicated, and relying on the fact that the matter is being dealt with in a more general sense in the Molony Committee's Report, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD FARINGDON: This is an Amendment for which I would plead, as directed by the noble Earl yesterday, on conservative grounds. The aim of the Amendment is to preserve the law as it is and as it was laid down under the Act of 1889. The Bill provides that when goods are delivered, the buyer must request a weighing of the goods before the delivery is completed. This is an alteration of the law as it now is, and, I suggest, neither a good nor a practical one from the buyer's point of view. Because surely in the majority of cases the buyer will not suspect that he is being given short measure until delivery is completed, when he may notice that the particular delivery is apparently smaller in his cellar, or wherever the coal may be delivered, than is customary. Similarly, he may have the impression that there are fewer sacks after delivery than are apparent on the invoice. Those are things, I suggest, of which he is unlikely to become aware or to suspect until delivery has been completed. Therefore, I suggest that it would be better and fairer if this Amendment were adopted and the buyer was entitled to make his claim for reweighing to be on completion of delivery. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 77, line 11, leave out ("before delivery thereof is completed.")—(Lord Faringdon.)
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I am glad that this Amendment has been moved, because it is true that we are altering the existing law as established by the Act of 1899 and this gives me the opportunity of explaining the reasons why we feel it right that this course should be taken. First, let me explain what paragraph 6 of the Seventh Schedule does. It requires the seller or his agent to re-weigh solid fuel when so requested by the buyer, but this requirement is operative only if the request is made before delivery is completed. The weighing may be afterwards, but the request has to be made before delivery is completed and has been accepted; that is to say, the request may be made during the course of delivery, before all the coal has been shovelled out. Paragraph 6 of this Schedule, as at present drafted, while it relieves the merchant of responsibility of re-weighing after delivery has been completed, leaves such request to be dealt with by the inspector. Under the existing law the responsibility was on the merchant to do the re-weighing, even though the request to have it re-weighed was made after delivery had been accepted. What we feel is that the 1889 Act rather glossed over the practical difficulties of doing this, and we think we are putting it in this Schedule on a more rational basis.
The Obligation to re-weigh the coal whatever the circumstances is a rather unreasonable burden on merchants. In most cases, of course, they are reluctant, for fear of losing custom, to make any charges for this service, even when the time and labour required to re-weigh coal lying in a cellar would fully justify a charge. Moreover, the request to re-weigh solid fuel in a cellar, whether by the merchant or by the inspector, is often a waste of time, because there may have been a whole lot of fuel in the cellar immediately before the delivery of the load the weight of which has been questioned. In those circumstances, if it is the merchant who refuses to re-weigh, even when the refusal is accompanied by a reasonable explanation of what ought to be Obvious to a customer, the fact that the onus of making a refusal is on the merchant may make a customer

977
suspicious, and therefore the merchant may be reluctant to refuse.
Under this system the onus of saying whether it should be re-weighed or not is no longer on the merchant; it would be on the inspector if the request was made after delivery. The inspector is in a different position. He has considerably more authority than the merchant's employee, and is, moreover, in an independent position. If the inspector feels it right: to explain that it is useless to re-weigh the load of fuel that has been shot on the top of the remains of a previous load, what he says will normally be accepted by the customer and will not create suspicion that the coal merchant is trying to get out of his responsibilities. But if the Amendment were accepted, the merchant would be unable to refuse, because he would then commit an offence. He would have to carry out a re-weighing which he might know to be a waste of time; and the fact that, under paragraph 8 of the Schedule, he can recoup his costs is hardly a satisfactory recompense. While I am anxious to preserve everything hat is good in the 1889 Act, I hope your Lordships will agree that arils Schedule does rationalise and improve the position.
LORD FARINGDON: I am not wholly happy about the noble Earl's reply. I see his point, and I think it is a valid one: probably it is more satisfactory that the weighing should be done by the inspector than by the merchant. On the other hand, I should have thought that just that particular change would require that the request should be made after delivery rather than during delivery, obviously within a limited time or in a comparatively short space of time. Most of us do not know off-hand where we can find an inspector; and presumably, if I understand the position, the request has to be made to him. If that is so, would it not be almost essential that the request should be made after delivery?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: The request can he made after delivery to the inspector, but the responsibility of weighing it is no longer on the coal merchant. I understand the noble Lord's point is that the customer might not be able to make a request: because he would not know where the inspector was. I do not know what can be done about that. If he wants to make a complaint, he ought to
978
be able to take steps to find a suitable authority to whom the complaint can be made and who will have to judge it.
LORD FARINGDON: I am still in this difficulty. To start with, as I explained when I moved the Amendment, a buyer more often than not is unlikely to suspect short measure until the delivery is completed. In that case, under this Amendment, he has to make his claim before the delivery is completed; before the last sack has gone in, I presume, or something of that sort. But if he has not only to make a claim from the merchant, but somehow or other while the delivery is still continuing has to find an inspector and ask him to order a re-weighing of the delivery, it seems to me impossible to take advantage of this provision. I wonder whether I am being very stupid, but it does not seem to me that the noble Earl's answer has covered my point.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I quite see the noble Lord's point, but it seems to me that he is assuming that all the consumers in this country are incapable of getting hold of an inspector of weights and measures, or even knowing how to apply to him. Surely, if they are going to make a complaint, it is not unreasonable that they should take the not very difficult step of ascertaining where the nearest inspector lives.
LORD FARINGDON: The noble Earl has not got my point, which is two-fold. It is difficult, I think, for the buyer to make up his mind that he suspects a short measure and therefore wants a re-weighing. It is difficult for him to do that before the delivery is completed. That is my first point. My second point is that under the present law and under this Bill he can ask the merchant after delivery is completed. If it is the merchant he is asking it would not be so difficult, because before the last sack went in he has made up his mind, and there may be something to be said for terminating the period in which he must make his claim. Some such provision would have to be made, I agree, if he has to get hold of the inspector as well. Suppose he knows where the inspector lives. Unless he lives next door, which is unlikely, he has somehow to contact him or send somebody for him—and he may have nobody to send—before the delivery is completed.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: No. Let us be clear about this. Under this Schedule, the responsibility is no longer on the coal merchant to come and re-weigh it unless the request for re-weighing has been made either before or during delivery. If the customer wants to have it re-weighed after delivery, having, as the noble Lord supposes, not discovered until some time after he has accepted delivery that he has been given short weight, he has all the 'time in the world to make a request for its being re-weighed, but the responsibility for doing it is not on the coal merchant, All the customer has to do if he does not know where the inspector lives is to ask the nearest policeman, because part of the duty of the police is to give information on that kind of thing. He has as much time as he likes to get in touch with the inspector and have the coal re-weighed. For the reason I gave in my original reply, I think that would be more satisfactory than making it compulsory for the coal merchant to come back at some later time and re-weigh it.
LORD FARINGDON: May I see whether I have it right? The request must be made to the merchant before the delivery is completed, but the weighing will be done by the inspector. Is that right?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: No. The weighing would have to be done by the merchant if the delivery had not been completed. If the merchant is delivering three or four sacks of coal and if, by the time he gets to the last sack, the customer who is watching thinks, "These sacks do not look big enough", that is, before delivery is completed, and the responsibility is still on the merchant to re-weigh it. It is only if, two or three days later, the customer thinks he has not had as much as he should that, instead of ringing up the merchant and saying "You will have to come hack and re-weigh this coal which I have had in the cellar for two or three days", he then asks the inspector.
LORD FARINGDON: I thank the noble Earl. I think that makes it clearer. I do not know if any of my noble friends have anything to say, but I should be satisfied to withdraw the Amendment.
THE EARL OF WOOLTON: May I I ask one question for information? It
980
seems to me that if you say to the person who is a potential rogue, "We give you notice before you make the delivery that we shall want this weighed", then you have a good preventive clause, because the man will say, "We cannot give short weight there, because they are going to insist on having it weighed." Is that the object of the clause?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: That is the position under the clause, and it has always been the position under the 1889 Act. If the customer gives notice before a delivery that he wants it re-weighed, the obligation always has been on the merchant, and under this Schedule it still remains on the merchant. It is a question of when the request for re-weighing was made. If the request is made in advance—that is before delivery has been completed—
THE EARL OF WOOLTON: You are then quite certain you will not get short weight.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I do not know whether you would be certain you will not get short weight, but it would reduce the danger.
THE EARL OF WOOLTON: Surely, if the merchant had been given notice that he was going to be tested, he would say, "We will not give short weight this time."
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: It is to be hoped that his reasoning would proceed on those lines.
LORD SHEPHERD: There is still considerable doubt in my mind and, I think, in the minds of some of my noble friends on this matter. I think the noble Earl should have a look at the position again. What is the position of, say, a delivery of one sack of coal? It cannot be weighed unless an inspector is present. The inspector is in a weak position, because the merchant may say, "I delivered the correct weight. It now appears to be short, but I think the customer has taken a few lumps away." It would be very difficult to reconcile this.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: He can say that now, but the responsibility for weighing is on him. He can say, "I have re-weighed but you have used some of it." He can use that in defence just

981
as much now as he will be able to under this Bill.
LORD LATHAM: It is clear from the discussion which has taken place that this provision is full of doubt as to its efficacy. It means that if the customer wishes to have it weighed by an inspector after delivery, he must not use any of the coal until the inspector comes along and weighs. Inspectors will not be so numerous that they will be waiting for telephone calls, either at the department of the local authority or, outside working hours, at home. I do not suppose the inspector will be required to stand by at home. If he is, it will involve a considerable expense upon local authorities in paying him to be there. It means that during all that time until the customer can get into touch with that inspector and get him along, he is inhibited from using any of the coal, however cold it may be and however much he may need it. I think the doubts which are in the minds of all of us on both sides of the Chamber indicate that the matter should be looked at again, because I am quite sure there is some difficulty here.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: The noble Lord has now raised the question of whether there would be any great delay in getting the inspector to come and weigh the coal if short weight was suspected after delivery, compared with the length of time it would take to get to the coal merchant in a normal community to come and re-weigh it. I will certainly look into that question and see whether it has been taken account of.
LORD FARINGDON: I have another point I should like to put. At what point under this Schedule would delivery he considered to be complete? Would it be when the buyer signed a receipt to say that he had received it? I know this is slightly technical, but it seems rather important.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I do not think this is a point on which there can be zany legal doubt. If it was the practice to sign a receipt for these kind of deliveries no doubt that would be the moment. If the customer was in the habit of accepting the coal without signing a receipt, no doubt the delivery would be completed at the time when it had been deposited in his cellar and
982
the lorry had departed. As the noble Lord said, that is a technical point, and I do not know that a general answer can be given to that kind of question. If it was a question which had to go to the courts, they might consider all kinds of circumstances which at the moment are not in the noble Lord's mind or in mine.
LORD MACPHERSON OF DRUMOCHTER: I understood the noble Earl to say that if, in the course of delivery of half a ton of coal, the buyer suspects the weight is not correct and he says to the coal merchant or the lorry driver, "I think you have given short weight and I Propose to ask the inspector to have it re-weighed", that would Abe sufficient.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: In those circumstances he can demand that the coal merchant should re-weigh; it is not necessary to spend time sending for the inspector, if he makes the request before delivery is complete.
LORD FARINGDON: I thank the noble Earl. I think he 'has reduced my doubts and I would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Seventh Schedule (continued):
PART III
Carriage of solid fuel by road
LORD LATHAM LORD LATHAM moved to add to paragraph 10:
"(5) If the vehicle is carrying relevant goods for delivery to each of two or more. buyers or for delivery on sale or for the purpose of exposing or offering such goods for sale, those goods shall be made up in containers. If this sub-paragraph is contravened, the seller shall be guilty of an offence."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment deals with Part III of the Seventh Schedule which is concerned with the carriage of solid fuel by road. The purpose is to remedy what. is regarded as a serious defect in this Part of the Schedule, in that it permits solid fuel carried in a vehicle in bulk to be weighed up subsequently in small quantities by coal carters, either in the street or on the premises of the buyers. In most cases this kind of weighing is done in the street and often when the buyer is not at home.

983
The procedure which it is proposed to permit provides endless opportunities, I submit with all respect to the coal trade, for dishonesty by carters. Moreover, dishonesty of this kind is almost impossible to detect by routine inspection and can in most cases he detected and proved only by laying an elaborate time-consuming trap.
Many local authorities have sought to prevent weighing at the point of delivery by getting by-laws and other local legislation requiring coal for delivery to more than one buyer to be carried in sacks each containing a specified quantity. I am informed that this has worked out extremely well in practice, and it is in the interests, therefore, of the purchasing public that similar requirements should be embodied in the present Bill. The Amendment is intended to achieve this purpose. If this Amendment is not accepted or if the Bill is not amended in the sense of meeting the grave defect to which I have referred, then it seems the weights and measures authorities, after the passing of this Bill, will have less power in this connection that at the present time under such by-laws or local legislation as they may have. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 78, line 26, at end insert the said subparagraph.—(Lord Latham.)
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I have considered this Amendment very carefully, and I have no doubt that very often in practice it would be the most convenient way and the most proper way to distinguish between the quantities intended for delivery to separate customers. But it appears that in some parts of the country it is the general custom for quantities of loose coal to be carried on the same vehicle for a number of customers, the quantities being separated not by containers but by boards which form partitions on the vehicle. Such coal is often discharged on to the pavement, the house-holder then shovelling it into his own cellar.
If the customers think this is the most convenient way of taking delivery of the coal it ought not to be necessary, from a weights and measures point of view, to prevent this method of carrying and delivering coal, provided that the general requirements of the Seventh Schedule are
984
complied with: that is to say, provided the fuel is sold by net weight and in one of the quantities specified in paragraph 2 of this Part of the Schedule. In view of what the noble Lord has said, perhaps we could consider whether it would be possible to devise some form of words which would ensure that the portions of coal destined for each customer are distinguished in some way which will prevent their being mixed up, though not necessarily by being put in containers.
LORD LATHAM: I was very disturbed to hear the noble Lord tell me of the practice in certain parts of the country of designating weight by moving boards. It offers a wonderful field for adjustment. One could almost play chess with the boards. But in view of the noble Earl's offer to look into the matter, appreciating as he does the importance of it, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Seventh Schedule agreed to.
Eighth Schedule[Miscellaneous Goods other than Foods]:
PART III
Chalk, lime, inorganic fertilizers, agricultural salt and Portland cement
12.15 p.m.
LORD LATHAM: This Amendment is intended to remove the limitation that the fertilisers to which this Part applies must be inorganic. An enormous development is taking place, which no doubt will continue, in the provision of fertilisers and the like, and I imagine there are certain substances which are mixtures of organic and inorganic; and this Amendment has been put down for the purpose of widening the application of the provision. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 81, line 45, leave out ("inorganic").—(Lord Latham.)
LORD ST. OSWALD: This Amendment seeks to bring within the scope of Part III of this Schedule organic fertilisers such as manure, guano and so forth, in addition to inorganic fertilisers like phosphates. Organic fertilisers do not readily lend themselves to control under weights and measures law. In agricultural areas, for instance, a large number of sales of manure—I think I

985
might safely say the great majority—are made by farmers. A load of manure will often be put into a tractor drawn trailer, probably fitted with sideboards, and to require vehicles of this kind to be calibrated by volume, or indeed to be weighed, would be quite impracticable. The Government believe that consumers of these fertilisers will be sufficiently protected by the general short weight and measure provision of Clause 25 in those cases where a representation of quantity is voluntarily made by the seller. Consumers will also be protected by the fact that if organic fertilisers are voluntarily sold by weight or volume, any weighing or measuring equipment used will be liable to supervision by the local authority's inspectors of weights and measures. The noble Lord mentioned the possibility of organic and inorganic fertilisers being mixed. They will be caught by the provisions of the Ninth Schedule and will have to be sold by or marked with their weight as the Bill stands.
LORD LATHAM: In the light of what the noble Lord has said, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
12.20 p.m.
LORD LATHAM: This Amendment raises the general question of net weight versus gross weight. We take the view that there is no justification for the goods covered by this Schedule being sold other than by net weight. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 82, line 24, leave out from ("weight") to the end of line 26.—(Lord Latham.)
LORD ST. OSWALD: Paragraph 3 of Part III of the Eighth Schedule requires pre-packed solid inorganic fertilisers to be sold by retail only in containers marked with a declaration in terms of net weight or gross weight, and, where gross 'weight is declared, sub-paragraph (2) limits the weight of the containers which may be included in the weight sold. Under this sub-paragraph the containers used must not exceed a weight calculated at the rate of 24 ounces per hundredweight of the gross weight, or approximately 1·3 per cent. The Amendment would have the effect of requiring all the articles covered by this Part of the Schedule to be sold only by net weight. Indeed it
986
is in the same bracket as matters which we have been discussing at great length during this debate.
In this particular case, the majority of these articles are packed on autometer weighing machines, very often in paper sacks. These are of special design, enabling the sack to be hung from the spout through which the goods are ejected. I have with me photographs and diagrams of some of them. They are very costly and complicated machines. Some of them cost, not thousands but tens of thousands of pounds, and in all of them, I think I am right in saying, the spout forms part of the weighing machine; hence the weight of the sack is included in the filled article. If these articles were required to be sold by net weight, difficulties would be caused to packers, and production might well be slowed down and the cost of the article increased. In our view, gross weight with a controlled maximum for the weight of the container is the right requirement here for these commodities. With those words, I hope that I have persuaded the noble Lord to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD LATHAM: In the light of what the noble Lord has said, which repeats what has been said by the noble Ministers dealing with this matter frequently in the course of he consideration of this Bill—the whole question can, of course, again be considered on the Report stage—f ask permission to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Eighth Schedule (continued):
PART IV
Haberdashery
LORD LATHAM: The purpose of this Amendment is to bring into this Part of the Schedule string, twine, rope, sash-cord and clothes line. It is suggested that these articles would not, strictly speaking, be regarded as haberdashery and in any case they ought to be included. In the course of my speech on Second Reading I gave an instance reported by a weights and measures authority of clothes line being sold, in one case about two and a half feet short, and in another case four and a half feet short. In one case there were

987
prosecutions and the person concerned was convicted. It seems to me that there can be little reason, if any, why these articles should not be within the provisions of the Bill. The fact that they are relatively cheap makes the liability to abuse and, in some cases, dishonesty, more attractive. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 82, line 33, after ("tape") insert ("string, twine, rope, sashcord. clothes lines"). —(Lord Latham.)
LORD ST. OSWALD: The Amendment seeks to add a fairly wide range of cordage to the list of goods required by Part IV of the Eighth Schedule to be sold either by net weight or by length, and when pre-packed to be marked with a declaration of net weight or length. There are practical difficulties in the way of ensuring that articles such as balls or hanks of string are accurate when they reach the consumer. A length can often be removed without its being noticed either by the retailer or the purchaser, and it would be manifestly unfair to make the original supplier responsible in such cases. The Government are satisfied that at this stage there is no necessity for these articles to be specifically controlled; but the power is in the Bill, should fresh circumstances arise, for the Board to bring string and rope within the purview of the Bill. In the meantime, where a definite representation of length is made by a seller—which is a fairly common practice in the case of pre-packed sash-cord and clothes-lines—then consumers will have the protection of the general short weight or measure provisions of Clause 25.
LORD LATHAM: In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD FARINGDON LORD FARINGDON had given Notice of intention to move four Amendments to bring knitting wools within the scope of the Part. The noble Lord said: This, and the three succeeding Amendments, deal with the same point; so, with the consent of your Lordships, I will speak on all four. These Amendments follow the recommendation of the Hodgson Report, which recommended that knitting wools should be sold by net weight and
988
bear a statement of minimum not weight on them. Your Lordships will probably be aware that most—in fact, I think all —knitting patterns carry an indication of the weight of wool which is required. That is the ordinary way in which the housewife who has some knitting to do buys her wool, and likes to buy it; and the only way in which she can be sure that in fact she is getting what she requires for her pattern is that the wool she is buying is weighable. It is an increasing tendency in the trade now to sell wool by hanks of not particularly definable weight or length, and wool is frequently sold labelled only with a statement of approximate weight. This seems to us to be open to considerable abuse.
Your Lordships will notice that at the end of the Amendment we have suggested that a British Standard of moisture regain should be written into the Bill. We think that that is a method of meeting the difficulties posed with a material like wool 'which has a considerable moisture regain. It seems to us that this Amendment is important to a great number of people and is in the spirit of the Bill, the major object of which is, as we have said again and again, the protection of the customer. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 82, line 33, leave out ("and").—(Lord Faringdon.)
LORD BARNBY: When the Amendments use the words "knitting wools", if I correctly understand what is intended I would suggest that the more appropriate words would be "knitting yarns", because in this age yarns are being made of pure wool or of wool combined with other fibres. But it may even go so far as knitting yarns, including yarns made of any fibre. Therefore I suggest that the word "yarns" should be substituted for the word "wools".
LORD FARINGDON: I thank the noble Lord very much indeed for his suggestion which, if the Government were prepared to accept this Amendment. I should be delighted to include.
LORD SHEPHERD: I rise to support my noble friend and also the noble Lord opposite. I have some experience in selling knitting wools—admittedly not in

989
this country, but overseas. I noted with interest my noble friend's comment that a considerable amount of wool is being sold in this country under an approximate weight. I believe there is a fair amount, but I should not have put it dawn as "considerable". But I can tell him and your Lordships—and I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, will agree with me—that the leading firms in this country who produce knitting wools of various types all have it in a standard pack. To-day wool is not being sold loose. It is largely made up into what are called "balls", which are all of a standard weight and are also within the Standard 984 for moisture content.
If the Government will accept the Amendment as it stands, I believe that it will strengthen the position of responsible, reliable manufacturers in this country and will curb some of the abuses occurring to-day with imported wools—some from the Continent, some from Iron Curtain countries—which in some cases are being sold in a form making it appear to the public that they are British wools. There is no doubt there is some abuse in the matter, and I believe that the public, who are now very big purchasers of knitting wool, should be protected; and therefore I support my noble friend. I should like to see the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, included, because this should cover all knitting yarns, in the sense that wool is largely no longer pure but is being mixed with nylon and other acetate items.
LORD BARNBY: Before the noble Lord replies, and seeing that the noble Lord, Lord Faringdon, if I correctly understood him, moved a composite Amendment, in case the succeeding Amendment (No. 174) should not be moved, I should like to remind the noble Lord, particularly because he has referred to moisture content (and this is an extremely technical matter, as he will recognise), that the wool textile industry is primarily concerned with this. As the standard regain moisture content is referred to and accepted by the Hodgson Report, the British Standards Institute could 'provide the proper 'publicly recognised body to determine the manner in which these matters should be ordered and dealt with in the Bill.
LORD ST. OSWALD: It is true that these Amendments follow the Hodgson
990
Committee's recommendation that knitting wools, including certain other special wools, should be sold only in terms of weight; but the Government, after careful examination of the Hodgson Committee's views, have come to the conclusion that such a requirement would be extremely difficult to operate and enforce, and that, at the end of the day, it would fail to confer any really worthwhile protection on the consumer.
As regards the practical difficulties, these articles are extremely hygroscopic. They are products which are continually changing their moisture content, up and down, according to the temperature or humidity in which they are kept; and the weight of a hank varies enormously according to the humidity of the atmosphere at any particular time. In order to determine whether the weight of a hank was correct when it was wound, it would be necessary to determine its oven dry weight and then make a calculation to reduce the weight to the agreed conditions, so that the consumer could not check the weight for herself. Again, hanks of yarn, although normally sold by approximate weight, are made up by length; and it is easy to see that accurate control of the weight of an article the thickness of which is continually varying and which is made up according to a pre-determined length is extremely difficult. The position is not made easier by the fact that wool has elastic properties and can stretch during the winding on which it is made up for sale. Finally the same difficulty exists with hanks and balls of wool as was mentioned in connection with balls of string. It is well-nigh impossible to know, if short weight is detected, whether this is clue to someone having extracted a length of yarn without noticeable effect on the hank or ball.
From the consumer's point of view, a declaration of precise weight, even if practicable, would not guarantee that, say, the 10 ounces bought to make up a pattern, which says that 10 ounces is needed, would prove to be just the right amount for that pattern. It depends at least to some extent upon the way in which the individual knits, and upon the elasticity of the particular hanks of wool being used. I listened to the contention of the noble Lord, Lord Faringdon, that: the only way in which a knitting lady could judge how much wool she needed

991
was by its weight. But I doubt very much whether that argument is valid. I am bound to say that I also doubt the contention of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd—or what I understood to be his contention—that all the established and reliable producers of wool would welcome this Amendment. The British Standard Specification referred to in one of the related Amendments is under review, and has been for many years. It is by no means certain that any revised specification will resemble the old one, when considered from the point of view of its use as an aid to weights and measures enforcement. For the reasons already given, it has often not been practicable for producers to keep to the old specification, which is not, of course compulsory. I hope that I have explained the position to the noble Lord.
LORD FARINGDON: The noble Lord will have noticed that I make provision in my Amendment for a change in the standard. I am very disappointed by the noble Lord's reply and I am not sure that I can accept it. My inclination is to press this particular Amendment. It concerns a great many people who I think are liable to be somewhat defenceless. I feel that we should do something to help the housewife to get what she thinks she is getting, and hopes to get, when she is doing knitting work. Therefore I do not feel I can withdraw this Amendment. I can see that there are certain difficulties created by the nature of the material itself, but I do not think they are insuperable, and I believe that we ought to give this protection.
LORD LATHAM: Surely all the considerations set out by the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, were in the mind of the Committee which made a very strong recommendation that wool should be sold by net weight. In that view they had the support of local authorities, who were, and are, the weights and measures authorities. Moreover—and this is apropos of what the noble Lord said as regards size—they had the support of a number of women's associations, who requested that the sale by weight of knitting wool and similar commodities should be regularised under weights and measures legislation. In the circumstances, we feel that we cannot do other than press this Amendment.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: As one of the "defenceless housewives" I must support the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Faringdon. Surely the noble Lord will realise that all the objections he has raised to requiring the weight of wool to be indicated on the hank must apply to a practice which has gone on for a long time among the more reputable firms. It has been customary for yarn to be sold by weight, and I can see no valid objection to the proposal that that should now become obligatory. Noble Lords must appreciate that if this Amendment is not carried they may be found in a very embarrassing position. Those of us who have the pleasure sometimes of knitting woollen garments, such as pullovers, for noble Lords and their friends like, as my noble friend Lord Faringdon has said, to buy the full quantity of wool in the first instance. because if we do not do so, sometimes when we go to get a further supply there is no accurate match; and one would not like to see noble Lords in this House appearing in pullovers of a patchwork appearance. I support the Amendment.
LORD SHEPHERD: I have always tried to be polite, but really the reply that has been given is nonsense. In the knitting wool industry, firms like Patons and Baldwins are not rough-and-ready producers. Theirs is a very skilled operation. They know to the very closest part of an ounce what they are selling. I advise the noble Lord before the weekend to go to a store to look at a package of Patons and Baldwins 3-ply knitting wool, and he will there see the net weight of the knitting wool in the packet and the standards of the moisture which applies to the weight. I think the Government must look at this again. If they are not prepared to do so we must press this Amendment.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I cannot pass by the noble Lord's assertion that my noble friend's defence was nonsense; in fact, it still seems to me to be an adequate defence. But those of your Lordships who have spoken carry very great weight from many points of view. We have had the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, who speaks from the point of view of an experienced housewife, and also the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, and the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd. In view of the consensus of

993
expert opinion about this matter, I feel that, while I cannot agree to accept now what noble Lords say, I ought to undertake to reconsider the matter.
LORD FARINGDON: I once again thank the noble Earl very much for his accommodating attitude to this Amendment. As he said, it has received a great deal of support from all sides of the Committee. I thank other noble Lords who have supported me. I believe that this is really an important Amendment affecting a great many people. But, with the assurance of the noble Earl, I will beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Eighth Schedule (continued):
PART V
Miscellaneous goods to be sold by or marked with net weight
12.4:3 p.m.
LORD LATHAM: The purpose of this Amendment is to remove doubt, which I understand exists, as to whether cattle food is domestic. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 83, line 2, leave out ("domestic")—(Lord Latham.)
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: Sub-paragraph (d) of paragraph I includes manufactured food for domestic animals among the articles required to be sold by, or marked with, net weight. The noble Lord's Amendment would have the effect of requiring all manufactured feeding-stuffs for animals to be sold by, or marked with, net weight. The noble Lord said he moved it with the object of finding out whether cattle food would be included. But it would not, as I understand, be included. The Hodgson Committee took evidence only from 'the manufacturers of feeding-stuffs for pets, such as dogs and cats and birds. We could not regard their recommendations in relation to animal foods as extending beyond the field of these domestic animals. We could not consider extending it to the wider field of other animal food such as cattle cake, and so on, because the evidence for doing that just has not been considered by anybody. But if experience should show that the protection in this part of the Eighth Schedule ought to be extended to wider fields, the Board of Trade would be able to achieve that by means of orders under
994
Clause 22 of the Bill, having properly considered the reasons for doing so.
LORD LATHAM: In the light of that explanation, which has at all events clarified the position that cattle would not come within this provision, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD LATHAM: The purpose of this Amendment is to add to sub-paragraph (I) of paragraph l:
"soap powders and powders which are mixtures of soap and detergent".
It seems to me that if we are to have included "soap flakes" and "soap, other than liquid soap", then, if the protection of the consumer is really to be effective and comprehensive, soap powders and powders which are mixtures of soap and detergent should come within the provisions as well.
Amendment moved—
Page 83, line 7, at end insert ("soap powders and powders which are mixtures of soap and detergent").—(Lord Latham.)
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: This is rather a complicated point and I am grateful to the noble Lord for bringing it up with such brevity. The Amendment seeks to make sure that all possible types of washing materials are caught by the provisions of Part V of the Eighth Schedule. Let us see what is in it. The Part already lists cleansing powders, scouring powders, detergents, soap and soap flakes, which are all, in the broad sense, detergents, I think that these descriptions are sufficiently comprehensive to cover soap powders, and so require them to be sold by, or marked with, net weight. Powders which are mixtures of soap and detergent are not specifically listed in this Part of the Schedule. I think the noble Lord would agree that it would be extremely laborious if we were to try in every part of the Schedules, from the Fifth to the Eighth, to list all possible mixtures of the articles which are referred to in them.
What we have done, in the Ninth Schedule, paragraphs 1 and 2, is to try to cover all those mixtures and assortments of goods listed in the earlier Schedules which are not specifically mentioned in them. The effect of paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Ninth Schedule will be to require powders which are

995
mixtures of soap and detergents to be sold by, or marked with, net weight or measure. We assume that in practice this will mean that the powders will be marked with their net weight, and that any possible mixtures of these goods which are in liquid form will be marked with their measure. I think that this will achieve all that the noble Lord would wish to do in bringing forward his Amendment. I do not think that in a Bill of this kind we can list all the possible mixtures one can imagine; but if any kind of mixture appears later, in practice, not to be marked in the manner we think necessary to protect the interests of the public, it will then, under Clause 22, be possible to make an order ensuring that the appropriate form of marking is obligatory.
LORD LATHAM: I am much obliged for the helpful explanation which the noble Earl has given. I understand him to say that it is felt that soap powders and powders which are mixtures of soap and detergents are already, in various Parts of the Bill, covered by the Bill, but that, if that should be found not to be the case, the Board of Trade would consider taking steps to bring them within the provisions of Clause 22. In the light of that explanation and assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
12.49 p.m.
LORD LATHAM: I beg to move this Amendment. I think the case for it was made on the opening day of the Committee stage when an exhibit was produced by, I believe, the noble Viscount my Leader. I leave it at that. I should have thought there would be a willingness, and an obvious willingness, in the light of the exposure of that exhibit, on the part of the Government themselves to have put down an Amendment to bring in cosmetics. As they have not done so, I myself perform the duty.
Amendment moved—
Page 83, line 8, at end insert—
("() cosmetics").—(Lord Latham.)
THE EARL, OF DUNDEE: I gather from the noble Lord's observations in moving this Amendment that it would
996
not have been put down if the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition had not exhibited a jar of face cream, demonstrating that it contained less material than one might imagine it to contain if one looked only at the outside.
LORD LATHAM: That is stretching my language.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: But I do not think that the fact that anybody has recently discovered that some jars of face cream have large and weighty bottoms is a convincing case to require all cosmetics to be sold by weight, because I understand that some of them are sold by quality rather than by quantity. The Hodgson Committee recognised that it would not be appropriate to require all pre-packed cosmetics to be marked with the weight of the contents. For example, it would include lipstick and liquid eye black; and I should have thought that the term "cosmetics" was rather too vague to be included in the schedule.
You must have regard to what is in the consumer's mind when she buys these things. In some cases, the consumer may be interested almost wholly in quantity because the quality may be fairly standard. In other cases, the consumer is not at all concerned about quantity except within extremely wide limits, because she is buying the goods on the quality alone. This is particularly the case where the goods are semi-luxuries, which sell more on the quality, or even on the glamour that surrounds them. I should have thought that, in the field of female adornment, weight and glamour are not usually closely associated. However, in view of the disquiet about face cream which the noble Viscount expressed to the House, the Government will certainly look at that particular matter, but we could not undertake any specific action before hearing all the relevant facts about it.
LORD SHEPHERD: The noble Earl based his case on the question of quality being more important in some cases than quantity. I notice that in the list of goods which will be required to be sold by net weight under sub-paragraph (h) he has soap, and the noble Earl knows as well as I do that soap is also sold by quality. There are the cheaper soaps and there are the luxurious types of soap

997
in price, but you have been able to include soap in this Part. I should have thought that you would have been able to find some way to give protection to the consumer of cosmetics.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: It might be that you could take some particular kind of cosmetic and say, by order, "This shall be sold by weight". I think that "cosmetics" as a general term would be too wide.
LORD LATHAM: I take it from that that the noble Earl will look at the more limited question before the next stage, and in those circumstances, glamour or no glamour, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
12.54 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: On behalf of my noble Leader, I beg to move this Amendment. Part V, as we know, requires miscellaneous goods to be marked and sold with their net weight, and under sub-paragraph 1(j)there is included "tobacco other than cigars, cheroots, cigarettes and snuff". Then, in subparagraph 3(d)there is excluded "goods in a quantity of less than one ounce". We are therefore faced with the fact that tobacco, if it is less than one ounce in weight, can be sold without being marked with the net weight: and we have received certain representations, particularly from the industrial parts of the country, that tobacco is quite commonly sold in quantities of less than one ounce. Now tobacco, thanks—well, not thanks, but regrettably, owing to Government taxation, is a pretty expensive commodity, and we feel that, taking that into account, and the fact that in certain parts of the country a large number of people regularly buy tobacco in quantities of less than one ounce, this type of trade should not be excluded from the provisions of this Bill. Therefore, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 83, line 22, after ("goods") insert ("(except tobacco)").—(Lord Shepherd.)
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: This Amendment would have the effect of removing from the list of exemptions in paragraph 3 of Part V of this Schedule those small packets of tobacco which are commonly sold in Quantities of less than one ounce
998
for a low price. The arguments on this Amendment are exactly the same as those which applied to an earlier Amendment, which we discussed yesterday, about small quantities of chocolate, and with which I am not sure that all your Lordships agreed although they seemed to me to be reasonable. The point is this: that in the case of some commodity sold in very small quantities for a very low price, for which the consumer is accustomed to pay a standard price, it is often more convenient to the consumer that there should be small variations in the quantity, the price remaining the same, than that there should be small variations in price, the quantity remaining the same.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I am not quite sure where the noble Earl is leading us on this. Are you suggesting that it is a common practice to pre-pack quantities of less than one ounce of tobacco?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: The common practice?
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Yes. Is it the common practice?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: This Amendment applies to pre-packed packets of tobacco. The traditional one or two-ounce packets of tobacco will be required by this Part of the Schedule to be marked with a declaration of quantity in terms of net weight, but what the Amendment would do would be to require the tobacco manufacturers to indicate the net weight on very small packets of tobacco, on packets of half an ounce, and to print new labels every time the weight is varied. When there is a slight change in the price of tobacco, instead of changing the price of these very small packets, they make a small variation in the quantity, charging the same price, if the price of the tobacco goes up, instead of charging a halfpenny more for a little packet, they make it correspondingly less in weight: if the price goes down, instead of charging a halfpenny less, they make the weight correspondingly more. We think that that is more convenient to the customer than having slight variations in price and constant weight, and that it would be an unduly onerous burden on the suppliers to have to print new labels every time there was

999
one of these small variations in weight which follow small variations in price.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: That may be so. I do not want to press this matter too hard, but what made me put this Amendment down was my own impression that the large tobacco manufacturers do not, in any case that would require a change of label, pack less than an ounce. Not all. but the majority of modern packets of an ounce and upwards are now in hermetically-sealed tins, but the need for being able to sell less than an ounce is, of course, well known. That is still done, very largely by the tobacconist on the corner, with the scale. It is mostly done with the small purchases of tobaccos like light and dark shag. I have no information at all (I may be without proper information) that all these things which the noble Earl said would be required would, in fact, be required. I do not think they will be, but I want to make sure that anybody who goes in and buys over the counter half-an-ounce of tobacco instead of an ounce will be quite sure that he has half-an-ounce.
LORD AMPTHILL: I think I may be able to help the Committee on this matter. The 'tendency in the trade over innumerable years has been for more and more of these half-ounce packets to be put up in the factory, and the practice of cutting off tobacco from the roll or bar in the retailer's shop and selling it over the counter has been getting less and less. In the factory, as I tried to explain in the Second Reading debate, it is not always possible to weigh out the tobacco to exactly half-an-ounce. Sometimes you have bars of tobacco of 1/34th or 1/36th of a pound. Normally the labels are printed according to how the bars are weighed in the factory, and then they are packed in these little wrappers.
Now, what happens is that if the duty is changed, therefore the price has to be changed, and you may have to change your weight overnight from 1/34th to 1/36th or the other way round, from 1/36th to 1/34th. On such occasions we have to employ a large number of girl workers to stamp the labels with a rubber stamp before the goods go out at the new weight. I am trying to help the Committee, but I do not see the pur-
1000
pose of this Amendment, because, so far as I am aware, almost all the put-up tobaccos are hard tobaccos, either bar or roll—the stuff which you chew. Or, if you put it in a pipe, you cut it with your knife before you insert it in the pipe. All this put-up tobacco is weighed and labelled in either one-ounce or half-an-ounce packets. So far as the half-ounce packet is concerned, it may be 1/32nd, 1/34th or 1/36th of a pound; it depends on the incidence of the duty in arriving at your price. The consumer does not pay an unfair price, but at the same time does not want to pay a three-farthings price, so we have to try to arrive at a happy medium. Frankly, I do not think this Amendment will help the consumer at all. All the manufacturers I know stamp their put-up hard tobaccos of less than one ounce before the packets go out to the consumer.
LORD AIREDALE: Is there not a case for rejecting this Amendment, so far as it applies to the factory pre-packed tobacco in very small quantities, but accepting it so far as it applies to loose tobacco sold in very small quantities by the tobacconist over the counter, as the noble Viscount instanced a moment ago?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: On that point, I had intended, when I had an opportunity, to reassure the noble Viscount that, if a retailer sells loose tobacco in quantities of less than one ounce by weight, the Bill does ensure that it is an offence to give underweight. In fact, tobacconists' weighing machines have to be of a higher standard of accuracy than most of the weighing machines used in shops. With regard to tobacco sold in small packages, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Ampthill for putting greater knowledge in my mind and for dealing in much greater detail with the argument I have tried to submit to your Lordships.
LORD SHEPHERD: I have listened to this brief debate and I am quite satisfied with what I have heard. The only point I would make is really on the definition of "pre-packed". At the moment, we talk of "pre-packed" in the sense of pre-packed in the factory. In the case of tobacco, supposing the tobacconist makes it up from his own stock into small packages of half an ounce. Would

1001
that then be selling it loose, so that he would have to sell it by the actual net weight? Or cart he sell it as though it were pre-packed? I am not going to press this Amendment, but perhaps it could be looked into. This may be the last time I shall be speaking in this debate, and I should just like to say to the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, that I apologise if I used a rather hard word a few minutes ago, but I know he will take no offence.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Eighth Schedule (continued):
PART VI
Miscellaneous goods to be sold by or marked with capacity measurement
1.5 p.m.
LORD FARINGDON: The object of this Amendment is really quite simple, and is, of course, intended to be helpful. All fungicides and insecticides are not included under the generic term of "wood preservative fluid". There are many others, and we are afraid, owing to the wording of the Bill, that the others would not be included, and we think they should be. It is the object of this Amendment to bring them into this Part. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 83, line 29, leave out ("(including").—(Lord Faringdon.)
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: This is another slightly complicated point which I will do my best to explain, if I can, without taking up too much time. The proposed Amendment would bring all fungicides and insecticides in liquid form within the provisions of Part VI of the Eighth Schedule—namely, the requirements that they shall be sold only by capacity measurement, and, when pre-packed, shall be marked with a declaration of measure. As drafted, Part VI of this Schedule does not apply to insecticides and fungicides as such at all, but only to wood preservative fluids, including those which have insecticidal or fungicidal properties.
Insecticides and fungicides are made in a large number of ways, and it would be most inappropriate to require them all to be sold by, or marked with, capacity 'measurement. Some, for example, are in spray form some are in
1002
powder form; and I am told that some are even solid. It would be very difficult indeed to separate all the various varieties in a manner which would enable precise legal definitions to be made, and then to specify what should be the appropriate manner for selling each variety in terms of quantity. This is, in fact, another case—although I do not want to compare fungicides with cosmetics—in which the consumer may not be especially concerned with the total quantity. The appropriateness of the particular insecticide to the type of insect to be destroyed may be a much more important consideration than the quantity of the stuff, and the lethal quality of the insecticide may be another important consideration; it may be the predominant consideration in many cases. The consumer may not worry very much about the total quantity. That is why we are limiting the extension of this Schedule to those fungicides which are used as liquid wood preservatives.
LORD FARINGDON: I do not quite follow the argument of the noble Earl. It would seem that what he is saying, in effect, is that if a thing is a quality article, as it were, it does not matter how much of it you are getting: that if your cosmetic is a lipstick or a face cream, you are concerned only with the excellence of the material and not with the amount you are buying. I should have thought that you would care about both; that you would choose on account of the quality anti then you would want to know how much you were getting for your money. The same surely applies to fungicides and insecticides.
If the noble Earl says that this is not the right place to put the Amendments in, I am prepared to accept his word; but it seems to me that this is the place. He further says that some of these articles are made in powder and some are solid. I cannot think of any solid ones but I assume that he knows. Many of them are certainly in the form of sprays. There does not seem any great difficulty in deciding exactly what the unit of measurement should be, when you have decided that they have to be marked. I should have thought that the user of fungicides and insecticides would like to know, however much he was occupied with the idea that they

1003
were for black fly or green fly, et cetera,that he was getting a gallon of spray, or whatever it is, and was able to tell how long it would last and how far it would go.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I am sure that the noble Lord will see that his argument would logically lead to the inclusion under weights and measures legislation of every article which has ever been bought or sold in any way. The object of the Bill is to give protection only to those articles which are sold predominantly by weight or measure. If there are any articles of that kind not included in the Bill and which the noble Lord can say are sold in that manner and should be protected under the Bill, if necessary they can be brought in by Order under Clause 22. We cannot accept the general argument that because commodities all have a certain quantity or weight, they should mere-fore all be brought into a Weights and Measures Bill.
LORD FARINGDON: The noble Earl is most persuasive. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD FARINGDON: This is a straightforward Amendment meaning exactly what it says. It wishes to bring within Part VI of this Schedule linseed oil and anti-freeze solutions, for which there is a constantly increasing demand. We all use them and they are perfectly easy to measure. A good quantity is extremely important to the buyer. In the case of anti-freeze, if it is in short quantity he may find his motor car frozen up. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 83, line 30, at end insert "linseed oil and anti-freeze solutions").—(Lord Faringdon.)
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: Alphabetically, this Marshalled List is not always in order. I am very interested in what the noble Lord has said. The reason why we have not included linseed oil is that it has a comparatively limited retail sale, while the sale of anti-freeze solution is very seasonal. Neither commodity was recommended by the Hodgson Committee to be subject to any special requirement as to sale by measure, but, 'where they are so sold, Clause 25 will, of course, protect the public against short
1004
measure or misrepresentation either by writing or speech. If a convincing case were made out at a later date for specifically requiring these goods to be sold only in terms of measure, the Government would have to examine the technical aspects of this, in consultation with the trade, before committing themselves to taking action under the order-making powers conferred by Clause 22.
LORD SHACKLETON: Do I understand that the Hodgson Committee considered these articles, or did that not occur to them?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I have not that information before me, but I do not think that the Hodgson Committee made any recommendation about them.
LORD SHACKLETON: I should have thought that these were comparatively simple items to bring within the coverage of this clause. Linseed oil might be a more difficult requirement, although small boys want it with which to oil their cricket bats, and it might be important in that respect. The argument that anti-freeze solution is only a seasonal requirement seems to have no validity. The fact remains that it is a commodity which is in very wide use. I fully accept that we cannot extend the Bill to everything, and that it applies mainly to items for which there is a general demand. None the less, it seems that anti-freeze solution is a material at least as much in demand as some of those that are included—as much as, say, wood preservative. I do not know what quantity of anti-freeze solution is sold but I should expect it to be pretty large nowadays. It is a market which, on the whole, could do with a little regulation. Perhaps the noble Earl would consider this matter again and see whether these articles could be brought in at a later stage.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I would remind your Lordships that we are considering whether anti-freeze solution should be subject to the particular requirements of sale which are laid down in the Schedule. The principle which the Board of Trade have adopted is not to bring in everything which it cannot be shown ought not to be included, but to bring in only those articles for which there is a good case and which have

1005
been examined, usually in consultation with the trade. In view of what the noble Lord has said, I will certainly consider whether there is any case for including anti-freeze solution. As a rule, articles are not brought in unless they have been examined and recommended by the Hodgson Committee or by the Board of Trade in consultation with the industries concerned, or both.
LORD FARINGDON: I am much obliged to the noble Earl. I think there is a case for including anti-freeze solution No prosecution has taken place under Clause 25, unless the container was marked on the outside with false information. The Schedule lists articles which have to be marked. If they are marked incorrectly, people can be proceeded against under Clause 25. There seems to be a very strong case for insisting that this particular material, antifreeze solution, should be in marked containers. In view of the promise of the noble Earl that he will look at this matter again, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment at this stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Eighth Schedule agreed to.
Ninth Schedule agreed to.
Tenth Schedule [Repeals extending to Great Britain]:
LORD STONHAM: This Amendment goes with No. 175A, which is on the same point. As this is the last Amendment to be moved from this side of the House, I should like to express our grateful thanks for the care and courtesy with which the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, and the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, have attended to all our inquiries and particularly to wish them extremely well with those many points they have promised to consider. I hope we shall get excellent results after the Recess. In one particular case they can make a judgment even before the Recess, because an attractive display has been arranged at short notice in the Royal Gallery of articles with eight items in them, which can be clearly seen, and I hope that noble Lords and officials will look at them.
This Schedule proposes to repeal the second paragraph of Section 4 of the Markets and Fairs (Weighing of Cattle) Act, 1887, and the second Amendment proposes to repeal subsection (3) of Section 46 of the Food and Drugs Act, 1945.
1006
Both these sections relate to the verification of scales at markets and require that verification shall be carried out at least twice a year. If these two provisions are repealed, presumably it will mean that the Government intend that regulations shall be made under the Weights and Measures Act, 1904, so that the scales shall be tested only once a year.
The National Farmers' Union are particularly concerned about this. They are strongly opposed to any lessening in the frequency with which such scales should be verified and therefore wish to oppose strongly the repeal of these two sections. In fact, they are of opinion that scales should be verified more than twice a year. A great many sales take place and a great deal of money is involved, and they can see no reason why, in a Weights and Measures Bill which is designed to give adequate protection in the matter of correct weight, provisions for testing scales twice a year should be repealed and testing only once a year substituted. I think the point is clear and I 'hope that the Government will agree that to repeal these two provisions would be a mistake. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 86, leave out from beginning of line 27 to end of line 30.—(Lord Stonham.)
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I am grate-full to the noble Lord for speaking to these two Amendments together. The first proposes to leave out the repeal of the paragraph 2 of Section 4 of the Markets and Fairs (Weighing of Cattle) Act, 1847. There are two reasons why we think this paragraph should be repealed. In the first place, it has caused some difficulty because the paragraph does not contain any testing requirements. It is not clear whether "testing" means testing to the tolerances applicable to new and repaired machines or testing to the inspection tolerances which are 'applicable to machines in course of use for trade.
The other reason is that the machines and weights in question are undoubtedly in use for trade under the existing Weights and Measures Acts and will continue to be in use under the Bill, aid will therefore be required to be passed and stamped by an inspector before use, I and be subject to periodical inspection

1007
thereafter. When their accuracy deteriorates outside the inspection allowances, the stamps will be obliterated and they will have to be adjusted and restamped. There seems to be no reason why cattle market weighing equipment should be required to be subject to different testing from other machines in use for trade; but, in regard to what the noble Lord said about the opinion of some farmers that they ought to be tested more frequently than other machines, there is nothing in this Bill to prevent a market authority asking the local inspector to test their equipment as often as they like—once a week, if they want to—if they are willing to pay the requisite fees.
With regard to the Amendment to restore a similar provision in the Food and Drugs Act, 1955, which requires a market authority to have their weighing machines verified at least twice a year, the Amendment seeks to perpetuate a provision relating to weights and measures which, we think, is rendered out of date by the Bill. The provision in the 1955 Act—although 1955 is not so long ago—was a repetition from an earlier Act and is a relic from the last century, when the system of testing and stamping all weighing and measuring equipment used for trade was much less thorough and comprehensive than it is now. It is not a fault in the 1955 Act that it preserved an out-dated provision. That Act was not primarily concerned with weights and measures, and it was right to await a new Weights and Measures Bill which could tackle the job of sweeping away the dead wood in a proper manner. Part II of the Bill sets out a comprehensive code for the testing and stamping of all trade equipment: and the Government feel that it is both unnecessary and, indeed, objectionable in principle to preserve portions of earlier legislation which were trying to do the same job in a piecemeal fashion in the light of circumstances which have long since passed away.
LORD STONHAM: I am grateful to the noble Earl for his comprehensive and satisfactory reply. The noble Earl has indicated that this Bill will provide better and more regular methods of testing, but in view of the concern expressed by the National Farmers' Union on this point and the fact that
1008
we should all agree that machines should be tested as often as necessary, it may be necessary for me to refer to the matter again at a later stage. Meanwhile, I would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: This Amendment is consequential on an earlier Amendment to Clause 6, page 6, line 42. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 87, line 146, third column, at end insert—
("the words 'and to be verified', and the words 'verified and' in the last two places where those words occur.")—(The Earl of Dundee.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: This Amendment and No. 179 go together. Their purpose is to synchronise the effect of what is done in these Schedules with the different times at which different parts of this Bill come into operation—that is, some in six months' and some in one year's time. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 87, line 56, third column, at end insert—
("In section one hundred and twenty-three. in subsection (6), the words from 'or the 'to may be'.")—(The Earl of Dundee.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: This Amendment should be taken together with No. 180. Their joint effect is to transpose the repeal of subsection (7) of Section 56 of the Food and Drugs (Scotland) Act, 1956, from Part II to Part I of the Tenth Schedule. The effect of the transposition is that that subsection will be repealed six months after the enactment of the Bill instead of two years from that date. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 87, line 56, at end insert—

(" 4 & 5 Eliz. 2. c. 30.

The Food and Drugs (Scotland) Act, 1956.

In section fifty-six subsection (7)")

—(The Earl of Dundee.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: This Amendment is consequential on an early Amendment to Clause 63, at page 50, line 29. I beg, to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 89, line 10, third column, at end insert—
("In section eighty-seven, in paragraph (a) of subsection (3), the words from 'or local' onwards.")—(The Earl of Dundee.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I rather dislike moving an Amendment to repeal an Act which has such a beautiful name as
"An Act for Regulating the Vend and Delivery of Coals in the Cities of London and Westminster,"
but it has been represented to us by the Cities of London and Westminster that this Act has long been obsolete, and I am afraid that it has to be included among the nine pages or so of local Acts which are being repealed by this Bill, in a similar way to the provisions of a number of other local Acts which are all being repealed because they are either inconsistent with or superseded by the provisions of this Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 89, third column, leave out lines 18 to 21.—(The Earl of Dundee.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 89, line 47, third column, leave out ("subsection (7), and").—(The Earl of Dundee.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I am sorry. but this is the Amendment about repealing the London Act which I thought I moved last time.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My noble friend moved it as No. 179.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: Perhaps I may now move No. 181.
Amendment moved—
Page 90, line 18, at end insert—

("1 & 2 Will. 4.1 xxvi.

An Act for regulating the Vend and Delivery of Coals in the Cities of London and Westminster, etc.

Section forty-three. Sections forty— seven to fifty— eight.")

—(The Earl of Dundee.)

LORD SHACKLETON: May I ask whether the arguments that the noble Earl would have used in regard to No. 179 might be used in regard to this Amendment?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I referred to No. 179 on moving No. 176 and unfortunately I forgot that they had to be put separately.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Tenth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Eleventh Schedule [Provisions relating to Northern Ireland]:
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: This Amendment is designed to make it clear that the date referred to in subparagraph (d) of paragraph 17 of this Schedule Is the only date with which the Northern Ireland Parliament will be concerned—namely, the date appointed by order under subsection (6) of Clause 10 of the Bill on which the apothecaries' weights, as distinct from the apothecaries' measures, are to cease to be lawful for use for trade. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 106, line 36, leave out ("for the purposes of") and insert ("with respect to apothecaries weight under").—(The Earl of Dundee.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Remaining Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed.
On Question, Whether the Amendments shall be reported to the House?
1.33 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, before the Bill is reported, may I just express my thanks to your Lordships in all parts of the House for the great help which you have given to the Government in this slightly strenuous Committee stage. I am sure your Lordships would wish me particularly to express our thanks to the Opposition, who have fulfilled their duties, I think, under very heavy pressure indeed, sometimes no doubt even with some exhaustion, although they have never shown any signs of it. All sections of the House desire more Bills to be introduced in your Lordships' House at the beginning of a Session, instead of their being introduced in another place, because we feel that that is for the convenience of both Houses jointly and of Parliament as a whole.
Your Lordships have been most helpful in examining this Bill properly in

1011
Committee. I am sure that, although we still have a great deal of hard work in front of us on the Report stage, we shall have the advantage of doing that with greater familiarity with the Bill; and I am sure that the fruits of a great deal we have done in Committee will then be realised. I feel that we have greatly improved the Bill, and I hope that by the time it goes to another place we shall be able to feel that we have really made a good job of it.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, may I say "Thank you very much" to the noble Earl for what he has said. We should like to congratulate him upon his physical endurance. It is a little easier in the other place, where he was also used to handling Committee considerations and was able to get perhaps one or two more Ministerial colleagues to sit in to help during long and protracted Committee discussions. I think the noble Earl has been very good indeed; and so has the Parliamentary Secretary. I am afraid that we got a little cross with the Parliamentary Secretary once or twice, perhaps owing rather to his habit of reading at great pace long briefs supplied to him by his Department. If we sometimes got a little hot, we apologise. But when the noble Lord has had as much experience as the noble Earl had in the Scottish Grand Committee in another place, he will understand that tempers are apt to get a little troublesome on some occasions, and he will take it with the great calm that the noble Earl usually does.
There is one other thing I should like to say on the general question. If we are to have Bills of this kind introduced into your Lordships' House, for the convenience of ourselves but also for the convenience of the Government, so saving, probably, a considerable amount of Committee and Report time in another place by dealing first with a major Bill here, then we shall require some better consideration of how we can ease our pains and aches in our physical endurance. I am not yet quite satisfied with the arrangements made. Equally, if the Government, as a result of work in your Lordships' House are going to get a good deal of time saved in the Commons' consideration of the Bill, then I do not think
1012
they should be so insistent upon the actual dates when they get the Bills. I am not talking about a wide extension of time here, but if we are going to perform our job efficiently, there should be a little give-and-take as to when we can do it.
My last point on the matter to the noble Earl is that we thank him for the large number of Amendments which he has promised to look into again. We are going to resume on this Bill within a day or two of coming back after the Recess, and I think it would be convenient if, through the usual channels, the noble Earl and the Parliamentary Secretary could arrange to meet two or three of us on this side, so that we can find out how far we are going to be met on A, B and C, and may have an early opportunity of laying before the House Amendments in which we wish to persist on the Report stage. Otherwise, coming straight back after the Recess, there may be something of a jam.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I was hoping that we might arrange that possibly a week before we reassemble.
On Question, the Amendments reported.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do now adjourn until half-past two.
Moved, That the House do now adjourn until half-past two.—(The Earl of Dundee.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and House adjourned accordingly.
The Sitting was suspended at nineteen minutes before two o'clock, and resumed at half-past two.
The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

ASSISTANCE FOR EMIGRANTS
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, I beg leave 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 if, having regard to the terms of reference of the Overseas Migration Board, they have under consideration any new or definite recommendations of any character to assist migration.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE): My Lords, it is the view of Her Majesty's Government that the formulation of plans for maintaining the flow of migrants from the United Kingdom to other Commonwealth countries is primarily a matter for the receiving Governments, and in those plans Her Majesty's Government are very glad to collaborate. The Sixth Report of the Oversea Migration Board, which was presented to Parliament last week, contains suggestions for assisting emigration. This Report is in the hands of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, while thanking the noble Duke for his reply, may I ask him whether he would consider causing to be published figures which would show the approximate average cost of settling one person in a new town in the United Kingdom, compared with the cost of moving under assisted passage one new migrant to the Dominions? Further, in view of the earlier statement by the present Foreign Secretary when head of the Commonwealth Relations Office that any worthwhile schemes would receive consideration, can he now state whether a scheme for housing advances to intending migrants is under consideration? I would add that the Report of the Oversea Migration Board to which the noble Duke referred, seems to have concerned itself more with immigration than with emigration, which seems to be outside the scope of their activities.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, I will certainly bring my noble friend's remarks about comparable costs to the notice of my colleagues, though I can give no undertaking that those figures will be published. With regard to the second part of my noble friend's question, I could not agree with him that there is more to do with immigration than with emigration in the Sixth Report of the Oversea Migration Board published last week. Furthermore, while no distinct scheme has been put forward in the Oversea Migration Board's Report, it does contain definite suggestions which might aid emigration to different parts of the Commonwealth.
EARL WINTERTON: My Lords, in view of the fact that there is some confusion in the public mind about provisions both for emigration. and for immigration, would my noble friend consider —I do not ask for a definite reply now—approaching his Minister and asking whether it would be a good thing to have a talk on television or a broadcast to explain the situation to the public?
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, I will certainly bring my noble friend's suggestion to the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for his consideration.
EARL WINTERTON: I thank the noble Duke.

COST OF UNITED NATIONS CONGO OPERATIONS
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government if they can now indicate what proportion of the cost of United Nations operations in the Congo is likely to fall on the British taxpayer, and what is the estimated total of such expenditure by the United Nations to date].
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF HOME): My Lords, the costs of the United Nations' military and civilian operations in the Congo to the end of 1960 have been reduced from 60 million dollars to 48·5 million dollars by the waiver by certain Governments of their airlift charges. The resulting costs will be financed from a Special Account, to which all members are to contribute in accordance with their percentage assessment of the regular budget. Her Majesty's Government's assessment is 7·78 per cent. and their share will amount to about 3·77 million dollars. They have waived charges of 520,000 dollars in respect of the airlift undertaken on behalf of the United Nations and have also contributed 3 million dollars to a voluntary fund of 100 million dollars designed to give budgetary aid to the Congo.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, in thanking the noble Earl for his reply, may I

1015
say that it is a little difficult to take in the exact figures he quoted? Does he not think this is a heavy burden on the public when, according to the reports so frequently appearing in the Press, it seems to produce very little humanitarian gain? Secondly is it right to assume that the United Kingdom's proportion of this cost is increased by the apparent thought of so many other countries that the Organisation does not merit support in the way of payment of their full assessment?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I think that the House, and, indeed, Parliament as a whole, has felt from the start of the Congo operation that the absolutely vital thing was to prevent the Congo from becoming the scene of open hostilities in which outside Powers would intervene. Therefore, although I agree with the noble Lord that it is costly to the British taxpayer, nevertheless we have been willing to pay the contribution to see that that did not happen. Although the United Nations is in great difficulties now, I think—and Mr. Hammarskjoeld will have to think very clearly as to the role of the United Nations Force in the Congo—nevertheless, it is our firm opinion that the best chance of preventing the Congo from really returning to complete chaos is the presence of the United Nations forces there. So long as that is our feeling we must pay our fair share, whatever others do.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I hope it will be in order for us to say at this point how much we agree with the Foreign Secretary's statement. We do not see what else a civilised country like ours could do, what other course it could have taken, and we heartily agree that if it had not been done the situation probably would have been worse. What worries us, if I may put it to the noble Earl, is as to what new effort can now be made to prevent a situation where we have to say that it is only for Mr. Hammarskjoeld now to think how to get out of the trouble. We surely cannot leave the whole burden of this matter on one man's shoulders. While I recognise that the British Government have done their best in the discussions this week to get a right decision of the United Nations in the present stage, I think some further special effort ought to be made.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, the House will know that Mr. Hammarskjoeld is not left alone in this matter and, of course, we are always in close touch. But although there was no decision yesterday on a Resolution in the United Nations and the two-thirds majority failed by only one vote on what I think would have been a constructive Resolution, nevertheless, the previous Resolutions under which Mr. Hammarskjoeld is operating are valid, and it is a matter of making the best use of those Resolutions in the existing situation.
EARL WINTERTON: My Lords, might I ask whether any part of this sum which we rightly give to the United Nations is allocated to the relief of the appalling suffering in the Kasai Province which has worried many of us a great deal, where I understand hundreds of people a day are dying from malnutrition. Has the noble Earl any information? Perhaps I ought to have given notice of the question.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I am afraid it is only too true that a great many people in the Kasai Province of the Congo are dying of starvation, and that is all the more reason why we should try to achieve the situation in which law and order is preserved, communications opened up and supplies got to this area without danger. As I said in my original Answer, we have so far contributed 3 million dollars to a voluntary fund of 100 million dollars designed to give budgetary aid to the Congo authorities to help in this matter.
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, arising out of the original reply of the Foreign Secretary, am I right in assuming that all member nations of the United Nations are morally obligated to pay their contribution towards the cost of the Congo operations by the United Nations?
THE EARL OF HOME: Yes, my Lords, that is so. I understand that the Russians have said they will not pay. I think there are enough funds to carry us forward to the first quarter of the next year, but of course the Russian attitude will have to be reviewed by the United Nations Secretariat.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, if the Foreign Secretary will permit me to say

1017
so, I do not think he replied to the second part of my question: that is, whether the United Kingdom's contributions are increased proportionately because of the failure of so many nations to pay their regular subscriptions?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, our proportion is 7·78 per cent., and I do not think that that has been increased by reason of this operation. I am afraid that we shall certainly pay out large sums of money, but I think that as long as we wish the operation to succeed we must face that burden.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, may I take it, from what the Foreign Secretary has said, that although the assistance of 100 million dollars is called "budgetary assistance to the Congo" that money will in fact be expended by the United Nations authorities, and under their supervision?
THE EARL OF HOME: Yes, my Lords.

BRITISH TRADE ADVERTISEMENTS IN RUSSIA
2.41 p.m.
LORD BIRDWOOD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of the Anglo-Soviet Trade Supplement recently published in the Guardian, which included articles by Soviet citizens and advertisements of Soviet goods, any similar reciprocal facilities for British citizens and trade advertisement exist in the Soviet Press.]
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, some facilities do exist. In the Soviet Union, however, the Press is subject to censorship and foreign trade is conducted wholly by Government agencies. British advertisements intended for insertion in those Soviet newspapers which publish foreign notices are accepted by the Soviet foreign publicity organisation either direct or through agents in the United Kingdom. If they are considered suitable for publication they ultimately appear in print. They have to be checked by the Soviet authorities for
1018
factual accuracy and for the correctness of the Russian translation. It is not unusual for several months to pass between the time they are submitted and the time of publication in the Soviet Union.
Soviet newspapers have occasionally commissioned articles by British subjects, but publication of such articles requires approval by the Soviet authorities, for example, the Economic Gazette has recently published an article by a British business man, although publication took place ten months after it was submitted, and it was accompanied by a Soviet reply. I would therefore say, my Lords, that while facilities do exist, they cannot be described as similar or reciprocal.
LORD BIRDWOOD: My Lords, I thank the Foreign Secretary very much for that full reply. Is it possible to draw the attention of the Soviet Government to the situation by which we recognise reciprocity as the fundamental basis of that peaceful co-existence which they themselves claim as being desirable in the conduct of international affairs?
THE EARL OF HOME: It would be a great help to co-existence, of course, if Press censorship were lifted, if radio jamming were ended, and all that. I think that we are making very, very slow progress, and we shall continue, as the noble Lord wishes, to press the Russians to agree to reciprocal treatment.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, having recently been in the Soviet Union and knowing that happy reciprocity does exist so far in the negotiations in regard to the two Trade Fairs—the British Fair in Moscow and the Soviet trade fair in London—would the noble Earl ensure that the same degree of reciprocity is observed in respect of Press publicity?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I will do all I can to that end.
LORD REA: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether he can say that it is the view of Her Majesty's Government that reciprocity, in the sense used in the last speaker's question, means positive reciprocity; and that if the

1019
Soviet Union refuse to take our material we will reciprocate by banning or refusing to publish theirs?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I think we should do our best to get on better terms and persuade the Russians that genuine reciprocity will pay both countries and will be to our mutual advantage. It is a slow process. As I say, things like censorship of the Press stand in the way.

BECHUANALAND: PROTECTION OF BUSHMEN'S INTERESTS
2.46 p.m.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they intend to embody in the proposed Constitution for Bechuanaland Protectorate (Cmnd. 1159) safeguards for the interests of the Bushmen; and, in particular, what measures they propose to ensure to this small racial minority unmolested enjoyment of their lands.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE): My Lords, it will be the duty of the Bechuanaland Protectorate Government, under the new Constitution, in the same way as at present, to safeguard the interests of the Bushmen. The official members of the Legislative Council will share this responsibility. The proposed Constitution will include provision that nonmembers of the Legislative and Executive Councils (such as persons with special knowledge of the Bushmen) may be invited to attend and speak at their meetings. This provision will make it possible for either Council to draw on the experience or advice of any nonmembers who may be specially qualified in Bushmen affairs.
A trained anthropologist, who is also a district officer, has, since October, 1958, been conducting, on behalf of the Bechuanaland Protectorate Government, a special survey of the Bushmen and the administrative measures needed in their interests. He has already made an
1020
interim report, which the Bechuanaland Government are now considering. The Bushmen have not at present any lands reserved for their use, but preliminary proposals for setting apart an area have been discussed in the Joint Advisory Council, where they received general support. Pending the completion of the survey, the High Commissioner is considering the possibility of declaring a reserve which will satisfy their most important need, which is food, by preserving the game on which they live.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Duke for that reply, and I am particularly glad to know that the Councils under the new Constitution will be able to call in outside persons with special knowledge of the Bushmen. I would, however, ask whether the Government are aware that the possibility of conflict between the interests of the Bushmen and those of the other races, both African and European, in the Protectorate is a very real one. The interests of the Bantu and the Europeans are, of course, for more land; the Bushmen, as the noble Duke is aware, require enormous areas of the veldt in order to subsist. Will the Government ensure that sufficient and suitable lands are set aside for this minority?
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, I fully share the noble Earl's concern for the welfare of the Bushmen, as do my colleagues in Her Majesty's Government. I can assure him that the interests of the Bushmen will be borne very much in mind, and that the Bechuanaland Protectorate Government and the High Commissioner are very well aware of the Bushmen's needs and will have them in the forefront of their minds in the future.
LORD DYNEVOR: My Lords, may I ask the noble Duke whether the Bushmen will be tenants of, or will own, the land? The last words of the Question bring to mind what happened to the Red Indians. When oil was found on their land they had difficulty in retaining that land.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, I would answer my noble friend by saying that I think it would be advisable to await the consideration by the High Commissioner of the interim report, and indeed, of the full report, before I give a full answer to that question.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, in view of the fact that this survey was made largely because of the interest taken in this question in your Lordships' House in 1957–58, may I ask Whether the possibility will be considered of having the interim report placed in the Library, so that those of us who are interested in the problem can, see it; and secondly, whether the Government can do something to dissuade the Bushmen from their cruel practice of spearing giraffes? I saw a revolting film the other day at London University showing how this is done. In view of the great interest that we have all expressed here in the Bushmen, I think that they might reciprocate by having some feeling for the giraffes.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, as regards having the interim report placed in the Library I should like, if I may, to consult the High Commissioner on this matter; but I will certainly bring it to hips notice that this request has been made. In: regard to the spearing of giraffes I would agree with the noble Lord in being against this inhumane practice; but how far I or any other person can persuade the Bushmen to discontinue this practice I do not know. But I will certainly bring the point to the attention of the High Commissioner.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, may I ask the noble Duke whether he will arrange for self-service stores and supermarkets to be provided, in order that the request of the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, may be granted?

LAOS
2.50 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, can Her Majesty's Government given an answer to my Private Notice Question: whether there have 'been any further developments in the situation in Laos?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, there have been no significant developments since my statement on Monday last. I think there is no serious fighting now, but there is same skirmishing about 20 miles
1022
north of the city of Vientiane. I do not think it is very surprising that I have not yet had a reply from Vientiane, in view of the conditions, which have been very confused; and I have not, up to the present moment, had any communications from Mr. Gromyko.
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, might I ask the noble Earl the Foreign Secretary whether he has seen the reported statement that the American Government have decided to renew military aid to the Government there, and the reported reaction of the Soviet Government to that statement? Further, in the light of his reply the other day to my noble Leader's question—when the noble Earl said that it was hoped to be all: to get a broad-based Government, in order to bring to an end the hostilities within the territory and to secure the establishment there of a Government based on a genuine policy of neutrality may I ask whether the noble Earl does not think that it would be a good thing to stop the introduction of all armaments from any quarter outside of the country, in order to bring a real end to the hostilities that are taking place?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, the legal Government of any country, of course, has a right to seek arms from any other Government, and I think we could not use our influence to prevent that. I do not know of a request. I have seen a report that a request has come to the Americans to provide assistance but I believe I saw that the report was to the effect that this request had been received and that the Americans were studying it, because they were not sure whether it referred to military or technical assistance. We are very anxious to see a broad-based Government formed, and that, of course, can be done only by the authorities—the King and the legal authorities—in Vientiane. I still hope that that may happen. I have seen it reported that, referring to the International Commission, Prince Boun Oum said that they have in Laos a sad memory of that; but that was said before he received the message which I sent the other day.

MESSAGES FROM THE QUEEN
THE EARL OF SCARBROUGH: My. Lords, I have the honour to present to your Lordships three Messages from Her Majesty the Queen signed by her own hand. The first is as follows:
"I have received your Address praying that the International Atomic Energy Agency (Immunities and Privileges) Order, 1960, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament. I will comply with your request."
The second is in these terms:
"I have received your Address praying that the Customs Co-operation Council (Immunities and Privileges) Order, 1960, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament. I will comply with your request."
The third is as follows:
"I have received your Address praying that the Summer Time Order, 1960, be laid before Parliament in the form of the draft laid before Parliament, in pursuance of the provisions of Section 2 of the Summer Time Act, 1947. I will comply with your request."

BETTING LEVY BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

JUDICIAL BUSINESS
2.54 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): My Lords, I rise to move the Motion standing in my name. I think that it speaks for itself, but the occasion of the Motion is that when a Petition for leave to appeal in connection with a criminal case is heard by the Appeal Committee during the time when the House is in Recess it might be undesirable and inconvenient to delay until the next meeting of the House the making of the operative order giving effect to the decision of the Appeal Committee. The procedure of the Motion is authorised by the Administration of Justice Act, 1960, Section 1 (3). I beg to move.
Moved, That, in pursuance of section one of the Administration of Justice Act, 1960, in all appeals in which the leave of the House is required under the Administration of Justice Act, 1960, the Petition for leave to appeal shall, after being received by this House, stand referred to the Appeal Committee, and the Appeal Committee may, after consideration whether such leave should be granted, take their decision and give directions accordingly on behalf of the House.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CONSOLIDATION BILLS
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing; in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That a Committee of six Lords be appointed to join with a Committee of the House of Commons as a Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills (including Bills for consolidating Private Acts), Statute Law Revision Bills and Bills prepared pursuant to the Consolidation of Enactments (Procedure) Act, 1949, in the present Session;
That the Memoranda laid and any representations made with respect thereto under the said Act be referred to the Joint Committee;
That the Lords following be named of the Committee:

L. Derwent,

L. Rathcreedan,

L. Terrington,

L. Cawley,

L. Morton of Henryton,

L. Spens:

That such Committee halve power to agree with the Committee of the House of Commons in the appointment of a Chairman.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question Motion agreed to: Ordered, That a Message be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith and to request that they appoint six Members of that House to be joined with the said Committee.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN GREATER LONDON
2.56 p.m.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH rose to call attention to the Report of the Royal Commission on Local Government in Greater London (Cmnd. 1164); and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion which stands in my name on the Order Paper. I do not propose to approach this in any Party political spirit, because it is not necessarily of a Party political character, although it has about it political aspects. This I regard as a preliminary discussion of the issues Which arise out of the Report of the Royal Commission, and it may well be that Her Majesty's Government will not at this stage feel disposed to commit themselves on the very important and vital issues raised in the Report. If that should be so, I shall understand, if only for the reason that the right honourable gentleman the Minister of Housing and Local Government has invited local authorities in the area to submit their views to him; and naturally he will not wish to announce any firm conclusions until those observations have been received. I gather that he requires observations by the month of February. That is, I feel, a little quick, because 'the Report of the Royal Commission has not lone been received, and many of the local authorities will be in the Christmas recess for a material period. It is important that they should have adequate discussions about it, and I should have thought the Minister ought to allow a rather longer time for the local authorities to express their views.
This Report really arises out of the existence of what are known as "conurbations". It is not a very lovely word, but apparently it is the best that anybody has found. It means a large built-up area covering the areas of quite a number of local authorities. Greater London is one of these conurbations, but not the only one. Greater Birmingham is very much a conurbation. I remember that: when, during the war, I was Minister of Home Security I used to visit the regions, and to get to Birmingham from London by car was a slow business once one reached the built-up
1026
area surrounding the City of Birminghad; and the area of the City of Birmingham is not terribly short of the area of the Administrative County of London.
Much of South-East Lancashire is another conurbation. The West: Riding of Yorkshire is another; and possibly the West of Scotland is a further one. Therefore, it is desirable to take into account the fact that, if this Report of the Royal Commission is to be applied to Greater London, then logically it would also have to be applied to these conurbations that I have mentioned, which would involve the break-up or complication of local government in the cities of Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool, Leeds, Glasgow and so on.
But, my Lords, it was not our generation that created the conurbations. I am not wishing to lay political responsibility for it on any particular political Party. The fact is that these conurbations ought never to have happened. There ought to have been green belts around these cities, and this sprawl of urban development and industrial development should not have occurred. But it did occur owing to the neglect of our predecessors on earth and in government and in local government, with the result that they exist. But we did not make them.
I think it is a hit far-fetched to expect that the local government system must be adapted to an extension of urban territory which ought not to have occurred. It is interesting that the first British Monarch, so far as I know, who realised the dangers of this built-up sprawl was Queen Elizabeth I; and it was decreed by her that there should be no more London building outside the cities of London and Westminster; there should be green around those two cities. If I may say so, I think that her late Majesty was right. But it did not happen: people broke into the area and built, and the spread occurred. I remember that in another place when I moved the Green Belt Bill for London, I said it was a pity that it had to wait until round about the 1930s for the London County Council to make the green-belt plans; that it was a pity I did not live in the days of Queen Elizabeth I, for she and I could have clone things together—at which there was loud laughter in the Commons. And I have never been able to understand what they were laughing at, not to this day.

1027
But she was right and I think she was probably the greatest of the Absolutist Monarchs, a considerable statesman, a considerable Monarch, and she did great work. I wish to goodness her idea of the green belt around the cities of London and Westminster had happened to stop this urban sprawl!
Now the question is whether the existence of the conurbation of Greater London should require local government to be adapted to that conurbation, and for its structure to be related to this vast urban sprawl, or whether the existing system of local government, or something like it with possible modifications, should continue within the area. There could be improvements. If your Lordships look at the map of the administrative County of London you will see that there is a hole in the north-eastern parts of it which are occupied, in the main, by the county boroughs of East Ham and West Ham. I did think earlier as to whether we should bring East Ham and West Ham into the County of London, which would have involved them, however, in becoming metropolitan boroughs, which they would not have liked, and there would have been great trouble. Moreover, our Labour majority was big enough and I did not particularly want it to get too big, so we did not pursue the matter. But that kind of minor modification is open to fair consideration. What I do not think, my Lords, is that we can take this vast conurbation of built-up area, of urban sprawl, which ought never to have happened, and say, "Well, that having happened, it has got to be the area of the central authority for local government in Greater London".
It is true that there is room for argument as to the transfer of powers as between the central and local authorities, but in my experience that can take place, and there is no unwillingness to discuss that subject among the county councils and certainly not among the county districts and metropolitan boroughs. That transfer can be done by negotiation and by voluntary agreement. The London County Council a year or so ago offered to transfer back to the metropolitan boroughs the function of maternity and child welfare, which is one of the most important public health pieces of administration. They were willing to give
1028
it back. It had been given to the London County Council from the metropolitan boroughs when the State took over the hospitals, possibly (I do not know) as some compensation. But the London County Council offered it back to the metropolitan boroughs and it was the Government that held up that transfer back to the metropolitan boroughs for the reason that they were waiting for the Report of the Royal Commission.
My Lords, the composition of the Royal Commission was, I think, decided by the Government probably upon the basis that they would like a body that was not particularly well-informed about local government and that would therefore be impartial. It is a possible reason; it is a possible point of view. But two of the Commissioners came from provincial universities, one from Manchester and one from Leeds; there was a gentleman who came from Birmingham; and it was not a particularly London affair. The Government may say that that made them impartial but I am not at all sure what greater Birmingham or Manchester or south-east Lancashire would say if a Royal Commission functioned there and I—a Cockney citizen—were put upon the Royal Commission in order to adjudicate upon their local government. I think they would probably say, "What is this Cockney doing on the Royal Commission to tell us what we have to do with our local government?" And I should understand it and should not be offended. However, I do not want to make too much of the point, but it was not a Royal Commission particularly familiar with local government and certainly local government in Greater London.
The evidence given to the Royal Commission was not altogether on Party lines. Various organisations were invited to give evidence, including one dissident member of the London County Council who had no great knowledge or experience of this matter. I was not invited to give evidence and I have no grievance about that. It may have been just as well. But I think that behind this Report there is a passion for superficial tidiness which can be a characteristic of some members (not all of them) of the Higher Civil Service. In government, in administration, tidiness is not the only consideration. We ought not to be slaves

1029
of tidiness. Local government is a human institution, dealing with human things dealing with various people, all of them having ideas of their own, and I do not think we should surrender to the idea of tidiness. Though I have no objection to tidiness in principle, I do not think we should be enslaved by it.
The Royal Commission propose that there should be a Council for Greater London. It looks as if this is a much enlarged London County Council. That may be disputed, but I will deal in due course with the powers of the proposed Council for Greater London. However, in principle it is an enlarged London County Council—and it is to deal with a vast area. The members of this new Council, if it ever exists, will have an awful job in travelling to meetings of the Council and meetings of committees, for it covers, or is proposed to cover, the County of London, the: County of Middlesex and parts of the surrounding counties, as I shall show. There will be one member for each Parliamentary constituency; that is all. A Parliamentary constituency is a large area with a large number of electors, and surely one of the arguments about local government, one of the terms of it, is that the councillors elected in their wards and electoral divisions are in close touch with the people they represent; that they are "get-at-able", if I may use a no doubt ungrammatical expression, by the citizens and voters and electors.
My Lords, imagine one councillor, not for a ward, nor for an electoral division —and in the County of London there are three for each electoral division, which is the, Parliamentary constituency in London— but for each Parliamentary constituency. with an electorate of probably around 50,000 people and in some cases more! It is not the way to keep contact between the members of the Council and the ordinary people. The councillors themselves will have very great distances to travel to get to the headquarters, which will presumably be the London County Hall at Westminster Bridge.
By the way, that County Hall is opposite the Parliamentary institution, and I think that, in the past, some Governments have been afraid of this powerful London County Council situated opposite, almost as if they had a fear of
1030
machine guns shooting from the terrace of the County Hall. If they were afraid of the London County Council, surely a Government ought to be a bit nervous about this vastly greater area which is to be supervised by one Greater London Authority. Some of the members of the Council will have to journey to Westminster Bridge from Chingford and Hornchurch in Essex, from Barnet in Hertfordshire, from Crayford and Orpington in Kent, from Epsom and Esher in Surrey and from Uxbridge in Middlesex. It is no use comparing this area with that of an ordinary provincial administrative county, where, admittedly, the distances are great. The ordinary provincial administrative county council meets once a quarter, its committees fairly infrequently; but I assure your Lordships that this new authority, if it comes into existence, will have to meet much more often, and these journeys are going to impose a severe burden upon the members of the Council.
The Report involves the abolition of the London County Council, not the Corporation of the City of London. I do not want to make too much of that point, because I know that the Corporation of the City of London holds an affectionate place in your Lordships' hearts. On the contrary, this square mile in the City of London, with a resident population of about 4,900, is to have powers greater even than the powers that it has now. But the London County Council is to be abolished. Now I do not like the London County Council's being abolished. I think it is a very great authority. It has existed since the passing of the Local Government Act, 1888. It is a great authority upright, incorruptible and clean, with a high quality of administration. I know quite a number of Conservative families who have deliberately retained their residence within the administrative County of London in order that their children shall have the quality of education which the London County Council, with its higher educational institutions, can provide: and I know some other Conservative families who have declined to move out of the administrative County of London for that reason. Moreover, it holds the affection of the teaching profession, and so on.
But it is proposed that the London County Council should be abolished. So also would the Middlesex County Council, which is modelled on the lines of provincial county councils. That occupies an important urban area around the northern and western part of the County of London, and has done good work, sometimes under one Party and sometimes under another. Moreover, it involves a severe cutting of the population and the rateable value of the County of Surrey, the County of Essex and the County of Kent—an enormous loss of rateable value and a substantial loss of population. The Royal Commission is satisfied that what remains of those counties will be viable. With great respect, I do not agree. I think they would be anything but adequately viable after these cuts and severances had been made. Part of Hertfordshire goes—not very much, but part of Hertfordshire. Even Hertfordshire goes into the new area. The county boroughs of Croydon, East and West Ham are to be abolished. It is terribly difficult for local authorities to become county boroughs, as we all know. It is a very serious thing to try to abolish them. That is why I did not try to abolish East and West Ham, because I am a man of peace. But those three county boroughs are to be abolished; and a number of county districts and metropolitan boroughs are to be altered, amalgamated, merged and one thing and another.
I have said that there will be one councillor for each Parliamentary constituency—each Parliamentary constituency, not each electoral division. The population of this vast authority will be roughly 8,500,000. 8,500,000, my Lords! The area to be covered is nearly 850 square miles, about seven times the area of the present administrative County of London. My Lords, there is no pleasing some people. It has been argued that the London County Council covers too big an area, and that therefore it cannot be in touch with the people. Now it is argued that it is too small. As I say, there is no pleasing everybody. It is sometimes said that if you minimise the powers of local authorities you will not get councillors to serve, but it is said by some of the people who ought to serve on local
1032
authorities, "I cannot serve on that body; it has too much to do". So these arguments cancel each other out; and I would ask, is this local government—a population of 8,500,000, with one councillor for each Parliamentary constituency, and an area of about 850 square miles? With great respect, I submit that this is not local government, and it is not London government, either.
Before I go any further, I want to make a confession—if I do not confess it myself, somebody will drag it out, so may as well confess it. Anyway, I believe that confession is good for the soul. I gave evidence before an earlier Royal Commission, somewhere round about 1920. Then, my experience of local government was limited, but I had become Mayor of Hackney, the first local government office, having been co-opted from outside—a somewhat undemocratic procedure, but it was permitted by law. I had read about local government, and I gave evidence before that Royal Commission urging that the London County Council area should be extended to absorb the whole of the Home Counties around, including Southend, Margate, Ramsgate and Brighton. My Lords, I make this clean confession: I learned more about local government as life went on, and I came to the conclusion that this was not local government at all. It was regional Parliamentary government, and not local government.
This Royal Commission Report does not go as far as I went in my young and enthusiastic days (though my days are still enthusiastic), it is true, but it has gone so far that it is not local government. And it is not London government. If this is going to be done to London, then I want to know what London has done to deserve it. What has my city done to deserve this abortion? And if it is to be done to London, why should it not be done to Birmingham, Manchester, the West Riding of Yorkshire, the West of Scotland and so on? Whether your Lordships would dare to do it, or the other place, either, I do not know: but people seem to think that they can do what they like with London. I hope that that will not occur.
The powers of the Greater London Authority are said to be limited. The

1033
Royal Commission, in their Report, which I agree is very ably and persuasively written, make out a case for consideration. I do not say that there is no case on the other side. It is tempting to sweep over the whole of Greater London, and if Greater London becomes double the size it is now—and it will, if we are not careful—another enlarged London County Council would be needed to cover that area. There is that theoretical case. There is also the case that is made for enlarging the powers of the boroughs, with which, in principle, I have no quarrel; and, as I have said, the London County Council have shown their bona fides by the fact that they are willing to discuss this matter with them. So has Middlesex. So has Surrey. So has Kent; and so has Essex, where there is a considerable delegation of authority from County Hall.
But it is said: "We will give only very limited powers to the Council for Greater London". I will show your Lordships that these are hardly limited powers. Let us consider what they are. First of all, there is town and country planning: the making of the plan; the revision of the plan; and the plan will dominate the area. Although there are to be delegated functions of individual consents to what are to be called the Greater London boroughs, they will nevertheless have to comply with the plan, believe, speaking from memory, that they will have to report each of their decisions, and it is possible that they may be pulled up. But this vast power of planning will go to this vast authority, with some delegation to the boroughs, but with the duty to report to higher up on consents.
As I said, the making and the revision of the Greater London Plan will be a function for the Greater London Authority. But presumably they will be subject to the Minister of Housing and Local Government, who can modify, reject or alter town planning schemes which are put to him. Indeed, one of the arguments of the Royal Commission, both in respect of the Minister of Housing and Local Government and in respect of the Minister of Transport, is that the Ministers are interfering and deciding upon administrative policies in London more than is desirable in the interests of a healthy local government.
1034
There is something in that view, but I do not see any stopping the present Minister of Transport—not that I wish to stress the Minister of Transport, because I have made my comments about him last week and before that. But I do not think it will be possible to stop him from interfering with the local authorities in London, whoever 'they are.
Nor, my Lords, do I see how the Minister of Housing and Local Government can stop interfering with these planning schemes. It would not shock me if the Minister of Housing and Local Government, as the supreme planning authority, when planning schemes were submitted to him from the various local authorities in the Greater London area, the counties and the county boroughs were to say: "This does not comply with the Ministry's conception of the planning development of Greater London, and I must ask you to modify it in this, that or the other respect." That must, I think, be possible. The local authorities must have the right to argue their case, but I accept the view that, in the end, the Minister, as the co-ordinating authority, has that right to co-ordinate and to impose his will upon them. The same would apply to the Minister of Transport with regard to highway powers. Indeed, this happens not only in London, but all over the country—although London, probably, has a little more interference than the others because Ministers get a "kick" out of interfering with London. They are human, and I have to be tolerant about it—and there it is.
Traffic control and management, and town and country planning, are to go to the. Greater London Authority. Traffic control and management is to go to the Greater London Authority subject, in some respects, which will be of principle, to the Minister. Main roads which in the county of London are under the metropolitan boroughs, and lighting which is under them, will be transferred to, the Greater London Authority, though outside the county of London, I think, the main roads are to be the county councils' function.
Housing outside the Greater London area—and, indeed, some of it inside.—is to be the function of the Greater London Authority. Therefore, we get

1035
something like concurrent powers between the Greater London Authority and the boroughs which now obtain in the administrative County of London, though county councils outside have not housing powers. But the boroughs will have to report to the Greater London Authority on lettings in order that that Authority may keep statistics.
Then we come to education—and this really is a very serious proposal. It is proposed that the Greater London Authority should control the standards of education: the general planning of the educational scheme and policy is to be centralised in the Greater London Authority. The Authority will control entry to selective and special schools and colleges. It will control the appointment of teachers to the Greater London service—so that they can be moved about, which, in principle is right—and the training of teachers for the Greater London service. But local appointments to particular schools will be under the boroughs—52 of them—and dismissals will also be under the boroughs. That will not be very comforting to the teaching profession, although there is an appeal to the Greater London Authority.
The 11-plus and other examinations are to be under the Greater London Authority. So is the scheme for the youth employment service, although the local administration of the scheme will be with the boroughs. Colleges of advanced technology and regional colleges will be under the Greater London Authority. All educational costs will have to be met by the Greater London Council, and they will control the budgets of the boroughs —which, believe me, will leave the boroughs mighty little free initiative in education. That is inevitable: the Greater London Council will do the paying, so they will call the tune. The Greater London Council will also be able to give directions to the boroughs in the discharge of their educational functions. All other educational functions, which appear to be the day-to-day management of the schools and, I think, school feeding, and medical inspection and treatment, will go to the boroughs.
This will mean 53 chief officers of education in Greater London. In the County of London, instead of one, as there is now, there will be 18 chief education officers. And it is going to
1036
break up education and administration. Moreover, what is going to happen about the non-provided schools? This is not an easy business, this question of financial grants-in-aid by the educational authorities to 'the denominations of the non-provided schools. I do not wonder that some of my Catholic friends in London are very worried. They get on well with the London County Council. They do not look forward to having to negotiate separate agreements with 18 boroughs, apart from those outside, and I must say that I do not blame them. I think they are getting on pretty well with the various county and county borough education authorities, and I believe that great difficulties may arise on this point.
In addition to all these services, the ambulance service will be under the Greater London Authority. So will the fire-fighting service, and also the refuse disposal service, which is now a function of the metropolitan boroughs and the county districts. So also will main drainage and the control of sewage disposal. Parks and open spaces go to the boroughs; but a big one, like the Crystal Palace, and possibly some others, will go to the Greater London Council. The Greater London Council will have some land drainage powers. Other powers will go to the boroughs, including, I think, public control and the licensing of cinemas, so that there can be appeals to each of these 52 boroughs-18 in London—on film censorship, and so on. Here I declare an interest as President of the British Board of Film Censors— that that point is very important. It could create a chaotic situation if we had various consents and non-consents cast over 18 bodies in the County of London, and 52 over the whole of Greater London. I submit, my Lords, that these are not limited powers but very great and considerable powers. The virtue that is claimed for the Report is that it recommends that the powers of the Central Authority should be severely limited, and that the most important powers should go to the boroughs. That claim is not altogether true, because this is a considerable list of powers. This will be an enlarged London County Council.
But it does not stop there. The history of the London County Council, especially when there was a Conservative majority and under Conservative Governments, is

1037
that its powers have increased, but there has not been a notable increase in the powers of the metropolitan boroughs. The same thing will happen with the Greater London Authority. As time goes on, it will be found that it is more convenient that power should be centralised under the Greater London Authority. As the years go on, its powers will increase. The boroughs are under an illusion if they think that they are going to rule the roost to the extent that some of them very naturally would like.
I come to finance. It is admitted that, in the counties which are to undergo a surgical operation, such as Surrey, Essex and Kent, rates will go up. Indeed, it is proposed that the local authorities at present within those counties should make a substantial contribution to the surviving pants of the counties for a number of years in order to help them out. It is admitted that some metropolitan boroughs will suffer an increase in rates; it may be that richer areas, such as the City of London, the City of Westminster, the Royal Borough of Kensington and the Borough of St. Marylebone, may experience a reduction in their expenditure.
It has to be appreciated that county councils, not only in London but outside, automatically provide by their services an equalisation of rates. Their expenditure is an equal charge over the various non-county boroughs and county districts. That is an automatic equalisation. To the expensive London County Council services, including education, which is very expensive, all local authorities, including the City of Westminster, the Borough of Kensington and the Borough of St. Marylebone, make substantial contributions. It is important that they should continue to do so. I hope that those boroughs will not take a selfish point of view and say, "Here is a chance to get away without making a contribution to these important services in the poorer areas of London".
There is to be a special levy of the authorities in the cut-off parts of those surrounding counties. The Royal Commission talks about equalisation but does not produce a scheme. There is nothing concrete about it. There is a limit to what I might call artificial equalisation of rates—to which I do not object in principle—because if the local burden be-
1038
comes too heavy and the degree of equalisation becomes too heavy the local authority may find that much of its finance is coming from outside sources, who will want to control the large sums of money that 'they are putting into the local authority.
Moreover, if the equalisation is to meet the problem which is created by the Report of the Royal Commission, my Lords of the Treasury had better think about it, because they will have to pay more to effect this equalisation. The boroughs will have an instinct of wanting to get all the power they can—at least some of them—arid it is not unnatural; but they had better think what it will cost them. It means that in so far as services are diverted from the centrally and automatically equalised rate, the boroughs will be landed into terribly high expenditure. Consequently the boroughs will be wise to consider that point—not that I want to dogmatise —as to the relative powers between the boroughs and the proposed Greater London Authority.
The proposal speaks of amalgamations —one amalgamation, for example, of Holborn, Finsbury and Shoreditch. I do not know how Holborn will like that marriage or how the others will like it, either. I do not think it is particularly natural. Another most extraordinary amalgamation is between the respectable Conservative borough of Hampstead, represented in another place by the present Minister of Housing and Local Government, and the former red-flag borough of St. Pancras. It is an extraordinary marriage. If it does not lead to a divorce I shall be very surprised. This is where the Royal Commission is inhuman. It goes for tidiness on the map but it does not realise that certain people will not make a "do" of it when they get married. That is one of the things that have to be taken into account.
It is proposed that Deptford be merged with the Metropolitan Borough of Greenwich. There is no political trouble about it they are both of the same colour, but the leaders of both councils do not want it. Greenwich has a nice naval tradition going back to Henry VIII and Queen Elizabeth I. It does not want to take on Deptford. Deptford does not want to take on Greenwich. Your Lordships may say

1039
that this is unreasonable and is parish-pump prejudice. I know Deptford inside out and I am very fond of it, although I have never lived there. It has a civic consciousness of its own, above that of many other metropolitan boroughs. It likes itself and its people like to be Deptford people. It is a small borough; I think its population is nearly 70,000. The people are conscious of themselves. In local government, the great thing that we are seeking is local authorities with a civic consciousness in the council and in the people of the borough. I do not see why we should force Deptford into a marriage that it does not want. The same thing is true of some others. Some are not to be interfered with, like Woolwich, where I live, and Lewisham, which I formerly represented in another place.
Some of those amalgamations are unnatural and we have to be careful about abolishing boroughs with a civic consciousness and tradition. I have a lot of sympathy with the smallest county in England, Rutland, and so have some noble Lords on Government Benches. I ask them to have sympathy also with some of the county districts and metropolitan boroughs. On paper, I agree that on the argument of theoretical tidiness Rutland has not much of a case; hut Rutland has been proud for centuries of being the smallest county in England.
EARL WINTERTON: It is very well administered.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: I am not disposed to dispute that. Rutland is conscious of itself and "gets a kick" out of being the smallest county in England. Another Commission comes along and says, "Away with it. You are untidy. You do not appeal to our tidy, Civil Service minds." I have a lot of sympathy with Rutland. I ask your Lordships to have sympathy with these people in London as well.
The Metropolitan Water Board was excluded from consideration, under the terms of reference, but if ever there was a case for anything to go to the Greater London Authority, there is one for the Metropolitan Water Board. It does good work. I was on the Board for three years, just long enough to learn about it, then I got off. I think that to try to
1040
make politics out of water is one of the hardest things of life. It is not really possible—though I had a good try. The Board is an indirectly elected body and, as functions go, it would easily go into Greater London; but the Commission was not in favour of the Water Board being brought in. Why, I do not know.
I have referred to the possible application of this Report to the provinces. The Labour local authorities are not alone in objecting to the Report of the Royal Commission. There are also objections from Conservative local authorities. The Surrey County Council has already issued an able report. I do not agree with all of it, but it is an exceedingly able report, which is worth your Lordships' while to read. It is very critical in opposing the Commission's Report. I think that Kent and Essex will also be against the proposals, as will a number of other Conservative local authorities. It is important that the Government should keep this in mind and not think that this is a one-sided Party political battle. It is a battle in which men and women of good will, who love local government and believe in it, are going to take part as critics.
I hope that the Government will not rush to conclusions about this Report and its proposals. Any Government will have trouble because of the great difficulties that arise. I would put it to Her Majesty's Government: is it worth while walking into this highly contentious and difficult proposition and establishing a principle that is not local government any more? Is it worth all the Parliamentary fighting, and fighting with local authorities, embittering their relations with Whitehall? Quite apart from Party politics (and I think your Lordships will agree that I have not delivered a Party political speech; and there are plenty of Conservatives who share my view about this), I hope that Her Majesty's Government, who have plenty of other things to do, will not feel that they are called upon to float what would be a vastly complicated and politically controversial Bill. While there may be room for adaptations, modifications and improvements in existing local government in Greater London, it is a fact that, as a whole, the system works, and works well and competently in the public interest.

1041
Therefore, I urge Her Majesty's Ministers to be cautious about this matter. It would not he the first Report of a Royal Commission that was forgotten, and it will not be the last; and if Her Majesty's Government somehow, by their undoubted capacity for this sort of thing, side-step it, and do not pursue it, they will not drift into a state of bitter political debate and into the enormous labour of producing a Bill. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will not feel that they are obligated to adopt and approve the Report of this Royal Commission. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.44 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (EARL WALDEGRAVE): My Lords, I think we must all be extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, for having given your Lordships' House the opportunity of first discussing this very important subject, for it is the first time that this matter has been discussed in Parliament. I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me if I do not follow him in detail through his wide-ranging speech, partly because my noble and learned friend who sits upon the Woolsack, who will be winding up the debate, will no doubt wish to reply to many of the detailed points raised. But I think it may be convenient if a Government intervention is made at this juncture in the debate. I shall briefly touch on the general background of this complex problem, which really constitutes the origin of this Report. It is much too complicated a subject for me to attempt to summarise it in the short time available, but I hope that I may be able to convince your Lordships that one should not attempt at this stage to try to take up positions too hastily.
I confess that I am a little sorry that the noble Lord has felt it right to stand so squarely on the position which he took up in the public Press soon after the Report was published. The Report was published in October and his article appeared in the first days of November. I read his article with the greatest care —he repeated some of it in his speech this afternoon. The noble Lord may be right. It may be right, by and large, that local government in London should
1042
be left alone and that there is no case for drastic reorganisation, but I feel that this problem is so big that the Report itself deserves careful study by all concerned before we come to a conclusion. That certainly is the Government's view.
The whole conception of local government has developed and changed enormously, even since the end of the last century, when it was set on a modern footing. There have been big changes since then, and the scope of local government activity has increased greatly. Perhaps the most significant theme of the age in which we live is the pace, the acceleration of development, in all spheres of life. The wind of change sometimes seems to reach gale force. Local government is certainly not a subject which has not been affected by this phenomenon.
The White Paper (Command 9831) published in 1956 shows how well aware the Government were of this. Your Lordships will know that the proposals in that White Paper were implemented in the Local Government Act, 1958, for the country outside London, and it is under this Act that the Local Government Commissions are reviewing the areas and status of local authorities in England and Wales. The Commissions' attention was particularly drawn to the problems of what are called the conurbations. But London, as the Report says in paragraph 10, is
"a living organism which has earned a better title than the cold, ugly, and, in this instance, misleading term 'conurbation'."
So it was that the Royal Commission was set up to study the special problems of Greater London.
Greater London presents special problems not encountered elsewhere. Quite apart from its huge population, the area has operating within it no fewer than six county councils and three county boroughs, with other aspirants for county borough status knocking on the door. It contains several systems of local government, with a very distinct difference between the County of London and the rest of Greater London. We have not yet received the full reports of the other Commissions, but the Royal Commission for Greater London presented its Report in October of this year. The Commission did not start with preconceived notions. Their terms of reference

1043
were very wide, and I think they ought to be quoted. What the Commissioners had to do was to consider "whether any, and if so what, changes" were needed in local government in Greater London. In fact, the Royal Commission record, in paragraphs 285 to 288, that they began their examination with the premise that a well-tried and working system ought not to be changed unless facts drove them to a contrary conclusion. I think it is significant, therefore, that the Royal Commission felt that they must recommend such drastic changes, and that they were unanimous—for there is no Minority Report.
They constantly refer to this theme. As the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, felt, and frequently mentioned in his speech that the Commissioners must have a passion for tidiness, I think I should quote to your Lordships extracts from the Report on the status quo, which you will find in paragraphs 285, 286, 287 and 288. They say, in paragraph 285:
"Our terms of reference enjoin us to consider whether any, and if so what, changes' are needed in the machinery of local government in the Review Area. This question, so stated, has underlain the whole of our procedure and it seems appropriate to indicate at this stage our general attitude to it."
They then go on to say, in paragraph 288:
"We have only made recommendations for change where we have felt driven to do so in order to provide the machinery necessary, in our judgment, for the solution of London's problems as they are today and as far as we can foresee them in the future."
Earlier they said. in the same paragraph:
"We have, therefore, not approached our task in any spirit of tidy-mindedness. Where a system is working or being made to work our predilection has been in favour of leaving it alone."
So much for that: they were well aware that they might be criticised for a predilection for tidy-mindedness.
I feel that it is fitting, on the first time that this Report comes to be considered in Parliament, that I should pay a tribute to its quality. The noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, paid rather a grudging tribute, I felt, to the great individual qualities of the members of the Royal Commission, though he was generous enough to say that the Report was well written. Sir Edwin Herbert and his colleagues could well have been
1044
forgiven if they had produced a document so complicated and difficult for the subject is so complicated and difficult—that it would have been well-nigh unreadable. But although the members of this Royal Commission were faced with so daunting a subject, there is no question that they have produced a most exceptional Report. It is so vividly written that I humbly suggest that anyone accustomed to reading serious literature will find no difficulty, but, on the contrary, real pleasure, in reading the Report.
The Commissioners have approached their task with enthusiasm, humanity and humour. May I quote an example of that? When they found themselves faced with the sort of problem which inevitably arouses strong prejudices, passions and preconceived notions, they did not burke it. Let us consider what they said about the City of London. They said in paragraph 935 of the Report:
"If we were to be strictly logical we should recommend the amalgamation of the City and Westminster. But logic has its limits and the position of the City lies outside them."
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: Of course; when you come to the City.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: This is not a "ducking out from under" a thorny problem by a facetious phrase. This is a carefully considered opinion and recommendation and all the more valuable, in my opinion, for being stated in such a way and not in a mass of verbiage which anybody can translate into whatever he wishes.
I now turn for a moment to the Report's conclusions, and I must do so in the briefest possible way, because the noble Lord has already gone into a number of points in considerable detail. In drawing attention to these conclusions, which the Royal Commission found themselves forced to recommend, I think it will be obvious why the Government cannot at this juncture answer with a simple "Yes" or "No". This Report was published only two months ago, and this is the first occasion, as I have said, that Parliament has had a chance of discussing it. In that connection, it is clear that the procedure for examining these conclusions must allow an opportunity for all those affected to express

1045
their views. The noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, stated that he thought the local authorities were being asked to express their views too hurriedly. But I would remind the noble Lord of the terms of the letter which my right honourable friend sent to the local authorities. He said
"At this stage it is clearly necessary to concentrate on the main issues raised by the report and to examine the broad pattern which emerges from the Commission's recommendations"
He also said that there would be a mass of detail to be discussed and considered later, but he has asked the local authorities to consider in three months the broad pattern. I do not think that that can be considered to be a hurried procedure.
The general considerations and conclusions are set out in extenso in Chapter XIII of the Report and are summarised at the end of that chapter. I suggest that this chanter deserves particularly careful study, because in the earlier paragraphs it groups under six main heads considerations which, in the opinion of the Commissioners, the evidence they heard establishes as facts. It is in the light of these considerations that the conclusions are reached. The recommendations, as noble Lords will know, are set out in Chapter XX. They are condensed into a page and a half, but there is hardly a sentence in that page and a half that will not make someone either raise his eyebrows or cry "Hear, hear!". This is masterly condensation.
Broadly, your Lordships will note, the recommendations are that the functions of local government should remain intact, but that the structure should be wholly different, both from the present system in Greater London and the present system in the rest of the country. If I may quote a famous Lord Chancellor of fiction, we should "work on a new and original plan". Incidentally, the Commission reject any idea that the solution could be a capitulation to central government. They state in paragraph 724:
"Local government means local self-government…a surrender to central government would be the death knell of local government in the Review Area."
Their solution is, then—and I emphasise that it is their solution—that the Greater London Area should be roughly limited by the Green Belt, and within this
1046
area the existing borough and district councils should be regrouped to form some 50 Greater London boroughs. These boroughs would be the main units of local government, exercising all functions except those which can be more effectively administered over the wider area of Greater London; and for that wider area of Greater London a directly elected Greater London Council should be set up. That is their solution.
The distribution of functions between the Greater London Council and the boroughs would make the boroughs the primary units of local government, because they are truly local. The Council for Greater London should, inter alia, be the overall authority for education, main roads, traffic and planning in so far as these great services cannot be purely local. If this structure is to go right out to the Green Belt then, of course, large areas, large populations and large resources must be taken away from existing county councils, Surrey, Kent and Essex. But the Commissioners believe— and we make no judgment about this yet—that what would be left to those councils would be viable; and the Commissioners took detailed evidence on these points.
These are all matters of great interest and concern to us all, and will not further delay the discussion of them by your Lordships' House. In considering a problem of this magnitude, the wisdom and advice of your Lordships will be of the utmost value, and Her Majesty's Government will study with the greatest care everything that is said in this debate.
4.2 p.m.
VISCOUNT MERSEY: My Lords, I should like to commence the few words I want to say on -this Report by congratulating Sir Edwin Herbert and the other members of the Commission for having produced what I can only describe as a fascinating document and one which, I venture to say, your Lordships might well find more interesting to read in parts than the book which we discussed in this House last week.
The first point I think we should notice about the Royal Commission's Report is that it is unanimous—and that is no small achievement when one considers the complexity of the problem. As the noble Earl who has just spoken emphasised, the key to the whole -of the Royal

1047
Commission's Report is that the primary unit of London government should be the borough. I was rather interested to hear that the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, who knows, surely, as much as anybody in this House about the London County Council, concentrated a great deal of his speech on the functions of what is described in the Report as the Greater London Council. He himself must be aware—and I am sure he is and that he would not wish to mislead your Lordships on this point—that if this Report is adopted the Greater London Council will be left only with what I would describe as the central functions of government and that the real power will be transferred to the boroughs. I see that the noble Lord nods his head. The real power will be transferred to the boroughs, who have been pressing the central Government for many years for this opportunity.
I should like to make a few observations about one or two other matters which the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, raised. He raised, of course quite rightly, the question which affects us all about rates. I would submit that nobody could possibly say at this stage what effect the adoption of this Report could have on rates, in view of the fact that there is to be a revaluation of the whole rate structure in 1963. I think it is most unlikely that the Greater London Council and the new functions will come into force before that. Although it is not allowed for in the Report, I think myself that some form of rating equalisation scheme would have to be adopted. What I think I can be absolutely definite in saying is this: if the present London County Council remains to function in its present form—and, as the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, says, it does work—it is a very extravagant authority. It might be news to some of your Lordships that it employs at present 65,000 people to administer the present administrative County of London. The population which it is administering is falling; nevertheless, year after year the number of administrative staff rises and I can see no end to it I would say, therefore, that if we can be certain about anything, it is that the rates of London will rise if the present County Council continues to function in the present way.
1048
The noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, referred to education, and I must say that I agree with a great deal of what he said. My own view about the proposals with regard to education is that it is the weakest part of the Report. It is a difficult problem, and I find it hard to understand how voluntary, part-time councillors could possibly adequately control education for a population of some 9 million people. I will not say the only solution, but the only suggestion that I can make which might be worth looking at is that some form of regional educational authorities should be set up—something like we have at present, where the educational functions of the London County Council are divided into nine areas. There might be some way of working it like that; but what is proposed in this Report as regards education seems to me to be, if not unworkable, likely to lead to considerable administrative difficulties and friction between the Greater London Council and the boroughs who would be asked to administer the education of hundreds of thousands of children in London. No doubt that is a matter which is in the minds of the Government, and will be considered.
Finally, I should like to ask the noble and learned Viscount who is to reply to the debate two questions the answers to which I think, if he could help the House, would be most interesting. The noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, I thought made a very interesting reference to the different conurbations in the rest of the country and in Scotland, and these great industrial masses, towns in the West Midlands, Clydeside, and so forth. In view of the Report which is now before us, I wonder whether Her Majesty's Government are considering setting up further Commissions to see if anything might be done to help those huge urban areas in regard to such things as traffic control and all the main services which are summarised in this Report. I feel it might be very much to their advantage.
The other question I would ask is this. It seems to me that the essence of this Report is that if anything is to be done about it there should be a certain amount of speed. It is very difficult, and it has been for some time, to recruit the right sort of people for local government. Take

1049
the London County Council: if the feeling is, "Well, we do not know; this authority may be coming to an end", if the matter is left like that, where are you going to get recruits from? Therefore, if anything is to be done I should have thought it was the duty of the Government to try to press on with the implementation of the recommendations of this Report.
The Minister has asked for replies by the end of February. The question I want to ask is this: what is going to happen then, when he has received those replies and assimilated them—and there are 52 to come and they will all make their own particular points? Is he then going to Produce a White Paper, a further document, or is he going to bring in a Bill, either in this House or in another place, or is he going, as the noble Lord who opened the debate suggested —I hope not—to pigeon-hole the Report, as has happened to many other Reports? I cannot believe that the present Minister and Her Majesty's Government who have asked for the Report and received such a very able document will do that. But I wonder whether we could be told what the Government have in mind, 'they have already had several months to consider the matter. With that, I merely say how very much I welcome and support the document which is before us to-day.
4.13 p.m.
EARL ATTLEE: My Lords, I should like to congratulate the noble Lord who has just sat 'down, I understand that this is his maiden speech, and we shall hope for many more contributions to our debates.
When one reads this Report one cannot help being struck by the great care with which the Commissioners have gone into this very complicated problem, and, as the noble Earl opposite rightly said, there is a considerable degree of the human touch. The trouble is that in all local government questions one always finds great difficulty from people who have known one system and worked one system, and who think anything which changes it is perfectly dreadful—and indeed, I think that is quite a good point, because people should have local patriotism. I am not prepared myself to take a too sweeping and final view of this Report. I am a Londoner,
1050
and I have seen quite a lot of Greater London. I was born in the County of Surrey, but before I was five years old the County of Surrey became part of the County of London. I have lived in a Western borough and in an East London Borough, in central London and in Middlesex; and I have now escaped to Buckinghamshire. So I have a somewhat broad view of this problem.
I have been concerned to a much lesser degree than my noble friend Lord Morrison of Lambeth, in London government, and London government has always been extremely difficult because of the immense size of London, its spread, and its inheritance from the past. One is always faced in these days with the difficulty of trying to preserve historic boundaries, or boundaries that have become historic in the course of a few years, and the exigencies of dealing with large-scale administration. In late years, I am afraid, I myself have done something against local government, in the interests of better and effective distribution of electricity. We took electricity away from the smaller councils altogether; and that was a great grief to me, because when I was a member of a local government authority the electricity committee was my pet department. That decision, however, was forced upon us by technical considerations. One finds the same thing with transport, with health, and many other matters.
The difficulty is to try to reconcile the needs of large-scale administration with the preservation of local patriotism. Undoubtedly here in this Report is an attempt to do that, and one aspect that I welcome is the proposed increase in the powers of borough councils. That is probably pure prejudice, because I have never been a county councillor but I have been a borough councillor. It is important that authorities should be given worthwhile work, instead of having councils reduced to talking only about local drainage or refuse collection, and so on. I therefore welcome the accretion of powers to the borough councils.
There is a danger, of course, that the powers will be taken from the county council. Personally, I think that with a very large authority the less its functions have to do with the detailed life of the

1051
citizen, the better. Its functions should be, on the whole, matters that are of a technical importance and not of special local interest. Here in London there has always been that difficulty, because the London County Council was built up only in 1888, in the horse-drawn age. Getting to meetings of local councils, and their administration, depends enormously on transport. Much of our local government was built up on the horse; now it has to be built up on the motor. I was not sure whether my noble friend Lord Morrison of Lambeth was quite correct when he said that it would be so much more difficult to get from the boundaries of this proposed London County than from the boundaries of the present County Council. I rather doubt it. I think one could probably get as easily from Hornchurch to-day as you could from the boundary of the old London County Council served by the London, Chatham and Dover Railway in 1888. But these things are constantly changing.
I should like to raise this question. We are trying to put all the urban parts around London into one authority. We are going to cut parts of Kent, Surrey, Middlesex, Essex and Hertfordshire off from the county. I wonder whether it is right to try to detach our towns altogether. I thought it was a mistake when county boroughs were created. It is one thing to take away from the county council a town which has nothing to do with the county, but I have always thought it a mistake to take the capital city of the county away from the county government. I think that if a county is to be alive it must consist of town and county. Therefore, I am a little doubtful on that side.
As my noble friend Lord Morrison of Lambeth has pointed out, there is the great difficulty of the changing of boundaries. Nothing raises so much ill-feeling as the changing of boundaries. My brother had the task in trying to bring about the amalgamation of parishes in Cornwall. He wrote to me saying, "Some people say that religion is dead in this country. Try and unite two parishes, and you will find that the desert will blossom, not with the rose but with thorns." I notice that, par-
1052
ticularly in inner London, this nice joining up of geographical, contiguous areas is not welcomed by the people. People do not like their neighbours, particularly in local areas.
Part of the scheme for the constitution of Greater London electricity, with which I had some connection, was that people had to join together to select their representatives. One would have thought that these boroughs were almost exactly the same. Wisely, I made the provision that where they did not agree the executive should appoint. None of them did agree, because everyone thought his neighbour rather inferior to himself. I never thought that there was a vast amount of social difference between Islington and St. Pancras, or between Hammersmith and Fulham. But I found that I was quite wrong. Hammersmith thought itself vastly superior to Fulham; and Fulham reciprocated. Therefore, I am a little doubtful, as was my noble friend Lord Morrison of Lambeth, whether these marriages of convenience will really come off. My old borough of Stepney, which is going to be joined up with Bethnal Green, and also Poplar, has its own tradition. We are more homogeneous. I do not think this joining up will be liked at all.
As my noble friend said, there is a great danger of our destroying civic consciousness. Owing to the way in which the City of London neglected to take over the adjoining areas of London they have always been most civic conscious. I cannot think of anything more likely to promote civic consciousness than the old vestries. It was only in 1899 that we built up the metropolitan borough councils. Since that time they have built up all sorts of civic bodies—old vestries, boards of works and everything. I have seen the growth in 50 years of a civic consciousness in that borough. If you destroy that you have got to build it up all over again. Often outside London, too, there are some fine places with civic consciousness. The Borough of Walthamstow, which I represented, has quite the best civic centre anywhere around London. But these things take time; and if they are destroyed they take a lot of building up again. My noble friend's fears about the London County Council are exactly the same.

1053
Therefore, my Lords, I approach this matter with a great deal of caution. Quite irrespective of any political troubles, any Government will have trouble with local patriotism and local differences. On the other hand, reading this Report I am bound to say that there are extremely cogent reasons for having some services taken over by a larger authority. I do not think that a local authority can really be so called when it administers as many as 8 million people. On the other hand, there is a set-off. It seems to me that the giving of real powers to the boroughs will make a difference because, broadly speaking, the metropolitan boroughs have never had sufficient powers; they have been entirely cut off from such vital matters as education, and so on. For all these reasons, I am not prepared to make a final judgment at present, because I have not had sufficient time to consider the Report. And I hope that the Government will go carefully before they destroy what exists, and works well, for something which is still extremely difficult to appreciate in its entirety.
4.26 p.m.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, it is a most alarming thing to make a maiden speech in this House; the institution is so old, the individual so new. The only comfort is that your Lordships all know this: you have an made maiden speeches, either here or in another place, and when you took the plunge you did not die of fright. You survived; you lived to make another speech. Probably—and here lies the greatest comfort of all—you lived to make a better speech. I would ask you now to remember the terrors of that first occasion and to bear with my insufficiency.
It seems to me that in many respects this is a good Report. London is an enormous city. If it is possible better to co-ordinate its administration by enlarging the Council, that will be a good thing. If the enlargement of the overall County Council demands the enlargement of the boroughs and the devolution of further functions to them, that, too, seems to be a reasonable reform to propose. But there is one field in which I hope the Government will not do what the Royal Commission recommend, and that is the point that the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, touched on in
1054
introducing the debate—namely, education. It seems to me that when it comes to speak of education the Report is rather rash. The Commission is full of praise for the London County Council educational service. It recommends that the new enlarged Council, the Greater London Council, should continue to be the education authority for the enlarged county, and should keep most of its present functions. This is good. But it proposes that certain functions should be passed downwards to the boroughs. It proposes not only the power of transfer of teachers within one borough Which the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, referred to, but also that the borough councils should manage and maintain the schools themselves; that they should appoint managers and governors and that they should prepare plans for new schools if the Greater London Council agree.
It seems to me that within the framework of the overall responsibility for education of the Greater London Council, if it is set up, these partial measures of devolution would be bound to give rise to some confusion. Take the building of a new school. The Greater London Council would have to decide, in the first place, whether the designs were to be prepared by its own staff or by that of the borough council concerned. It would be an invitation for all sorts of pressures and lobbyings to be brought to bear. If the Greater London Council insists on keeping the design in its own hands the borough council may feel aggrieved. If the Greater London Council allows the borough council to prepare the plans at the lower level, the chances are that the school may not be as well planned as it might have been. There is a very great fund of skill and knowledge in the present London County Council administration of education; there is not such a fund outside it. Either this fund of knowledge will be broken up and dispersed if the present qualified staff goes to work for the borough councils, or else the schools may not be as good as they might be if kept under the umbrella of the new Greater London Council.
When we turn to the reasons that the Royal Commission give for proposing this erosion of the County Council's functions in regard to education, I think

1055
we can see that they are to some extent looking at the wrong end of the problem. They say that the case for a two-tier system in the administration of education rests—and I quote:
"partly upon its effect on the work in the schools, and partly upon its effect upon the health of local government,"
But, in practice, they seem to be thinking mostly of the health of local government. They say that they want:
"to provide an outlet for local interest",
and that:
"a large number of local councillors would like to serve on education committees."
They say that what they propose would make a borough council:
"a healthier and more lively body."
They speak again of
"lively health in the boroughs of Greater London",
and of the need to:
"arrest the withering process in London local government."
What have they to say about the effect on schools of the proposed devolution of powers to borough councils? They say:
"The Administrative system"
of the L.C.C., which might be altered to the Greater London Council—
"is huge and monolithic, and in spite of every human effort that can be made to prevent its being mechanical and soulless, day-to-day administration must suffer from a certain rigidity and apparent inhumanity. This fault—and it is a fault in a personal service like education—has been amply brought out in our evidence."
They say it has been amply brought out in the evidence, but they do not give, in their Report, any of this evidence to the public. Elsewhere they praise the relationship between L.C.C. officials and inspectors on the one hand and teachers on the other, and they make the point that the larger the education authority's area is, the more freely can children and adolescents have access to the school which is most suitable to them and the less difficulty there will be about "crossing the frontier" into a neighbouring local authority to find the right school or college.
On several occasions they compare the L.C.C. and the Middlesex County Council on the score of administrative smooth-
1056
ness, and they always imply that the L.C.C., which has a one-tier system, runs better than the Middlesex County Council, which has a rather muddled two-tier system, with "excepted districts" interposed between the county education authority and the schools themselves. I do not understand why the Royal Commission seemed to recommend that the Greater London Council, even when set up, should adopt not the L.C.C. one-tier system, which they think works well, but something like the Middlesex County Council two-tier system which they say works rather badly by comparison.
We are speaking about the most local, the smallest and most intimate unit of government in our capital city—the borough council. It is very good that these small local units should be vigorous and should have power, and that any man living in any street should feel he can easily stand for his local council and, if elected, can go along and put wrong things right and make right things righter. We should want to increase local dynamism and the sense of local responsibility, but not at all costs and not simply for the sake of doing so. If borough councillors and those who wish to be borough councillors are itching to have more say, let them be given more say, but in matters where it is almost certain they will be able to improve things. There are many such matters. But I do not think those councillors are likely to be able to improve the L.C.C. education service.
I speak about this with some feeling since I have at present three children at school on the L.C.C. system, and shall soon have two more. I expect that some of your Lordships also have made use of this quite remarkable service. But to those noble Lords who have not I would say this: I would appeal to the Government on grounds of purist conservatism: do not touch a good thing when it is running well. The L.C.C., in common with half a dozen other education authorities in English counties and cities, have the admiration and respect of educationists not only in this country but over a large part of the world for what they are doing and have done. They employ some of the finest architects in this country—and the same cannot, I am afraid. be said of many London

1057
boroughs. Those who are accustomed to keep an eye open for architecture find their hopes rise when they hear the words "L.C.C. building", and their hearts sink when they hear the words "municipal building". There is throughout the L.C.C. education service, its back-room planners, its inspectors and, above all, its teachers, a wholly admirable sense of patient devotion, of single-minded and single-hearted care for the true aim of the whole vast system: the children themselves. It did not grow up in a day.
Many people, perhaps most people and certainly most of your Lordships in this House, are worried about the way people in this age care too much for financial reward, for status and all that is summed up in the phrase "being one up", having a carpet, two telephones and a secretary to oneself. Of all the institutions which make up our society, the education authorities and the teachers, and foremost among them the L.C.C., are immune from these values. They are the repositories of very much that is best in our society. It may be that if the borough councils had an increased say in matters these good things would not be lost and dispersed; but it may be, that new causes of friction and partiality would arise. I hope the Government will not risk it when it comes to consider this Report.
I want to close with one more quotation from the Report, because I can bring personal experience to it:
"It seems to us that in regard to the daily administration of the conduct of the schools, parents and other people like to be able to go to the town hall or to approach their local councillors."
No, surely they like to be able to go to the school itself; and at present they are freely encouraged to do so by the teachers and the education authorities. When I have wanted to talk about the child itself I have always gone to the school, and have found this entirely satisfactory. When have wanted to consider which school the child should go to, I have gone to the area office of the L.C.C. education authority, and have found that equally satisfactory. Both teachers and administrators always have time for the parent. Perhaps the town hall would too. But why complicate the issue? The
1058
thing works, in most respects amazingly well considering the shortage of teachers and the financial stringency. Let us count our blessings and leave it alone.
4.37 p.m.
LORD CORNWALLIS: My Lords, my first and very delightful duty is to congratulate the noble Lord who has just sat down on that extraordinarily thoughtful maiden speech. He evidently is a master of one subject—that is, education. When he first rose to address your Lordships he said that he did so with trepidation. I cannot believe that the son of a father who had such a terrific record for bravery could ever do anything with very much trepidation. May I say how delighted I am to have this opportunity of congratulating him, the son of one who for many years we regarded with sincere affection as one of our Parliamentary representatives for the County of Kent, I hope that we may hear much more from the noble Lord.
To-day we seem to have very much concentrated on the London County Council, though all of us who read this drastic Report Will realise that other counties are involved. I should like to speak of one of those counties only—Kent—because I feel that quite enough has been said about the London County Council. I want to say, first of all, that I am not speaking on behalf of the county council. When I asked them for same notes, or for something that I could have in my hands at the time of this debate, they wrote to me saying:
"We rather want to look at the whole affair as thoughtfully as we can before arriving at anything which can be said to be the official view of the county council."
I believe that the noble Lord in charge of this debate will be delighted to hear that sentence. But we do begin to wonder; the sprawling development of that great octopus, the Landon County Council—or should I say the Corporation of London, and the hole of London Town itself—is beginning to worry some of its neighbours. We do not quite know where it is going to end.
I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, will take me up on this point, but the proper geographical boundary of Kent, after all, includes Woolwich. Greenwich, Catford, Blackheath, and I do not know what other boroughs; and in many respects it

1059
is true that those places belong to the county. I always used rather to twit the Master Gunner who was at that time Lord Lieutenant of the County of London by saying to him, when I went to the Woolwich mess, would he now receive his Lord Lieutenant? I was within perfect right in doing so. So your Lordships will realise that those used to be our boundaries. The next thing that happens is that an enormous rush out of London takes place; people want homes. Here I feel the position very personally, because for well over 40 years in the local government and public life of that county I have watched this growth and this development.
I had the honour to act on behalf of His late Majesty and give Bexley the Charter for their incorporation. Bexley used to be a village of 1,600 people: it now has well over 100.000. I had the honour to be in charge of its education at the time when all the schools and everything else had to be built. I would just say something against the suggestion of remoteness that has been mentioned in the Report. None of those places has been remote from the government of Kent at any time whatsoever. In fact, it may interest your Lordships to know that I can get to Dartford, Crayford, Erith and places like that from places like Maidstone in about a quarter of the time it takes to get from any of those places to the centre of London. Therefore, there is no question of remoteness of the government of any kind whatsoever. There has never been any question of remoteness as regards the services. I can remember when the chairman of the education committee of that area burst into my room over one teacher, and he had no hesitation in telling me, "There was a 'ell of 'ubbub about this 'ere Miss 'ooker". They were in on every single detail, and always have been.
Our view in Kent is this. We quite realise the great difficulties of planning, of traffic and of all that type of thing; we thoroughly realise that. But surely there must be some way, when this Report is thoroughly thought out, of dealing with the problem without this ruthless disruption of old loyalities, county boundaries and other things that are suggested in the Report. I do not know
1060
whether anybody realises that in Kent alone we shall lose not only one-third of our population but at least a third of our rateable value. I am quite convinced that if that one-third of rateable value had not been at the disposal of the authorities in Kent at certain times, half the works in that county would not have been done. And I am perfectly certain of one thing: that the floods that we have had this year would have been fifty times worse unless that rateable value had been there.
May I agree with (I believe) the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, who said that he thought there were very considerable doubts about the wisdom of divorcing some of the urban areas from the rural areas? What is needed is a mixed population. We have been prepared to take some of the overspill from London into Edenbridge and to consider suggestions regarding other places. I hope that people will realise—that the Government will realise—that if the whole of our urban population is to be divorced from us it is going to be a very serious matter for the county services. Another point I cannot quite see concerns those parts of the county that are to go into the Greater London boroughs or the Greater London County. I cannot quite see what benefit they will get that they cannot get now under their own county council. There does not seem to be very much difference.
May I say just one word about the finance of the matter? I know that we cannot possibly deal with details yet: that the whole matter will have to be thoroughly looked into. But at present I would say that the financial details are pure guesswork. For instance, I cannot possibly accept, as the Report seems to say, that as the result of these changes Bromley, for instance, will be receiving a saving of 3s. 11d. in the rates. I can hear the Bromley citizens saying, "What a hope!" Then we go on to grants and matters of that kind. How are they to be apportioned out with all these changes? Then there are these unfortunate people who are to be removed from their present adherence. So far as I can gather, in Kent they will have to contribute an 8d. rate for years. Do your Lordships think this is really going to be of any great benefit to them? But, even much worse, I am told that the

1061
other boroughs—that is, those in London —may find themselves with rate increases of the order of, say, 6s. 6d. to 9s. I do not think they are going to be very pleased if they see some of the Kent boroughs coming down by, say, 2s. 6d. to 4s. 4d. if they are experiencing a rise of nearly 9s. On top of that, what have we coming to us now? The new valuation. Has anybody thought how that is going to complicate these deliberations?
May I again stress that we are worried not only about the steady incursion into the Home Counties, but also about the steady decrease, the taking away, of pieces of our property, as well as of our authority and our finances? May I say also that there are some of us who are worried about what may happen if this goes on, because we have already seen some of the best agricultural land in the world taken for other purposes when it never ought to be taken at all for those purposes.
So now, what do we come to? We come to the three 'things the Report says that it had to deal with: planning, traffic and the social services. The Royal Commission talk about creating a planning body and all kinds of things. Is there really any justification for that? Many of these issues with which they will have to deal will not be local issues when it conies to planning. If they are not national issues, they will certainly be regional issues. You certainly cannot plan roads or anything of that kind that is going to deal with traffic unless you are dealing with, perhaps, the whole of the South-Eastern area from the Wash to Southampton, or something of that sort. Therefore, it seems to me that the county council in that area can still be the consultative planning authority. I cannot see that any further benefit can come from the vast planning authority that is to be created.
There is one other matter. Representation has already been 'mentioned. I have not asked about it officially in any shape or form (and, of course, we cannot at this stage consider the impact of what is going to happen), but I have not yet met anyone in any of the areas that are supposed to go into Greater London who wants the change; and I have been into practically all those constituencies. They at present have 23 representatives on their county council out of 80 elected
1062
members, and they have some aldermen as well. What are they going to get? Six out of 100 when they come into this new arrangement. I do not call that very adequate representation.
So, my Lords, I hope that it may be realised that this change affects not only that particular area in which eight Kent boroughs are being turned into three Greater London ones, but an area (and I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, who said it) seven times as great as the area that is being dealt with in Kent. It means that it is no good someone coming along and saying that this new planning authority is going to do this, that and the other, without knowing local circumstances. Again, it was said that it is the Ministry of Transport who, in the end, have to take the final steps in any planning of roads, and the Ministry of Housing who have to take the final steps if there is to be a new town or a new shopping centre, and I am perfectly certain that they will—just as the Ministry of Transport came through my works and drew the first line of a new road through my research laboratory and the second line over the top of my reservoir. I am certain that that will happen again, so may I beg the Government, before they embark on anything of this nature, to consider carefully whether these changes are well worth while?
There is one last point I want to stress. Speed has been mentioned, and proper consideration has been mentioned. I would beg everyone to realise that services must be continued, and there are a great many people employed by the county councils affected who very much want to know what their circumstances are going to be. I therefore hope that, if any action is going to be taken on anything, there will not be any long delay over it. Because these people cannot live in a state of animated suspension for ever and ever. So, my Lords, may I say that we in Kent are not trying to destroy this Report or to do anything else like that. We want to give it every possible consideration. But at the present moment we cannot see that those inhabitants for whom we are responsible are going to get anything out of it.
4.53 p.m.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, it is a very great pleasure to

1063
me to associate myself with the observations that have been made about the distinguished maiden speeches we have heard this afternoon from the noble Viscount, Lord Mersey, and from the noble Lord, Lord Kennet. Since I have had the honour to be a Member of this House, I must confess that one argument in favour of a hereditary Chamber has much impressed itself upon me, though I had not thought of it before. A nominated House of any kind would almost inevitably consist of elderly ladies and gentlemen like myself; but one of the great attractions of a hereditary Chamber is that in the course (sometimes the sorrowful course) of nature, it does bring to your Lordships' House the contribution of some younger Members; and those reflections have been enormously strengthened by listening to the maiden speeches that 'we have been privileged to hear to-day.
Perhaps I might also add that during the Summer Recess I had occasion to take a short sea voyage. The sea was occasionally rough; but, by some extraordinary stroke of good fortune, before I embarked a friend pressed into my hand a small book in a paper-back by a certain Mr. Wayland Young. Mr. Wayland Young is now with us as Lord Kennet; and such was the absorbing interest of this book that I can testify here that the roughness of the sea passed me completely by and left me in a state of quite unexpected calm. I am, indeed, more than once already in his debt.
I should also like to associate myself with the observations made by the noble Earl opposite as to the style in which this Report is written. It is most refreshing and most distinguished, and this is the more remarkable inasmuch as it deals with what is, after all, a question of machinery—the machinery of government; and to write in a stimulating style about machinery is, indeed, a rare gift. Rare it is to be able to evoke the interest of others than professional engineers. What the Report proposes is obviously, from what has been said this afternoon, major surgery—I think one might really call it heroic surgery—and when major surgery is proposed it is usual to ask that certain conditions should be fulfilled. The first is that the patient should be,
1064
or should be likely to become, very sick; the second is that the prospects for the operation should be good; and the third is that no milder alternative is likely to succeed. I think the question that we have to put to ourselves is whether those conditions are in this instance fulfilled.
Is the patient very sick? Before we can answer that question we have to decide who the patient is, and as one reads the Report of the Commission one hesitates as to in which of three categories the patient may be: it may be the councillors, it may be the public or it may be the abstract conception of local government. I do not think we need worry very much about the councillors. They can take care of themselves; and, in the evidence which they gave to the Commission, it was made quite clear that they were very well aware of their own interests. Perhaps one might express a passing regret that so few of these councillors were apparently able to take a detached view of any change that might act adversely to their own interests. This, alone, hardly commends the existing system of local government.
It may be that the patient is the public. Now on a superficial view it is difficult to believe that the public are very sick. If the public were deeply discontented with the existing structure of local government, one would expect them to express this in the obvious way that is open to them, and that is by voting one political Party out and another political Party in. Yet in London the public have shown a most remarkable consistency in the way in which they have returned the same political Party to the government of London: and, if Middlesex has perhaps been a little more fickle, Surrey, after all, too, has shown great consistency and loyalty, though in an opposite direction to London. So far as the voting returns are concerned, there is little evidence of a deep discontent with the workings of local government as they now are.
But perhaps the ballot box is not an adequate channel of opinion. The Royal Commission themselves say that the important thing is how the services impinge on the lives of those for whose benefit they are provided, and on this they had much evidence from a great multiplicity of specialised associations—citizens' associations and associations

1065
representing particular interests and particular groups in the community. But their Report is extraordinarily free from any instances of glaring anomalies, of hardship to members of the public, or of public discontent. Cases such as those of which we have heard in other parts of the country, where a child's chance of higher education may be greatly prejudiced by his having been born on the wrong side of a county boundary, do not figure in the pages of this Report. Almost no single case is quoted of an actual hardship or grievance affecting a member of the public.
Nevertheless, I think we must admit that in a few instances, in three instances particularly, the Report does make an overwhelming case for some enlargement of the scope, if not of local government, of some authoritative power. The first of those is planning. After all, that was conceded as far back as 1944 with the Ministry's recognition of the Abercrombie Plan, a Plan which is now, by lapse of time, out of date in many respects. Some of the forecasts on which it was based have not been fulfilled, and that was inevitable. If we do not have planning, all that we shall get in the Greater London region will be a centrifugal expansion of slums. That we have bad in days gone by within the boundaries of the county of London itself, and that, I think, we should all deeply deplore over the wider area of the Greater London region.
The second case is that of housing. I 'think the Commission established beyond dispute that no London borough can now contain its own population—not with the standards of density which alone are to-day acceptable. But the picture of every London borough trying to export its surplus population to every other London borough is, indeed, disastrous, and the London County Council is now in little better a position. Obviously, so far as housing is concerned, we must look over a much wider area, and many of the population of the metropolitan boroughs do not wish to be housed within their own borough boundaries. Marty of them are anxious to take part in the centrifugal motion which has created the unity, if there is a unity, of the Greater London region.
The third case is that of traffic. I do not propose to enlarge upon the enor-
1066
mous subject of the chaos of traffic. It is, of course, a multi-headed hydra: it involves not only the building and construction of roads, not only the control of mobile, or perhaps I should say "theoretically mobile", vehicles; it involves also such details as the lighting of the highways, and in. all of these, and other cognate matters, the absence of common standards throughout the London region is all too conspicuous. Those of your Lordships who have had occasion to drive through south-west London must often have been struck, as you passed over Stamford Bridge, by the suddenness with which you emerged from the darkness of Conservative Chelsea into the brilliant lighting of the Labour-controlled borough of Fulham; and these contrasts are repeated throughout the region. In these spheres, and Possibly in one or two ethers, I think there can be no dispute but that some wider kind of control is necessary.
The Royal Commission has not stopped there. In other respects, far from taking a broader view, it has tried to narrow the scope of certain services, and here I should like to mention two in particular. The first of the services is concerned with children. The children's services are now the responsibility of the county and county borough authorities. Children get into trouble all over the place, not only in the borough in which they live; and if at present they get into trouble, they are dealt with in the court which is appropriate to the place where the trouble occurred. This means that occasionally children wander from as far off as the counties of Essex and Middlesex, and on those occasions we have representatives from those counties coming into the London courts. But these are exceptional occasions.
If, on the other hand, every metropolitan borough is to have its own children's committee and children's officer, we shall have to deal, as our children step from Fulham to Chelsea or to Battersea—and Battersea has special attractions—with a whole army of different children's officers. Again, your Lordships will learn from the Report that the London County Council run no fewer than 13 different types of institution for children. There are to be 52 metropolitan boroughs. Fifty-two

1067
times 13 is a very sizeable sum. Has every one of the 52 metropolitan boroughs to duplicate this provision of 13 types of institution? Surely not. But the only alternative is a most elaborate structure of negotiation, by which the children who live in one borough will be accommodated in institutions provided by others.
Much has been said this afternoon on the subject of education, and here, I think, I can only endorse what has been so admirably put by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet. The Royal Commission went out of their way to criticise the two-tier system of education and to emphasise that education must be viewed as a single process, from the primary stage to its final completion. You cannot divide it, as the Act of 1944 tried in some respects to divide it, horizontally between the primary and secondary stage. In the two-tier division which the Commission proposed, the number of questions which will have to be settled by agreement seems to be inconceivably large. All the matters concerning the deployment of the teaching force, the terms and conditions of employment of teachers, matters of discipline, matters concerning special forms of education, special schools (of which, again, there are a great multiplicity of types), ancillary services, such as those of librarians and laboratory technicians—all of these are matters on which there will have to be discussions and agreement reached between 52 metropolitan boroughs and one Greater London Council. I really think, when one visualises this, that the children will be very lucky if they find any schools to go to at all.
Then, again in education, there are problems about the transfer of pupils between the primary and the secondary stage. As education is at present organised in the Lond on area, each metropolitan borough is more or less self-sufficient, I think, in primary education, for the very good reason that children should have primary schools near at hand. But the distribution of secondary and higher educational systems is much more uneven, and I think it must be true that as many as one-half or three-quarters of our children attend a grammar school which is outside the borough
1068
in which they live. Under the proposed arrangement, this will mean that they get their primary education under one authority and will have to go to another authority for the secondary stage of that same education. Again, one sees the possibilities arising of the problems which the Commission so eloquently said had been rampant in the County of Middlesex.
It is hard to understand why the Royal Commission were so anxious to split up the educational system of London and the adjoining counties, why they used the adjectives "monolithic" and "rigid", and why they accused the L.C.C. of apparent "inhumanity". They gave no instance of those deplorable qualities. One is tempted to suppose that the key to the Commission's proposals is to be found in the phrases which occur repeatedly throughout the Report about the "good health" or the "bad health", not of the councillors or of the public, but of local government. Local government, the Commission said, was part of the conception of representative government, or of democracy as an abstract idea. They stated that a large number of councillors would like to be represented on education committees and that it was bad for the health of local government that the smaller local authorities should be precluded from taking part in education.
Surely the purpose of education is to educate children. The Commission do not say that education is to be broken up for 'the sake of the children or for the sake of the teachers; they say that education should be broken up for the sake of local government. It is easy to sentimentalise about local government, but, like many other things in the world to-day, local government is not quite what it used to be. I wonder whether the Commission sufficiently appreciated the profundity of the change which has affected the present state of local government. The smaller percentage of people taking part in local elections is not merely an expression of democratic apathy but is also an expression of the greater mobility and different range of interests of the modern community.
This applies particularly in the managerial and professional classes who, in their day, have contributed very much to local government. The owner of a grocery store in a town expects to stay

1069
there and to build up his business for the best part of his working life. The manager of a branch of a multiple store, which has largely taken the place of the local grocer, expects to stay there a few years, until he is promoted to be the manager of a larger store, perhaps in another city. These people, like many other professional people, find their outlet for public service through their interest in professional or business life, on the national scale, and sometimes on the international scale, rather than in their immediate locality.
It is very difficult to see how there can be a sense of community in the Greater London region. All that we have in common, those of us who live on or beyond the fringe of the region, is the fact that we have gone there by a centrifugal flight from the centre of the great city itself. We are common refugees from urban overcrowding; and that is, at the moment, all that Chigwell shares with Weybridge. There still is something real in being an inhabitant of one of the metropolitan boroughs. It means something, as Lord Morrison of Lambeth said, to be a citizen of Woolwich or Lewisham. It means the more because these boroughs are often still served by a local Press which reports what the council is doing. It still means something to be a Londoner—although here one can say that the London County Council, in a sense, begins to be remote from the people of London. It publishes no equivalent of Hansard, and its debates are seldom reported in any Press which is widely read. Nevertheless, London is a city of which its citizens are still proud to be members.
It is not yet possible to see what means will be found of infusing a meaning into Greater London which will make sense to the ordinary citizen in the Greater London region. Unless there is some such meaning, which either grows or is artificially created, the Greater London Council will be just as rigid, monolithic and remote as any existing bureaucratic authority or council. I hope that, if we are to have a Greater London Council, every attention will be given to the problem of how there can be created some kind of real citizenship which will be a living, vital thing throughout the region which that council will serve.
5.13 p.m.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, I do not profess to know much about the local government of London. I am proposing to deal more with the point that was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Cornwallis. I must express my amazement at the speech made by Lord Morrison of Lambeth, and largely at that made by the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, in that it would appear that there was no problem at all to be solved. In fact, except for the short reference by the noble Lady to one or two boroughs, it is amazing that the Royal Commission was ever set up at all.
The rest of the debate has been critical of what the Commission reported. That criticism may or may not be justified, but it seems to me surprising. I intended to deal with what I thought was a problem, but it has not been mentioned so far, except by the noble Baroness from a particular point of view. I am concerned with the increase of employment in, and the increasing employment out of, the central areas of London, and the centrifugal effect on the population who work in those offices and factories. The position is fairly set out in paragraph 332 of the Commission's Report, from which I should like to quote one or two sentences. The Report says:
"The number of jobs available is increasing at a more rapid rate than the number of jobs available in the country as a whole. The centrifugal movement of population from the centre continues but decentralisation of employment has not kept pace with it. Employment is expanding more rapidly than population…As a consequence of the foregoing factors traffic congestion on the roads, railways and Tubes is worse than ever, and the problem of the cost, fatigue and time consumption of the journey to and from work is worse than it has ever been."
In spite of the development that has taken place, the number of jobs is going up while the population seems to be getting dispersed in ever-widening concentric rings to the Green Belt. What is happening now is that counties outside London are establishing their own Green Belts, and are pushing development still further away from the centre. Recently we had a circular from the Ministry of Housing and Local Government asking us to review our development plans and provide more building land, where this

1071
could be done without detriment to good town planning principles. I do not find it at all easy to interpret this circular when read in conjunction with this Report. The Report seems to condemn this never-ending concentration of buildings, particularly office buildings; and several Ministers in turn have also condemned it. Yet it seems to be going on as merrily as ever. The other day, I heard that it is proposed to establish a 15-storey office building in St. James's Street. I do not know whether this is true, or any of the detail, but if it is true, it is typical of the tendency to which I am referring.
Is it the duty of the counties on the perimeter of London to continue to supply dormitory space for the workers in these offices? And is this process to continue indefinitely? If it is our duty to provide such dormitory space, then are we going to consider the question of communication? We have already trains packed like sardine tins at peak hours with commuters going to and from London. Are we to disregard this situation and trust that in the years to come British Railways will have improved their services?
One would like to think that, somewhere, somebody is pondering over these problems; but I cannot think that anyone is considering the problems of the planning of Greater London as a whole. If anything happens to go wrong, the normal reaction of the citizen is to blame the Government. The Government have to shoulder all the responsibility. But I cannot really think that the Minister, with all his duty to decide appeals, can act as a sort of planning authority for Greater London. I feel that those who criticise this part of the Report ought to suggest a good workable alternative. I do not think that the planning of Greater London is the duty of the Government. There may be something that they could do in regard to the even larger question of these great movements of population, which cause so many planning problems, including the price of building land and the strain on capital resources.
Speaking only last year, Mr. James, the senior planning research officer of the Ministry, calculated that between 1951 and 1958, 700,000 people had migrated to the South East of England from other
1072
parts of the country, of whom 40,000 had come to settle down in the Greater London Area. I would ask if the Government cannot consider: his further, because they shave been very active in one direction—namely, in the control of industry. They have done a great deal to send industry to areas where there is risk of unemployment, but the control of offices, which employ far more people per acre than any industry, seems to be a purely local matter. I wonder if this is altogether a good thing.
My Lords, this is an enormously complex Report, and its recommendations raise such large issues that one feels that there is a great danger of nothing being done at all. This question of the continued expansion of London is a matter which deserves careful consideration by some body which is capable of considering all these matters—industry, employment and communications. I hope that, even if this Report is not accepted, something will come out of it, because I feel that matters will become more serious if left unattended.
5.25 pm.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, this is a very difficult subject and the Report of the Royal Commission is bound to arouse a great deal of opposition. There are thousands of objections to it, in the shape of thousands of members of local authorities who will dislike intensely the alteration of the present system. With all respect to them, they have all a vested interest in local government. They do not want something to happen which is going to diminish the amount of power they exercise or to diminish the number of seats which are available an local authorities. Undoubtedly, the apposition will be very strong and very vocal. On the other hand, do not let us forget that there is a problem, and that the Royal Commission would never have been appointed if there was not a problem.
So far this afternoon nobody has said a word about the County of Middlesex, which has now become, in its growth outward from central London, a complete anomaly in local government structure. That has been recognised for quite a long time, because an embargo has been placed upon what normally would have happened in any other county, the transfer to county borough status of

1073
a number of local authorities which have prima facie qualified, because it was recognised that Middlesex was part of an urban area which was no longer suited to the kind of structure suitable for counties which have a rural as well as an urban character.
Some reference has been made to-day to so-called conurbations, but there is a distinction between London and other conurbations. For the most part, the others have grown up by the expansion of towns to such an extent that they have touched each other and the rural districts in between have disappeared, and they do not necessarily have any focus or any centre of character. But undoubtedly, for the most part, London has grown outward from the centre, and all these districts which have come under consideration by the Royal Cornmission—or almost all of them—are vitally connected with the central area of London, which provides employment for a considerable number of their residents Therefore, this great area has a unity which cannot be ignored.
I admit, of course, that to have a local government area of any kind covering some 800 square miles and with a population of 8 million is carrying the conception of local government to a point which has never before been reached in this country and has only been approached, I think, in the United States, in the case of Greater New York. But the problem is there. A system of local government must he devised for it, unless, of course, everybody is absolutely confident that the present system is perfect or, at any rate, so extremely good that it will be quite superfluous to interfere with it. I cannot believe that that is entirely true. It is a serious proposition, I agree, to interfere with a structure which has grown up in this way. The present structure has evoked a great many loyalties and created a great many interests—I do not say this in a disparaging way; it is the interest of people in the jobs they have been doing and the kind of organisation they have been engaged upon, and that is absolutely understandable—but, on the other hand, it has it has not encouraged people to look at this problem as a whole.
My noble friend Baroness Wootton of Abinger said a few minutes ago that the public are not complaining. In a sense, I think that is true, because the general
1074
public, although they may know they are suffering a number of discomforts arising out of the existing state of affairs, do not fully understand the reasons or where or why they should complain. But do not let us assume that they are entirely happy about this. You have some millions of people travelling from the periphery of London to the centre of London every day to be employed, who are exchanging jogs with one another in overcrowded tube trains and buses, spending a large amount of time travelling to and fro, and a great deal of money on it, also, which might be spent more advantageously in other ways to their physical and moral advantage. Do not let us despise the fact that there is a problem, even if it be true that the general public are not complaining, or, if they do, possibly complain in the wrong quarters.
This is quite a serious problem. It is a tragedy that employment has been allowed to grow in Central London in the way that it has grown. In that respect, the Abercrombie Plan was entirely defective, because although it proposed steps for controlling employment in factories in London, and proposed that that kind of employment should be diminished in order to avoid these long journeys to work and all the discomfort and expense involved in them, it forgot entirely that office accommodation provides an enormous amount of employment, and, indeed, per square foot of space employed for that purpose, provides far more employment than any factory occupation does. So the number of people who are commuting from Central London to the outer areas is increasing steadily, and all the problems arising out of that are increasing, too.
I therefore agree with the Royal Commission in the view that there ought to be some authority that is charged with the duty of considering the planning and the traffic arrangements of this region as a whole, instead of its being done piecemeal. I know it can be said that the Minister of Housing and Local Government has certain town planning powers; but it is quite impossible, under the structure of the planning Acts as they exist at the present moment, that the Minister of Housing and Local Government should take the plans and re-plan them completely in order that it shall be a homogeneous plan for the

1075
whole of this area. It cannot be done by taking the plans made by individual authorities and recasting them like that. It has to be treated as a unity from the beginning stages, and if it is not so treated it will never become properly articulated.
On that ground there is a strong case for some body to deal with this problem as a whole; and if it is not dealt with by some kind of a local authority, the inevitable result is that it will be taken away from local authority control completely and will be handed over to one or more Government Departments. That, indeed, is what is happening at the present moment with regard to traffic and transport in London. Same kind of unit (I forget the name of it) is being set up in order to consider London's traffic problems over this area. It will then he found that powers will have to be given to a Minister to deal with it, if he has not them already, and some of the local authorities will find they are going to suffer an erosion of their powers. Therefore, I respectfully suggest to them that they must take some notice of this problem.
There are other matters to which the Royal Commission have drawn attention. The sewage and refuse disposal of this great area are, for mechanical and other reasons, subjects which ought to be dealt with by one single authority. They have outgrown the scope and the powers of the individual authorities in the region.
When we come to education, I agree that it is a very different matter. I would not say that the present arrangements for education within this region are not open to criticism. There has been a suggestion that they are perfect, and that, anyhow, it would be a great mistake if one stage of education was in the hands of one authority and another stage of education was in the hands of another authority. But, having been brought up in a country where it was a common thing for that to be so, and where the results, by and large, have not been entirely unsatisfactory, I would not accept that. On the other hand, I do not understand the proposals which the Royal Commission have made for the distribution of all functions relating to education within this great area, and without more explanation, at any rate,
1076
I am not convinced that they would work satisfactorily. It may be that they could, but I am not certain about it, and I think that part of the Report requires most careful and serious consideration.
But with regard to those other large fields of activity, I feel that there has to be some body which is going to look at them as a whole and deal with them and plan them as a whole; and if it is not done by a body of local government status, then it is going to be taken out of local government activity altogether, sooner or later, and handed over to some Government Department to deal with; and I am not entirely satisfied that that would be the best and most happy solution.
5.40 p.m.
LORD AUCKLAND: My Lords. before making my brief contribution to this debate, I should like to apologise to your Lordships, and particularly to the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack and the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, because, owing to a prior business engagement, I may not be able to be in my place for many moments after I have spoken. I ask for the indulgence of your Lordships' House on that point.
My only reason for speaking in this debate at all is that I live in an area of Surrey which is very much affected by the recommendations of the Royal Commission and where, I think, there is a certain amount of concern. Ashtead is not at present affected, but Epsom and Ewell are; and a great deal of the territory between the two areas is encroached upon to a considerable extent by these recommendations. It would be improper for me to make any general observations at present, but there is a good deal of concern in that area. I propose to confine my remarks to Surrey because I live there, and I know the county fairly well.
One of the anomalies of this Report is that Surrey has had a great many Londoners sent there from the London County Council, and they have been sent to areas which are not covered by the recommendations of the Commission. I refer particularly to Merstham, which comes under Reigate, which is outside the area. Geographically, it would probably be impracticable to include Reigate, but it seems that some of the

1077
geographical implications of the Commission are a little odd. I can understand perhaps Croydon, and even Banstead, but I am a little intrigued to know how Epsom, which is still a relatively rural area, has been encased, so to speak, in these proposals. I should be the last person to attack the London County Council. They deserve a good deal of credit, particularly on the amenity side, with their concerts and the upkeep of the parks. But I am bound to agree with noble Lords who have said that the London County Council is growing very large. There is no doubt whatever that the population of Greater London is tending to decrease. After all, one of the ideas of setting up the new towns was to take in much of the overspill of Greater London. I refer to Hemel Hempstead and Stevenage, which are not among the areas included in the proposals of this Commission.
Something has been said of commuters. My Lords, I am one of them every day, and while we have these proposals to set up this Greater London Council, we find that more and more firms are being encouraged to set up outside London, in areas such as Kingswood. I, for one, would commend these proposals, but there will be a great housing problem in this area, and it will be of some importance to those who have to sort out that problem.
With regard to education, the proposals are rather confusing. The boroughs are to have responsibility for certain aspects, and the Greater London Council responsibility for others. I have noticed from the recommendations that the boroughs would still retain the power to appoint the governors of schools. I should like to know to what extent they will be tied and committed by the Greater London Authority, because this seems to me rather important. Many of these governors have long traditions with the schools concerned—I refer, of course, to the old schools, of which there are quite a number in my area, as I am sure there are in other areas. There is another point which seems to me to call for some consideration. As I understand it, the county town of Surrey, which is Kingston-upon-Thames, would come within the jurisdiction of the Greater London Authority. Are we to assume that possibly another county town will have to be set up for Surrey proper—
1078
Guildford, perhaps—or will Kingston-upon-Thames remain the county town? I quite appreciate that a direct question like that cannot be answered at this stage, when the proposals have not yet been debated. But it seems to me a point worthy of consideration.
I join with those noble Lords who have paid tribute to this Report. It is immensely readable and it has been made into a White Paper in a relatively short time. I should like to pay tribute to those responsible for the maps, which are extremely clear and helpful. So often the maps issued with these Reports are extremely difficult to follow. I feel that, whatever criticisms one might reserve regarding the Report of Sir Edwin Herbert and his colleagues, one feels a great debt of gratitude to them.
5.49 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I am sure that everybody who has listened to this debate 'will first of all wish to thank my noble friend Lord, Morrison of Lambeth for having initiated a discussion on what we all regard as a most important subject, the administration of the people of London, in whatever form we regard London. This Report of the Royal Commission is one of the most important documents that has been presented to us about London government for a great many years. I should like to pay my tribute to the work of the Royal Commission, who have spent three years preparing the Report and have produced a remarkably interesting, stimulating and well-written document.
We do not normally, as I have often said, pay sufficient tribute to those who voluntarily give of their time and labours in work of this kind, and I am sure that everyone, whatever his views may be, would wish to pay full tribute to the work put yin by this Commission. They have heard an enormous amount of evidence, both oral and written, although I am very sorry that my noble friend did not give evidence—nor did I, for that matter; I am quite sure they would have been much wealthier if they had heard the evidence of both of us, and of many others who might have been able to add to their education. The Report is in three volumes; the narrative contains over 1,000 paragraphs, and nobody will suggest that the members of the Commission have not applied themselves very

1079
seriously to the problems which are contained in their terms of reference.
I am sure the Government will welcome this discussion, which has ranged pretty wide and in which people of varied experience have taken part. We have had speeches from people who have been engaged in local government over a very long period. We have had people who have been concerned with social welfare in its widest sense and who have given great thought to this question. I should like to make it clear that most of us, at any rate, are dealing with this subject in a preliminary way. We are giving the Government the benefit of our first thoughts on this matter. Certainly I am doing so. I also want to make it clear that in whatever I may say I am speaking entirely for myself and for nobody else. I have not discussed with anybody the contents of what I am going to say, and I reserve the right—as I hope will everyone who has taken part in this discussion, or will take part in any future discussion—to think and think, and think again, about what my ultimate views may be. I hope that they will read and read this Report again many times, because I believe that it is almost impossible, however well written it may be, to absorb it in one reading.
I would therefore appeal to the Government not to be in too great a hurry (and here I agree with my noble friend, Lord Morrison of Lambeth) in coming to a decision on the contents of this Report. On the other hand, I feel that there is a good deal in what the noble Lord, Lord Cornwallis, said: that with the possibility of drastic changes hanging over the heads of local authorities it would be desirable to come to some decision as soon as the Government can make up their minds on this Report. However, I do not expect the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor to give us this evening the Government's views on this Report.
Reading the Report, one thing struck me particularly: that it is not like any other Report I have read, in that in every other Report of a Royal Commission or a Commission the conclusions have been based upon the evidence presented to it. In this case the Commission have felt themselves obliged completely to disregard the evidence they
1080
have had. There may have been good reasons, but they have taken the view —they have devoted a whole chapter to this—that the evidence they have had has been entirely subjective, animated by motives of self-interest and a desire to leave things as they are. For this reason they regard the evidence as something of which they cannot take note, and they have had to do original thinking about the matter and to consider the problems abinitio without the guidance they might normally have had from the evidence presented to them. In fact, the only objective evidence they pay tribute to is that of the London School of Economics, and the London School of Economics is itself divided in many respects, because they have presented two schemes, Scheme A and Scheme B. The Royal Commission does not accept wholly either of those schemes, and in the end they have recommended an amalgam of the two.
The Royal Commission have approached this question by reference to the defects in the existing organization of London government. To use the words of the noble Baroness, they have considered whether the patient is sick, and they have made up their minds that in a number of respects the patient is sick. They have particularly adopted the criterion of considering the planning of the area, housing, traffic, education and various forms of health, environmental and personal. In the absence of satisfactory evidence upon which they could rely, I have no quarrel with their approach to the question. Indeed it was the only possible approach, because, accepting the view that local government should not be interfered with unless it is absolutely essential, all they could do was to see whether it was essential that these drastic changes should be made. And I think they have made a case.
I do not propose to go through the evidence, but reading the Report I think that most people who look at the matter objectively will agree that all is not well with London government—and I mean London in the widest sense—and that, for many of the reasons which they themselves put forward, some change is required. I would not myself agree, however, that any change is better than none: the cure may be worse than the disease. It is therefore not sufficient to say that a change is necessary, that the

1081
present system is not working satisfactorily and that therefore this Report must be accepted. We have first to examine whether the remedies proposed do, in fact, meet the case, and whether they are not themselves likely to create as great evils and as great difficulties as they seek to put right. It is from that point of view that I have myself tried to look at the Report; and I hope the Government will do the same.
I want at this stage to pay tribute to my noble friend who opened this debate on the fact that he did not make this a political issue. I have tried to read the Report from the point of view of what may be the political effects, but I should not like to be dogmatic as to what they might be. It would depend very much upon the period when elections were held. I can well imagine that at certain times in our political history the new set-up might result in great advantage to my Party. On the other hand, it might equally at other times result in advantage for the Party opposite. But I hope that none of us will look at this from the point of view of how it is going to affect us politically. That would be entirely wrong. We have to look at the patient.
My noble friend, Lady Wootton of Abinger, suggested that perhaps the criterion as to whether something should be done might be as to whether the patient was complaining. On the whole, she felt that the patients (that is, the voters) were not complaining they were remarkably consistent in one direction or another according to the area that we consider. But I have often felt that there was something wrong with local government when a council is elected with, as I have seen, 18 per cent. of the electorate voting, In some constituencies at the London County Council elections 20 per cent, go to the poll; and if there is anything over 30 per cent. of the electorate voting at an election it is regarded as a good poll. I cannot think that that is right. 'When one talks about loyalties and the devotion of the public to their particular locality, one must admit that if you cannot get more enthusiasm worked up in an election than an average of, say, 30 per cent. voting at the election, this local patriotism cannot go very deep. Nor do I think that all the fuss that is likely to be aroused by
1082
joining up one area with another is not, to a large extent, 'manufactured by the people who have given devoted service to that area and 'who feel this local patriotism.
Since I have read this Report I have asked a number of my staff in which borough they live. Most of them do not know. They all live in London, but they do not know in which borough. I asked one of my junior partners, and he thought it was either Camberwell or Lambeth, but he was not quite sure which it was. I must say for him that he has only recently married; he has gone into a house and has not yet had a rate bill. No doubt when he gets his rate bill he will know in which 'borough he lives. If that is typical at all—I have tried to ascertain to what extent it is typical —I must say that I am not greatly impressed 'by the argument of local patriotism or the difficulty of amalgamating the borough of Stepney with the borough of Poplar. A great many people would not know the difference. In both cases the rates are very high. That is the only thing that is likely to influence them.
I understand the feelings of local councillors in the matter. When one meets a man like my noble friend who has devoted more than half his life to local government, or the noble Lord, Lord Cornwallis—people who have spent the greater part of the period since the London County Council or the Kent County Council was erected as servants of the public and have given devoted service, seeing something really remarkable go up—it is not surprising that they look on what, to a large extent, may be their creation, the modern London County Council or the modern Kent County Council, as a mother would regard her child. Of course, most devoted mothers think that their children are perfect except when they are a little disobedient; but they would not hear of any punishment. Indeed, we know from the care committees that exist in most areas of the country that a great part of their work consists of persuading parents that their child is sick and needs to go into hospital, or needs an operation of some kind, and often the parents are convinced that there is nothing wrong with their child. That, quite understandably, is the attitude of those who have devoted a large part of their lives

1083
to the service of a particular local authority. But I think the Report leaves no doubt at all that there is something wrong. I do not want to develop that argument because it is so well set out in the various chapters under ate headings of housing, town planning, and so on, and there is nothing that I could add to it.
Now I want to come to the question whether the suggested remedy is the remedy, agreeing that there are these evils. As I have said, that is what I hope the Government will consider most carefully. The obvious question one asks oneself is: is the new area so large as to be workable as a local authority? It certainly does not seem to me to comply with what we have always understood as local government. The test of local government is that the local councillors should not only know their own constituencies—that is going to be difficult enough—but should know their own area. I was a member of the London County Council for 21 years. I cannot pretend that I knew every bit of London as I ought to have done—in fact, as chairman of the housing committee or of the town planning committee I ought to have known my area. But I defy anybody who has lived in London all his life, as I have done, to know the administrative County of London sufficiently well to be able to administer it satisfactorily. To administer what will be the Greater London area, the Metropolitan Police district, is going to be virtually impossible.
I should like to know how the Commission answer that difficulty. This Council is going to be responsible for the welfare of, at the moment, 8½ people. If the trend in the next 50 years is anything like what it has been in the past, these 8½million will be—well, I will not say doubled, but at any rate increased to 10 or 12 million. You will get a population as big as a great many European States, and—I am not sure whether I am right in saying this—certainly as big as a large number of the countries that are at present members of the United Nations Organisation. I do not know whether the new administrative Council will wish to apply for membership of the United Nations, but certainly it would qualify on the ground of population.
1084
My noble friend drew attention to the size of County Hall which faces us. I believe I am right in saying that at the present moment the County Hall occupies an area virtually as big as the Houses of Parliament. Even so, to-day it is not really adequate for its purpose. If you are going to incorporate a much larger population over a much wider area, and to have a body which is going to be responsible in many respects for the administration of 52 local authorities, I shudder to think what will be needed in regard to the size of the organisation. Certainly, the South Bank will not be big enough, and will have to be extended in all directions.
That is on the pure mechanics of the thing, but I should like to consider what sort of a local councillor we are going to have. I remember that in the peaceful days when I was a member I gave something like four days a week to the work of the London County Council. I am sure that under the new régime it would be a much bigger job, and then one would have to leave a great deal to the officers who know the area, because they are regionalised and each is a specialist in a particular area. So there would be very grave danger of building up a vast bureaucracy. A great deal would have to be left to the judgment of the officers, and the representatives would not be in a position to challenge their judgment.
Then where do we find the right kind of councillor to take on a job of that kind? After all, there is no great glamour about being a member of a larger county council. As has been said, there is no Hansard and no publicity for speeches. When I asked people, having previously inquired about the boroughs in which they live, who was their councillor, I found that they had no idea who represented them. Possibly the people I spoke to were among the odd 70 to 80 per cent. who did not vote; but at any rate they bad no idea who was their representative. Members are mainly actuated by a desire to render service and the feeling that they are able to render service. I wonder whether members of this larger body will feel they really are able to render a service, other than merely to accept the dictum of those who advise them.
Then, is it democratic? Can we call it democracy? Certainly, from what I

1085
have said, and if I am anything near right, it is not democracy. It may be that we are facing a unique situation and that we need a unique solution to it. I am not sure whether the Royal Commission have the solution but I do feel that there is an identity of interest among the people living in this great conurbation. They have common problems. The traffic problem is a common one. The town planning problem—if only they can be made to appreciate how it affects them personally—is a common problem. So are the housing and the other major service problems that are referred to in the Report. But what is the solution for this common problem which to-day affects 81 million people? Is this the solution? It is there that I have my doubts. As I have said, I do not wish to deliver a final view of the matter, but I believe that it is open to doubt whether this is the answer.
Then again, obviously the Commission felt 'that they had to introduce at any rate an element of local government in this matter, and so they have these borough councils, 52 of them, working with the greater administrative Council. I shudder to think of the relationship between these 52 authorities who will all have relationships with the larger Authority in one form or another—in planning for instance. I do not know whether every decision of a borough council will have to be approved by the major Authority. I do not think that will be so, but any important deviation or variation from the plan which the major Authority prepare will have to be submitted to that authority from these 52 different councils. What is an important deviation, and what is a minor one?—because the Report proposes that it should be left to the judgment of the borough councils as to what is a major deviation (which they have to report) and what is a minor deviation. I can imagine endless argument on the question of what are major and minor deviations and in the process the poor public will suffer, because it will mean even more delay in getting a decision than there is at the present time: and even now it takes from six to nine months to get a decision out of the County Council on an important planning matter. I believe that this will be even worse.
1086
The education proposals have been strongly criticised. I do not think the proposals as they stand in the Report have a single friend, but I believe that there is a lot to be said for having one education authority responsible for a wide range of services, and I should have thought the sensible thing would be to give the whole of the educational functions to the larger Authority. I cannot help feeling that the delegation of duties was largely influenced by a desire on the part of the Royal Commission to make the borough councils more important and to give them more important functions to carry out. That may be a perfectly proper desire, but we must not subordinate our service to the needs of giving borough councils enough work to do. That must not be the dominating factor.
But if we are going to give them these functions they are then going to be quite important bodies, and they will need 52 important heads of department for each of the services which will be delegated to them. I wonder whether this large accretion of high grade (and they have to be high grade) local authority officials exists in this country at all. Suddenly, virtually to create 52 county boroughs or bodies of county borough status is going to be a most difficult thing to do, and I wonder whether in fact it will be possible. My own view would be to have fewer authorities than the 52. I would make them even larger and give them, in many cases, complete power—in fact, give them the powers of county boroughs. But again I can see many objections even to that course, and I should not like it to be regarded as my final view.
I can only repeat that this is a matter to which one has to give a great deal of thought and on which there must be many discussions. I hope that this debate will not be the last that we shall have on this subject, and that even if Her Majesty's Government produce a White Paper at some time they will not feel themselves wedded in the future to that White Paper but Twill be ready to listen to representations from Members of this House and another place, and that eventually we may thresh out something that will create possibly an entirely new form of local government, just as the

1087
Act creating county councils was something new in the history of our country. I hope, too, that we may be able to create something new but something which will not, from the very outset, arouse the hostility of every single person who is engaged in local government —because in my view it would be fatal to start off anything new on the basis of the hostility of all those on whom we are to depend for the success of such an undertaking. Once more I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Morrison of Lambeth for having introduced this matter in such a charming and interesting way, and I hope that good will come out of this discussion.
6.20 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I, too, should like to begin by saying how indebted the House is to the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, for initiating this most interesting and instructive debate. I join with the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, in saying that we are also grateful for the manner in which he did it. It is a manner with which his old and friendly opponents are very familiar. At one moment when he mentioned the Green Belt he recalled to me what is probably the most famous story about the noble Lord among the many that are in circulation. It was at an enthusiastic Labour Party meeting and there was a great shout in the hall, "Who won London for Labour?", and the cry was "Morrison!" Then there was another shout. "Who got homes for the people of London?", and there was a cry of, "Morrison!" Then there was a third shout, "Who gave the people of London the trees and the flowers and the grass and the Green Belt?" And a small, still voice from half way down the hall said, "God Almighty!" There was an immediate shout of, "Tory! Throw him out!" I hope the noble Lord will agree that that is almost the most famous of the stories that have gathered around his name. But I emphasise that we are grateful not only for the debate but for the manner in which he initiated it.
I should also like to say how grateful I am to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, for his approach to this subject, because no one can pretend that we have exhausted the subject, although a wide variety of matters has been broached in the debate.
1088
Indeed, the size and importance of the subject of local government in London is a clear indication of that fact. But the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said at the beginning and at the end of his speech that he reserved the right to think again. He advanced views and important suggestions, but he said that he was not finally making up his mind. That is the attitude of mind which, as my noble friend Lord Waldegrave said in his speech, the Government are anxious should be widely held at this stage of the proceedings.
I should like to pay a second tribute, which again is only reinforcing what has been said, to the members of the Royal Commission for this Report. I think one could again put it in a sentence: that their labours were heavy but the Report is neither heavy nor laboured. I should like, if your Lordships will allow a personal indulgence, to say what pleasure it has given to me to see Sir Edwin Herbert Chairman of a Commission which has produced so distinguished a document. He is a very distinguished member of my own profession. But as the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, knows—because I remember in the past asking him a question about a quite different line of country; he appointed a Committee of Inquiry and Sir Edwin took the Chair for him—he is a man who has never faltered, when there has been the call of public duty, to do any task, however difficult and however inconvenient it might be for him. And when we add to that the powers of thought, examination and expression that are seen in this Report, I am honoured to be able to give my personal tribute to one who I am happy to say is an old friend.
Your Lordships will not, I am sure, feel that I am trespassing when I make a third tribute, and that to the two maiden speeches we have had during this debate. My noble friend Lord Mersey bears a name in which I have a particular interest, because his grandfather, apart from the many other distinctions in his career, was one of the founders of the local Bar in Liverpool which has meant so much to me in my life. His father was known to us all, and therefore he started with these advantages. But he did not need them, because the whole House enjoyed his objective speech, made with a full knowledge of the subject, he obviously having read the Report

1089
carefully and thought over it carefully at the same time. We are grateful for what he said and I shall see that attention is paid to it, and we hope that he will address us often again.
With regard to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, again he came with all the advantages that so many of us here, Who knew his father in one House, if not in the two Houses, of Parliament, would expect. Of course, his speaking in, this debate had a particular filial piety, because his father, as many of us will remember, was Minister of Health—and then the Minister of Health was in charge of local government matters—at the time of the Local Government Act, 1933, which if it did not deal with the actual London County Council earlier, dealt with the other areas which are involved to-day. Again, we were very fortunate in his maiden speech and, if I may pick out a part of it which struck me, it was what he said, and how he said it, with regard to education, about which he obviously felt so deeply. Again I shall see that attention is paid to that subject. He underlined what had been said by many speakers and was summed up by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and I hope that noble Lords who have paid attention to that subject will accept my assurance that it will be dealt with.
I think it is worth going back for a moment to fundamentals and recalling that local government is being reviewed not only in the Greater London area but also in the rest of England and Wales, and why the Royal Commission and the Local Government Commissions for England and Wales were appointed. I hope that no one will get the wrong idea, because in my view it is not because local authorities have failed to carry out the tasks entrusted to them. It would be generally true to say that councils, large and small, tackle an enormous burden of work with remarkable success. This is due to the devotion and dedication of both members and officers of local authorities; and the high standard of local government services throughout the country indicates the basic soundness of the structure of local government.
Undoubtedly local government works; but is that enough? A number of questions have to be asked from time to time. Are conditions such that local councils
1090
can operate as effectively as possible? Is the pattern of local authorities suitable for the administration of services which people nowadays have the right to expect? That is how I put it in answer to the development of thought of the noble Lady, Baroness Wootton of Abinger. I think it is the combination which I intended to put in my rhetorical question: is the pattern of local authorities suitable for the administration of services which people nowadays have the right to expect? Then: are men of integrity and ability attracted to membership of their local authorities? Are the special skills of officials being put to the best use? These questions, and others, I submit, need to be put afresh every generation, in order to see that local government adapts itself to the new problems.
Therefore, I do not want the appointment of the Royal Commission to be taken as an implied criticism of the way in which the authorities have carried out their tasks in the circumstances, the very difficult circumstances, which have confronted them, but it is an acknowledgment of the great material and social changes which have taken place since the main features of the present structure of local government were established towards the end of the last century. It has led to an examination of the problems which those changes had created for a very large number of London authorities, to see whether the present organisation of local government in the Greater London area permitted the skill, energy and devotion of members and officers to achieve the maximum advantage to the community.
Now, as my noble friend Lord Walde-grave pointed out, the Committee approached this matter with a prejudice—I suppose people would say it was the characteristically British distrust of change for change's sake. Indeed, these are almost the very words which the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, used in finishing the speech which we were all delighted to hear. They said that if an institution worked satisfactorily, their bias was in favour of leaving it alone; but they went on to say that their examination of the whole system of local government in London forced them to recommend the very important changes which the House has been discussing. Now as the House knows, and as my noble friend has said,

1091
the Government are studying the broad designs of the Commission's proposals. We have said, and everyone in this debate has agreed that we were right in saying, that ewe shall not come to conclusions until we have had an opportunity to examine the views for which we have asked the local authorities, and which we hope to get in the three months' period, as to the general pattern, as my noble friend Lord Waldegrave said. But until that time the Government have been greatly assisted by this debate. It has been very helpful, and they will give the most careful attention to the views expressed.
May I just pick up some of the points? My noble friend Lord Mersey asked me two questions. The first was: are the Government going to set up Commissions to consider the other great conurbations? My Lords, these are being reviewed by the Local Government Commission for England, which was set up under the Local Government Act, 1958. And I draw my noble friend's attention to this point: that that Commission had especially wide powers to make recommendations both as regards boundaries and as regards functions (I think this is the point which was important to his mind) in their reviews of five named special review areas—the conurbations in Birmingham and the Black Countryside, Tyneside, the West Riding, South Lancashire and Merseyside. I have stated the English ones because there are no special review areas in Wales. It is important that, in regard to the conurbations, they can report both as to functions as well as to boundaries, and we hope to get the same sort of information in this part of their Report.
The second question was: what is the next step? Well, I think he will agree that I cannot answer this question until the Government have made their decision or decisions on the Report generally. But I should like to say this: that if they accept the Report it will require legislation, and, of course, the modern practice as to legislation is that you make consultations and get views before the Bill takes its final shape. So that would be the next step. I think it will be clear from what I say in a moment that undue delay in coming to a decision would be a serious matter. I should like to develop that point. I think
1092
these were the two matters which my noble friend wanted answered, and I am glad to have dealt with them.
My noble friends Lord Cornwallis on behalf of Kent, and Lord Auckland, on behalf of Surrey, really developed the case for these counties, which would, under the scheme, lose parts of their areas to the Greater Authority. I should like to assure them that everything they have said will, of course, be given attention, and the points that they had in mind both as to the administration and as to the financial consequences will also be studied. The noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, took up a point on which, indeed, my noble friend Lord Waldegrave had touched—and it is one which affects the general result of the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth. One argument which the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, used was to say, "Well, if you do this for London you are committed on all the other conurbations"— those which I have just mentioned in answer to my noble friend Lord Mersey. But Lord Douglas of Barloch pointed out, and the Commissioners pointed out, that the problems are not the same. It is worth reading just two or three lines of paragraph 10, where they say:
"The problems we have to consider are the problems of vigorous growth, the growth of a living organism which has earned a better title than the cold, ugly, and, in this instance misleading, term 'conurbation'."
It is misleading, they say, because the growth of London is organic to that extent; and the others, of course, come from many different roots. I think that is an important point, and it leads directly to the consideration of the point which was worrying the noble Viscount, Lord Gage—namely, that when you endeavour to export populations into new towns, overspill areas, and the like, and then London fills up again, what are you going to do?
My Lords, that is rather more a problem of, first, economic development and, secondly, planning for the population, than of the actual machinery of local government. It is a problem which is admitted by everyone I have known who has been in the Ministry of Town and Country Planning, in whatever form it has existed during my political lifetime, to be a very difficult one. But at the moment, I feel it is a problem to be

1093
approached in that national way rather than a problem which can be solved by a different form of government. However, may I assure the noble Viscount that I will especially speak to Mr. Brooke about it and ask him to see whether, in his view, the two matters are really interconnected. I doubt it; but I shall be pleased to do that.
I should like to say this to the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth. Although, like everyone else, I regret that he did not give evidence before the Roy al Commission, I have had the advantage of reading the evidence, and I have in front of me the evidence bearing his signature. It is the evidence of the London Labour Party which he signed as treasurer, and therefore I am sure he took a principal part in preparing it. I should like to tell him that I have read that evidence with the greatest of care. I have read the Minutes of Evidence given by the noble Lord, Lord Latham, Mr. Gibson and Mr. Robshaw, on behalf of the London Labour Party.
I am very sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Latham, is not here, because I should have liked to tell him personally that I have probably cross-examined a greater variety of notables in the course of Amy life than any other living person, and I think I should find the noble Lord, Lord Latham, as hard as any of them. But that only goes to show how well grounded was the evidence which he gave. As I say, I have read all that evidence. I have also read what I might call almost a great document of State—the article which the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, contributed to the Evening News; so I think he will agree that I have done my homework.
With all that in front of them, the Commission make these points—and this is the aspect which the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, developed. There are really seven points, but I ant going to read only three or four lines of each. I do so because I think it would be quite wrong for this debate to go without these inclusions being placed on the Record and into people's minds. The first appears at the foot of page 175, paragraph 675, which is as follows:
"The first and perhaps the most outstanding fact is the bad effect which a long period of
1094
uncertainty has had on the morale of local government. The policy of successive Governments both as to local government in the country at large and as to local government in Greater London has undergone successive changes of direction and emphasis over many years."
Then the Report goes on to discuss county boroughs. As a subsidiary to that (this is not one of the points, but it must be stated), in paragraph 679, on page 177 of the Report, they say:
"It is no accident that we find ourselves forced in effect to arrange the counties so far as the relationships between their county and county district councils are concerned in the following order: Surrey—good; Kent—medium; Essex—indifferent; Middlesex—bad."
I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, will understand, but I do not think that is inconsistent with what I have said: it is saying, in effect, that with the present set-up there is no real opportunity for giving the best form of government to the people.
The second point appears in paragraph 682 and is as follows:
"The second fact to which we refer is that the various transfers of powers which took place as a result of post-war legislation have had a had effect upon the health of local government."
The third point is paragraph 687, on the next page:
"Another consequence of the fact that the various transfers we have referred to were carried out seriatim without regard to their total effect upon local government has been to require joint or co-operative action in a variety of forms between authorities at different levels of activity, and this is our third point. This is the origin of the system of delegation in town and country planning and in education and of the system of joint appointments by county and county district council in the personal health services. We have referred to these devices as papering over the cracks 'and we believe that to be an apt term. Apart from the administrative inconveniences of these devices they have had Kid effects upon the morale of local government."
Then point number 4, paragraph 688:
"The fourth fact to which we refer is that the erosion of powers and the irritations arising out of the practice of delegation have seriously lowered the status of the boroughs and other county districts in the eyes of potential councillors of ability and ambition."
The fifth point (I do not know whether the noble Baroness had this in mind; she may well have had) appears in the next paragraph, paragraph 689:

1095
"The fifth fact to which we refer is that the extraordinary complication of local government in Greater London is confusing to the electors and seems to induce in their minds a sort of fatalism, unless they can be whipped up by one or other of the political parties to vote on a national or quasi-national issue."
The sixth point is paragraph 690:
"The sixth fact to which we refer is that county councils on the one hand, and county district councils on the other, are manned to a large extent by councillors drawn from different strata of the community…"
That is not social strata: it is the division between those who are doing an external job and those who, either by retirement or other conditions, are not.
My Lords, those are the bases of the conclusions to which the Royal Commission come. I am not saying whether these are right or not, but I am saying that no Government which claims to be worthy of the name of Government could have a Report putting these serious matters before them, which I have read out in the last few minutes, and not give them grave and serious consideration. Therefore, as I say, it is impossible to indicate what the reactions will be to the recommendations, and I cannot comment further on these points. Where any noble Lord, as he is perfectly entitled to do, has taken an attitude on some of these points, we shall bear in mind, among all other considerations, the fact that the points are supported by the noble Lord.
My Lords, I should like to conclude with a quotation from the noble Lord's own book, How London is Governed.One chapter reviews recent changes in local government functions and discusses the administrative advantages and disadvantages of larger units as against smaller units. That chapter concludes:
1096
"Let the argument proceed. It is well that it should. And may the right solution ultimately emerge."
I venture to re-echo those sentiments, in this context. Discussion and argument can only help towards the right solution. Alternative proposals may well be put forward; it is right that all the possible choices should be considered. But it is to be emphasised, as the noble Earl, Lord Waldegrave, and I have tried to point out, that the problems discovered and set out by the Royal Commission will not fade away simply by being left alone. Indeed, prolonged uncertainty would itself be harmful to local government. The Government's consideration of these matters must take some time, and must be full, careful and cautious. Equally, there must not be unnecessary delay in coming to our conclusions.
6.52 p.m.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, it is quite clear that if and when the Government embody the Royal Commission's Report in legislation the Bill will 'have a long and troublesome passage. I will not enter into further debate at this late hour, as your Lordships sometimes say, because we have to depart hence, especially as the other place has already departed. We have beaten them this time. would thank the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor for the courtesy of his reply, which does not surprise me, because the Lord Chancellor has always been very courteous. I would thank all noble Lords who have been present at the debate and those who have taken part. We can all agree that it has been a useful debate; and what is, above all, clear is that it has not been on strictly Party lines on either side. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

  FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE AND FOWL PEST
  FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE AND FOWL PEST
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICERS IN EMERGENT TERRITORIES
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICERS IN EMERGENT TERRITORIES
  EXERCISE OF SECURITY COUNCILVETO
  EXERCISE OF SECURITY COUNCILVETO