Sitting of 1 February 1961

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  NEWPORT CORPORATION BILL (By Order)
  Read a Second time and committed
PETITIONS

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: Mr. Speaker, I wish to present a Petition, signed by over 40,000 people. The signatures have been collected by the youth organisations in this country. It reads as follows:
  To the honourable Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled. The Humble Petition of Youth and Student Organisations of Great Britain sheweth that Britain's possession of nuclear weapons and the existence of United States bases on her soil place our country in danger of nuclear annihilation and threaten to exterminate millions of human beings throughout the world.
  Your Petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray that Britain renounces her nuclear weapons and closes all bases on her soil forthwith, thus enabling her to play a decisive rôle in achieving international negotiations for general and total disarmament.
  And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Housing, South London
  Mr. C. Johnson: I ask the leave of the House to present a Petition from several thousand residents in South London, including many in my own constituency, which sheweth that the housing position is still extremely grave, that many thousands of families are forced to live in overcrowded conditions and that thousands of others lack essential amenities. The Petition alleges that this is primarily due to the decontrol provisions and increased rents resulting
  956
  from recent Rent Acts, the restrictive effect of Her Majesty's Government's housing policy, the very high interest rates resulting in increased rent and rates and high mortgage charges for house purchases, and the failure of the Government to impose any measure of control over land speculation.
  The Petition concludes:
  Wherefore your Petitioners pray that Her Majesty's Government will take immediate steps to deal with this distressing problem.
  And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
  To lie upon the Table.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  SHIPPING

    Nuclear Propulsion
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Minister of Transport if he is yet in a position to make a detailed statement on the progress made towards the construction of British-built nuclear merchant ships and fishing trawlers; and when he expects the first of these to be sea-going.
    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.
    The Minister of Transport (Mr. Ernest Marples): Examination of the tenders for a nuclear reactor and propelling machinery suitable for installation in a tanker of 65,000 tons deadweight is proceeding as quickly as possible, but I am not yet able to say when a decision will be made. Nuclear propulsion cannot reasonably be considered for any but large ships at this stage.
    Mr. Hughes: Is there any insuperable technical objection to the use of nuclear propulsion for smaller ships, or does the reply of the Minister mean that it can never be used in that way? If so, would the right hon. Gentleman make a categorical statement about it in order to save wasting time, energy and material in wasteful experiments?
    Mr. Marples: It would be silly, I think, to say that certain technical feats such as that could never be achieved,

    957
    but I think the first thing to do is to take the optimum size, which is about 65,000 tons dead weight, make that, if we possibly can, an economic proposition, and see where we go from there.
    Mr. Wall: Does my right hon. Friend recall That it is two years since the Galbraith Committee was appointed, and it is six months since he received tenders? Further, does he agree with the view that, until Britain has practical experience with a ship at sea, she is unlikely to obtain any lead in this new development? Cannot he say when he will make a decision in this matter?
    Mr. Marples: I do not think that an undue length of time has elapsed. The five tenders were received on 29th July last, and the technical committee has considered them. It is a very complex subject, and we must not make any mistakes in our construction of a nuclear ship. The technical committee has practically concluded its assessment and it will be meeting shortly to draw up its report.
    Mr. Mellish: The time has surely arrived when the House as a whole is entitled to know what is the shipping policy of Her Majesty's Government. This is only one small part of it. Does the right hon. Gentleman fully appreciate the concern which has been expressed on both sides of the House about this matter? When are we to learn from the Government what their intentions are for shipping in this country?
    Mr. Marples: That is another subject, and there is a later Question on the Order Paper about it.

    Flags of Convenience
    Mr. Stratton Millsasked the Minister of Transport if he will have discussions with the United States administration about initiating international action to deal with ships sailing under flags of convenience.
    Mr. Marples: I would refer my hon. Friend to the Answer given to the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Collick) on 25th January.
    Mr. Stratton Mills: Is my right hon. Friend aware that that Answer, which I heard, did not contain an assurance that
    958
    my right hon. Friend would initiate talks on this very important subject with the new United States Administration? Is he further aware that, while six years ago the total of shipping registered under flags of convenience was one-eleventh of the world's total, it is now one-seventh of the world's total, and that it is a matter of very great urgency?
    Mr. Marples: That is true, but I must point out to my hon. Friend that in its recent survey the General Council of British Shipping indicated that in its view international agreement and action in the matter of flags of convenience would make little or no progress in the foreseeable future.
    Mr. Strauss: While it may be premature to ask for discussions with the new Administration in the United States, will the Minister give the House an indication that, as soon as possible and as soon as the time appears to be right, he will make the necessary approaches in order to have negotiations and discussions on this all-important matter?
    Mr. Marples: If at any moment I think that it would be worth while and fruitful for negotiations to take place, I will certainly do so.

    Standard Life Jacket
    Mr. Langford-Holtasked the Minister of Transport what tests were carried out by his Department to prove that their standard life jacket would ensure that an unconscious person over 15 stone in weight would have his face held above water by the jacket.
    Mr. Marples: Tests were carried out on three men, one weighing just over 17 stone and the others about 18 stone each. It was found that when their bodies were inert the standard lifejacket supported them with their heads well clear of the water. The tests made use of information about the position taken up by an unconscious body in the water which was derived from a film of a test made during the last war.
    Mr. Langford-Holt: When my right hon. Friend last answered a Question by me about this matter, he made the point that in other tests which had been made a live, conscious body had been used

    959
    to imitate an unconscious body. Can my right hon. Friend say exactly how he managed to overcome that difficulty?
    Mr. Marples: I normally find supplementary questions from my hon. Friend very lucid, but I was rather confused by this one. If he thinks that there is any test that anybody else would like my Ministry to make on their own apparatus, we would be willing to do so.

    South Wales Ports (Capital Expenditure)
    Mr. Gowerasked the Minister of Transport what amount of capital expenditure he has authorised for each of the South Wales ports during the next three years; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Marples: Provision for expenditure of £1,045,000 in all, of which some £670,000 will be spent this year, is made in the British Transport Commission's proposed investment programme for 1961. I am informed that this is in respect of existing commitments on minor projects. No submissions have been put to me for later years.
    Mr. Gower: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a good deal of evidence that the docks in South Wales which are owned by the British Transport Commission are lagging behind docks such as those of Avonmouth not owned by the Commission in the matter of modernisation and the provision of up-to-date capital equipment? Will he consider that fact in assessing the needs of these docks in future?
    Mr. Marples: I am aware that I must always wait for a submission to me from the British Transport Commission, because it runs the day-to-day business and it knows best how large the volume of traffic is at the ports. In 1960 the volume of imports through the South Wales ports increased by a figure three times that of 1938.
    Mr. Awbery: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether the South Wales ports are working now to capacity, or what percentage of capacity they are working at?
    Mr. Marples: Perhaps I could have notice of that question.

    Laid-up Vessels
    Mr. Shinwellasked the Minister of Transport what number of vessels registered in the United Kingdom is idle; and when he intends to meet the representatives of the Chamber of Shipping to consider what measures are required to bring these vessels into service.
    Mr. Marples: On 1st January, sixty-seven such vessels, totalling 503,500 gross tons, were laid up for lack of employment. The employment of shipping is a matter for the shipping industry. The General Council of British Shipping in its recent Report suggests how the Government might help the industry and I hope soon to discuss that Report with the Council.
    Mr. Shinwell: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that he has sufficient time to give satisfactory attention to the present state of the shipping industry and its future? Is he not overburdened with the railways and roads and a variety of cognate subjects? Would he not advise the Prime Minister—and I say this with the greatest respect to himself—that he might appoint somebody to take charge of shipping?
    Mr. Marples: No, Sir. I do not think that there has been undue waste of time. We have only just received the Report of the General Council of British Shipping and I am seeing the Council a week today.
    Mr. Peyton: Would my right hon. Friend consider at this juncture, when there is a new Administration in the United States, making some approach so that there might be new international discussions about these difficult problems, because only in that way shall we get anywhere?
    Mr. Marples: I answered a supplementary question earlier on that point, and if I thought that any good would be done by it I would get in touch with them straight away.

    Policy
    Dame Irene Wardasked the Minister of Transport on what date he intends to announce to the House his proposals for future shipping policy, following his consideration of the report from the General Council of British Shipping.
    Mr. Marples: I cannot yet say when the Government will have completed its consideration and discussion of the General Council's Report. But, as I said in answer to a supplementary question earlier, I am meeting the General Council a week today.
    Dame Irene Ward: Could my right hon. Friend give an assurance here and now that the problems which the General Council of British Shipping raised will not be lost in all the attention that is given by him, however essential it may be, to roads and railways?
    Mr. Marples: I think that it has taken the General Council eighteen months to produce a Report and only a few days for me to arrange to meet the Council. I do not think that it is reasonable, therefore, to say that there has been any undue delay.
    Mr. Shinwell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that for much longer than eighteen months Questions have been asked from both sides of the House about the condition of British shipping and that he was made aware of the difficulty long ago? Is the right hon. Gentleman seized of the importance of British shipping in the national economy, and is he aware that, unless he does something subsequent to considering the Report, we shall have to put a Motion on the Order Paper to ask that shipping be transferred from him to some other more competent Minister?
    Mr. Marples: I am certain that the House will agree with me that the Council knows its own business better than anyone else. It has taken eighteen months to prepare its Report. I have agreed to meet the Council straight away and I think that that is not unbusinesslike by any standards,
    Mr. J. Howard: Will my right hon. Friend pay particular attention to that part of the Report dealing with coastal shipping, about which immediate action is required?
    Mr. Marples: The whole Report will be studied, including that part of it which deals with coastal shipping.
    Mr. Mellish: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of us feel that since he came to power he has taken upon
    962
    himself many extra powers to deal with other problems, both of road and rail, and we sincerely believe that it is not possible for one Minister, in addition to dealing with roads and railways, to take over these other problems of shipping? I assure the right hon. Gentleman that there is nothing personal in this.
    Mr. Marples: I cannot say anything more except that I am seeing the Council as quickly as possible and I do not think that anybody could see it in a shorter time than that within which have arranged to see it.

  ROADS

    Tothill Bridge, Burghclere
    Mr. Denzil Freethasked the Minister of Transport what plans he has for strengthening the Tothill bridge on A.34 over the railway line at Burghclere. Hampshire.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. John Hay): We expect to reconstruct the bridge within the next three years.
    Mr. Denzil Freeth: I thank my hon. Friend for that first information on the subject, but is he aware that this bridge has been unsafe for a very long time, that the use of the detour by traffic results in higher costs, and that a great deal of heavy traffic does not use the detour and presumably, therefore, runs into danger? Is it not possible to expedite the work by, say, twelve months?
    Mr. Hay: I wrote to my hon. Friend in detail about this on 22nd September last, so this is not the first time he has heard of our intention to reconstruct within three years. We shall certainly proceed with the work as quickly as we can. Last year, we authorised repairs costing £1,100 to ensure the life of the existing bridge for a further period.

    Road Junction, Sutton Scotney
    Mr. Denzil Freethasked the Minister of Transport what plans he has for improving the crossing of A.30 and A.34 at Sutton Scotney, Hampshire.
    Mr. Hay: We propose eventually to construct a by-pass of Sutton Scotney. It will extend from the eastern junction

    963
    of A.30 with A.34 to a point on A.34 about one mile to the south. At the same time, the junction will be improved.
    I cannot at present say when this scheme will be carried out.
    Mr. Denzil Freeth: I thank my hon. Friend for that Reply, but has he closed his mind entirely to the possibility of making minor improvements to this very dangerous junction, possibly by putting in traffic lights, because at present, during the summer months, it is quite impossible at times for north-bound and south-bound traffic to cross the east-west road?
    Mr. Hay: Our general policy is to avoid the use of traffic lights on trunk roads wherever possible, but I will look into the possibility of some improvement such as my hon. Friend suggests.

    London-West Country (Alternative Routes)
    Mr. Gresham Cookeasked the Minister of Transport what progress is being made in finding and upgrading roads alternative to those sections of the A.30 that are heavily congested in the summer months.
    Mr. Marples: My officers are in close touch with the local highway authorities and the police so that the signposting of alternative routes adopted last year is repeated this summer.
    Mr. Gresham Cooke: Will my right hon. Friend accept it from me that, although I spent my holidays in Cornwall last summer, I did not notice these alternative routes and I do not intend to go to Cornwall again until these murderous 150 miles out of London are improved? Is not the real solution to find some suitable alternative routes, particularly avoiding the road from Honiton and Exeter?
    Mr. Marples: If my hon. Friend will tell me where he is taking his summer holiday this year, I will send him details of alternative routes.

    Eton-Windsor Relief Road
    Mr. Brockwayasked the Minister of Transport what decision has been reached regarding the Eton-Windsor relief road.
    Mr. Hay: Our approval of the revised proposals for this road was notified to the Berkshire and Buckinghamshire County Councils on 3rd January.
    Mr. Brockway: I am grateful for that, but can the hon. Gentleman say when the construction is likely to begin? Does he realise that the picturesque and historic High Street of Eton is now. because of lorry traffic from the Midlands to Southampton, becoming dangerous for old people, for children at the elementary school and for the boys at the college—particularly at the "Burning Bush"—and will he expedite the construction as much as possible?
    Mr. Hay: It is not really for me to expedite the construction because the river crossing requires a Private Bill which is being promoted during this Session of Parliament by the two county councils to which I referred. I cannot, therefore, give any firm date for the start of construction.

    Edenfield-Rawtenstall By-pass
    Mr. Greenwoodasked the Minister of Transport when the line of the Edenfield-Rawtenstall by-pass will be fixed.
    Mr. Hay: We hope to publish our proposals for the line of the by-pass of Edenfield and the Rawtenstall level crossing later this year. There will then be three months for the submission of objections. How soon thereafter the line can be established will depend on whether it is necessary to hold a public inquiry.
    Mr. Greenwood: In view of the hardship to local residents and the inconvenience to the local authorities, will the hon. Gentleman assure me that there will be no undue delay in removing the uncertainty which now exists?
    Mr. Hay: Yes, certainly. Everything will depend upon the volume of objections we receive and whether we have to hold a public inquiry. If local residents are anxious to see the thing through and do not abject, we may proceed with it much more quickly.

    Motorways (Tolls)
    Mr. Wingfield Digbyasked the Minister of Transport whether he has yet received the report of the study he

    965
    ordered into the question of tolls on future motorways.
    Mr. Doddsasked the Minister of Transport if he will make a statement on the progress made, and the decisions taken, in the study given by his Department on the charging of tolls on new motorways.
    Mr. Marples: Good progress is being made with this study, but I have not yet received the report.
    Mr. Wingfield Digby: When he is considering the report, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that, despite increased expenditure on roads in this country, we still compare unfavourably with other countries and that, even so, some of those countries are turning to toll roads?
    Mr. Marples: Yes, I will bear that in mind.
    Sir Richard Pilkington: Is there any point is speeding up traffic by better roads and then slowing it down by tolls?
    Mr. Marples: It may not necessarily be slowed down by tolls if modern methods are used.

    Dual Carriageway Roads
    Sir Richard Pilkingtonasked the Minister of Transport how many miles of dual carriageway existed in 1945, 1951 and 1959, respectively.
    Mr. Marples: As nearly as can be estimated from our records, there were, at the end of 1945, roughly 350 miles of dual carriageway road in England and Wales; at the end of 1951, there were approximately 400 miles, and at the end of 1959, 652 miles.
    Sir Richard Pilkington: Since this is one of the best ways of preventing accidents, will my right hon. Friend press on with the job as fast as he can?
    Mr. Marples: We are doing so. We have more of these dual carriageways under construction than we have ever had in the history of the country.

    Accidents, Derby
    Mr. P. Noel-Bakerasked the Minister of Transport how many road accidents there were in the County
    966
    Borough of Derby in the calendar year 1960; how many were fatal; and how many people were seriously injured.
    Mr. Hay: There were 691 accidents involving death or injury. I am sorry to say that 18 people were killed and 241 were seriously injured.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary and his right hon. Friend will agree that these are horrifying figures. Will they do everything in their power to help the Derby Council to carry through the road improvements it wishes to make? Secondly, will the Minister call for an expert inquiry into the present cost of road accidents to the nation to ascertain how heavy it is?
    Mr. Hay: With regard to the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, we shall, of course, consistent with our duty generally to improve roads throughout the country, do all we can to assist in Derby. With regard to the second part, I very much doubt that an inquiry of that kind would give us any more information than we have already about the causes of accidents.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: During the latter part of the war, there was such an inquiry, which proved that the cost of accidents to the nation—which did not fall on the Chancellor of the Exchequer but on the citizens of the country—was enormously heavy. It must be very much greater today. Would it not help to put the problem in proper perspective if we knew what the cost was?
    Mr. Hay: I am sorry to disagree with the right hon. Gentleman, but we have looked at this very carefully in recent months and we are quite satisfied that there would be no great advantage to be obtained from an inquiry of that kind.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: May I press the Minister?
    Mr. Speaker: No. I think we ought to go on. I am sorry.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: With great respect, I have had such an inquiry made—
    Mr. Speaker: I think that the right hon. Gentleman did not understand me. Mr. Pannell, Question No. 14.

    Special Car Parks (London)
    Mr. Fisherasked the Minister of Transport if he will allow the continued use of the special car parks in the central area of London, subject to the requirements of ceremonial occasions, until a sufficient amount of permanent off-street parking has been provided for motorists.
    Mr. Marples: The sites in the Royal Parks were offered by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Works as free car parks on the understanding that this was a temporary measure in the exceptional conditions of Christmas. The other central sites were provided on the same basis. If any of their owners find it convenient to keep them in use for parking on a commercial basis, I should certainly not object.
    Mr. Fisher: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the car parking problem for motorists is not simply a Christmas problem but is a continuing and increasing problem? Will not he consider asking my right hon. Friend the Minister of Works to keep open the Horse Guards Parade, Constitution Hill and the Mall, for instance, until other more permanent provisions, such as my right hon. Friend's Bill which is before the House this afternoon, can be brought into operation?
    Mr. Marples: Perhaps my hon. Friend will put down a Question to that effect to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Works and ask him direct instead of via me. In respect of one or two of the sites which were used in the central areas, negotiations are going on with a view to their being kept open and a charge made.
    Mr. Strauss: Will the Minister support the representations made by his hon. Friend to the Minister of Works to keep some of these car parks open?
    Mr. Marples: I would rather not rise to that fly.

    Street Lighting
    Mr. Croninasked the Minister of Transport what steps he intends to take to obtain a nationally satisfactory standard of street lighting, bearing in mind the substantially lower accident rates in better lighted roads and the widely varying quality of street lighting used by the
    968
    3,000 different lighting authorities of England and Wales.
    Mr. Marples: There is already a British Standard Code of Practice for Street Lighting which recommends standards for traffic routes and for other roads, widely used by lighting authorities as a guide. In London and one or two other great conurbations, moreover, lighting authorities have formed consultative committees to co-ordinate their work. I have also in hand a survey of present lighting conditions on all trunk and Class I roads, which is almost complete, and this information will have to be studied before any further steps can usefully be considered.
    Mr. Cronin: While thanking the Minister for that reply, may I ask him whether he fully appreciates that here is a clear-cut method of substantially reducing the toll of road accidents? Will he, therefore, expedite these matters as much as he can?
    Mr. Marples: I certainly will. I realise that the increase in accidents at night which has taken place is proportionately greater than the increase in accidents during the day. The difficulty is that
    "a nationally satisfactory standard of street lighting".
    which is the phrase in the Question, is a phrase not capable of precise application, because the street lighting on any length of road must be considered in relation to that road's characteristics. I hope that some of the information which I mentioned in my Answer will be useful when it is received.

    East Lancashire Road
    Mr. A. J. Irvineasked the Minister of Transport whether he will give priority to completing the East Lancashire road at its Liverpool end, so as to facilitate the movement of traffic to the docks.
    Mr. Hay: This is for the local highway authority to consider in the first place. We will be pleased to consider any such scheme it may care to put to us.
    Mr. Irvine: While I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for that Answer, may I ask whether he agrees that the development referred to in the Question is one which will have relevance to the country's export position at a point close to

    969
    a cardinally significant port? Will he indicate the Government's view that, bearing this in mind, together with the economic situation, this is a development which should be given priority?
    Mr. Hay: The hon. and learned Gentleman will realise that I cannot comment on a proposal from a local highway authority until we have had a chance of seeing and investigating it.

    Trunk Roads, Wales
    Mr. Gowerasked the Minister of Transport how many miles of trunk roads were completed in Wales during each of the last three years; and what is his estimate of the trunk road building which will take place during each of the next three years.
    Mr. Marples: The mileage of trunk roads Li Wales and Monmouthshire which was either built anew or completely rebuilt in each of the last three years is: 1958–59, 17·3 miles; 1959–60, 22·5 miles; 1960–61, 25·3 miles.
    In the next three years, the approximate figures are expected to be: 1961–62, 23 miles; 1962–63, 30 miles; 1963–64, 27 miles.
    Mr. Gower: Does my right hon. Friend feel that these figures are rather small in view of the tremendous industrial growth in large parts of the Principality during the last few years? Will he consider whether they could be increased considerably?
    Mr. Marples: Oh, no. I think it is wrong to take the Welsh roads in isolation, because Wales profits greatly from road schemes outside Wales. Schemes such as the Severn Bridge, the Bristol-Birmingham motorway and the Ross Spur, for example, help considerably.

    Marton Road, Middlesbrough (Speed Limit)
    Mr. Marquandasked the Minister of Transport whether he has completed his consultations about the application of a speed limit for motor vehicles to Marton Road, Middlesbrough; and when the limit will come into force.
    Mr. Hay: My right hon. Friend confirmed the Middlesbrough County Borough Council's speed limit Order on
    970
    30th December. It will become effective when the council has put up the necessary speed limit signs.
    Mr. Marquand: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it was on 21st January last year that the need for this restriction was first put before his noble colleague the other Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry? Why should it have taken all this long time to complete these deliberations? Now that at last the speed limit is being put on the road, will he see that the speed limit is taken off the bureaucratic machine which takes such a long time to come to a decision?
    Mr. Hay: The Council did not submit the Order for confirmation by the Minister until 21st November, 1960. Having heard all objections we confirmed the Order on 30th December, and it was returned to the council duly endorsed on 6th January.
    Mr. Marquand: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that of course Middlesbrough Council could not put the application in until November, because it had been given no indication of what was in the hon. Gentleman's mind until that time?

    Motorways, Midlands
    Mr. Jenningsasked the Minister of Transport what progress is being made with the draft schemes for the Midland Link motorways.
    Mr. Marples: A draft scheme was published last March for the motorway between Lydiate Ash, at the northern end of the Birmingham-Bristol motorway, which is now under construction, and the junction at Great Barr with the other sections of the Midland Link motorway. I am now considering objections to it. I have recently made the scheme for the motorway between Dunston and Castle Bromwich, and detailed preparatory work on it is now proceeding Survey of the line of a motorway leading eastwards from Castle Bromwich to connect with the M.1 at Catthorpe has been completed and I hope to publish a draft scheme by the end of this year.
    Mr. Jennings: In considering the system of roadways in the Midlands, will my right hon. Friend look at the problem of the A.38 and the main road from Birmingham to Burton-on-Trent? Can

    971
    he tell me whether he has yet decided what route the proposed A.38 by-pass from Burton-on-Trent will take, and if so, can he give the programme date for commencing the operations?
    Mr. Marples: if my hon. Friend is referring to the Burton-on-Trent by-pass, my answer is that I hope to publish the draft Order before Easter.
    Mr. Jennings: I thank my right hon. Friend.

    Severn Bridge Project
    Mr. Ness Edwardsasked the Minister of Transport if he will now state when work will be started on the Severn Bridge project; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Hay: Tenders for construction of the foundations and sub-structure of the Severn Bridge and an access road to the site are under consideration. We expect to let the contract for this work shortly.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: In view of the tremendous amount of patience shown by the people of South Wales—and people in England, too—may we be told what precisely "shortly" means? Has the Minister any idea of the completion date of this scheme?
    Mr. Hay: The invitations to tender were issued on 28th September, 1960, and after a request by several potential tenderers we were obliged to extend the tender period to 10th January, which was, after all, only a few days ago. We are now on the point of deciding.

    Newcastle-Tynemouth Coast Road
    Mr. Montgomeryasked the Minister of Transport whether he will reconsider his decision and allow the conversion of the Newcastle to Tynemouth coast road into a dual carriageway to be included in the 1961–62 programme.
    Mr. McKayasked the Minister of Transport if he is aware that the Northumberland county authorities wish to go ahead at once with the planning of the coast road from Newcastle to Walls-end and Tynemouth; if, in order to enable the authorities to do this, he will make a decision regarding the width for the dual carriageway to allow for the two roads, a central reservation and two
    972
    footpaths as speedily as possible; and when a decision may be expected.
    Mr. Hay: We are aware of the importance of this project, which is one of those proposed by the committee of local authorities in the Tyneside conurbation for starting in 1961–62. We hope shortly to be able to let the local authorities know what programme we can accept for next year, and also our views on the proposed dimensions of this road which are at present being examined by our engineers.
    Mr. Montgomery: Is my hon. Friend aware that this road is the most accident-prone traffic artery in the whole of the country? Will he, therefore, in the interests of road safety, please use a sense of urgency in his Department and reconsider this whole matter so that the local authorities can get on with the work at the earliest possible opportunity?
    Mr. Hay: My hon. Friend's supplementary question might have been appropriate if I had said that we were not going to do this scheme. I said in my original Answer that we are hoping to let them know in a very short time. I hope they will have patience for a few more days.
    Mr. Short: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that one of the difficulties we have in attracting new industries to the North-East is the inadequacy of our communications generally, and that this coast road from Newcastle is one of the major factors? It would be a tremendous help to those of us who are trying to attract new industries to the area if he would co-operate over the dual carriageway.
    Mr. Hay: It is precisely because we do appreciate the importance of road communications in this area that we have now received a 20-year programme from the Conurbation Sub-Committee so that we may know exactly where we may be able to go over the next few years.

    South-West (Trunk and Classified Roads)
    Mr. Haymanasked the Minister of Transport when he received a request from highway authorities in the South-West for an interview about the inadequacy of trunk and classified roads there

    973
    and the need for additional grants for road improvement works.
    Mr. Marples: My hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) wrote to me about this on 20th December. I have replied that my hon. Friend or I will be glad to receive a deputation.
    Mr. Hayman: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the needs of Cornwall are very great?
    Mr. Marples: Yes, Sir. I will bear that in mind.

    Evesham Road, Redditch (Pedestrian Crossing)
    Mr. Danceasked the Minister of Transport whether he is prepared to provide a pedestrian crossing in Evesham Road, Redditch, opposite The Woodlands.
    Mr. Hay: For the reasons explained to my hon. Friend in my letter of the 27th January I am afraid we cannot agree to provide a pedestrian crossing here.
    Mr. Dance: I thank my hon. Friend—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—yes, indeed I do—for his very good and expansive letter. But, in view of the anxiety in the minds of some of these old people and in view of the fact that he said that he would look at the matter again, may I ask my hon. Friend whether he would consider providing something on the lines of a pedestrian-operated crossing?
    Mr. Hay: I have looked into this matter very carefully. In these cases where old people are concerned the risk always is that a pedestrian crossing is rather liable to be a snare and a trap than a good safety measure. I cannot hold out any hopes of doing anything for my hon. Friend in that direction.
    Mr. Dance: Not even with operated lights?
    Mr. Hay: There are certain complications that arise even with those.

    Road Junction, Dagenham (Traffic Signals)
    Mr. Parkerasked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware of the long delay that has taken place in the erection of traffic signals at the junction
    974
    of Oval Road North and Ballards Road, Dagenham; and whether he will authorise their speedy construction.
    Mr. Hay: The highway authority submitted an installation plan to us on Monday of this week. It will shortly be approved for grant.

  TRANSPORT

    Lorries (Rear Lights and Reflectors)
    Sir Richard Pilkingtonasked the Minister of Transport what regulations he is making concerning strip reflectors, or other contrivances, designed to make the rear of lorries more visible at night.
    Mr. Hay: We are not proposing any regulations of the kind referred to by my hon. Friend. We are satisfied that the two rear lights and two reflectors required by the Road Transport Lighting Act, 1957, are adequate, provided, of course, that they are properly maintained.
    We recently circulated, and are now studying the comments by interested bodies upon, draft regulations which would require most vehicles over 40 ft. in length to carry additional side lights visible also from front and rear, and also draft regulations prescribing additional lights and other markings for vehicles carrying projecting loads.

    Traffic Experiment (Middlesbrough)
    Sir B. Jannerasked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that the recent experiment carried out by the Road Research Laboratory at Middlesbrough requiring drivers to give way to vehicles approaching from the right is regarded as highly successful; and if he will take steps to make this generally applicable.
    Mr. Hay: This was a limited experiment on a small roundabout. We are advised that further trials will be necessary before conclusions can be drawn which are sufficiently reliable for general application.
    Sir B. Janner: In view of the fact that there were some highly successful results, particularly in the limitation of time needed by traffic, does not the Minister

    975
    think that it would be useful to introduce this arrangement, at any rate for the time being, to see how it works in various areas?
    Mr. Hay: I have personally a good deal of sympathy with the point which the hon. Member puts, but the results of this experiment did not bear out what he has just said. In fact, the journey-time for the afternoon peak traffic was increased rather than reduced. I am afraid that we cannot see our way clear to make this general application until we have done more experiments.

    Vehicles (Excessive Loads)
    Sir B. Jannerasked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that dislocations of traffic have occurred in Leicester owing to the use of transporters for the purpose of carrying excessive loads through the town; and what steps he proposes to take by introducing regulations to prevent similar incidents in Leicester and elsewhere in the future.
    Mr. Hay: Yes, Sir. I am aware of the difficulty recently caused in Leicester by the movement of a series of very long steel girders through the town. Efforts are now being made to find an alternative route for the remainder of these loads. We are hoping to introduce shortly new regulations which will give us power to control directly the movement of such very long loads.
    Sir B. Janner: While I thank the Minister for that reply, may I ask him whether in the circumstances he will also consider some kind of co-ordination between road and rail services in respect of heavy loads? Does he also realise that he must get on with the main motor road speedily, because that in itself will ultimately solve many of the problems with which we are confronted in Leicester?
    Mr. Hay: I suspected that the hon. Member would wish to raise the question of the London-Yorkshire Motorway in view of the numerous passages which he and I have had on the subject. We are well aware of this problem, and that is why the regulations are being reconsidered.
    Mr. J. T. Price: Is the hon. Member aware that this problem of excessive
    976
    loads on British roads is not confined to Leicester but is becoming a national scandal? What happened to the Inter-Departmental Committee, which is supposed to have been sitting to consider this problem? The House has been fobbed off year after year with the statement that the Committee was not yet ready to make its report. Has the Committee reached any conclusion about dealing with moving this excessive traffic back to the railways of Britain, where it belongs, instead of on the roads, thus reducing these dangers?
    Mr. Hay: It is only right to point out that an increasing number of these large loads are moved by road because it is either much more economical or more efficient than to send them in any other way. But their movement raises difficulties, and our regulations are intended to deal with the problem.

    Omnibus Services, London
    Mr. Hollandasked the Minister of Transport if he will amplify the statement regarding the main difficulties facing the London Transport Executive in respect of omnibus services, contained in the reply sent by his Department on 9th December, 1960, to a request by Acton Borough Council for a public inquiry into the operation of the London Transport omnibus services generally.
    Mr. Marples: My Department's letter of 9th December referred specifically to one major difficulty, the shortage of bus crews. Others exist, such as rush hour peaks and traffic congestion and I am considering the general position in connection with the proposal, made in various quarters, for an inquiry into the operation of London Transport services.
    Mr. Holland: While thanking the Minister for that helpful reply, which I know will be welcomed by the Acton Borough Council, may I ask him to expedite his consideration of the possibility of an inquiry and to give us an answer fairly soon?
    Mr. Marples: The position has changed in recent months rather to the advantage of the travelling public. For example. the crew position is becoming very much better. There has been a net gain of 800 drivers and conductors since

    977
    the wage rise in October, and the men have agreed to do more overtime. As a result, lost mileage has been halved and the outlook is much better than it was at the end of last year.
    Mr. Mellish: This initiative for a public inquiry was taken by the bus drivers themselves. They were anxious to convey to the British public, and the London public in particular, that, at any rate in the main, bus drivers and conductors were not responsible for the chaos which we have in London. Will the Minister concede that the time has come for a public inquiry?
    Mr. Marples: I am considering not only representations from hon. Members but also representations from various local authorities, as well as those which the busmen made and which were presented to me by the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish).

    Pedal Cycles (Lights)
    Dr. A. Glynasked the Minister of Transport, in view of the number of accidents involving pedal cyclists, whether he will consider enforcing a minimum standard of intensity of light for both front and rear lights of pedal cycles, in the interests of both motorists and cyclists.
    Mr. Hay: The efficiency of rear lights used by many cyclists leaves much to be desired, and we are considering an amendment of the Road Vehicles Lighting Regulations, 1959, which would require all pedal cycles to carry rear lamps marked with the number of the appropriate British Standard. Such a requirement would be more valuable than a prescription of required intensity, which would raise enforcement difficulties. I do not think the same problem exists to any large extent with regard to front lights on pedal cycles.
    Dr. Glyn: While thanking my hon. Friend for that kind Answer, may I ask whether he would agree that, if he is altering the standard, it would be advisable to alter it for both front and rear lights? Does he not agree that one of the great dangers of this dynamo-type lighting is that the cyclist has no illumination whatever when halted at crossroads?
    Mr. Hay: No. As I said in my Answer, we do not think that the same problem exists in the case of the front lamps. As everybody knows, there is much greater risk of accident if a cyclist is either on the road or stationary without an effective rear light. That is what we must concentrate on at this stage.

    Committee on Rural Transport (Report)
    Mr. Speirasked the Minister of Transport when he intends to publish the report and findings of Professor Jack's Committee on Rural Transport, in view of the need for early action to assist rural bus operators to maintain their services.
    Mr. Marples: As soon as practicable.
    Mr. Speir: Does my right hon. Friend realise that that limited and rather negative reply will be cold comfort to those living in the rural areas? Does he appreciate that the continuing failure of post-war Governments to deal with this problem is causing hardship and difficulty to those living in the rural areas? Does he realise that it is not in the national interest for the public transport facilities in those areas to deteriorate further, and will he please take effective steps at an early date?
    Mr. Marples: I assure my hon. Friend that he need not be unduly impatient. The report will be published as soon as possible.

    Motor Vehicles (Headlights)
    Mr. Hopkinsasked the Minister of Transport whether he will take steps to enforce the use of yellow bulbs in the headlights of motor vehicles.
    Mr. Marples: No, Sir. There is no evidence to suggest that yellow headlamps giving the same seeing distance as white headlamps offer any advantage.
    Mr. Hopkins: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that in France it is obligatory to have yellow headlights and that it is far easier to drive at night against an oncoming car with yellow headlamps than with white ones?
    Mr. Marples: I expected a supplementary question about France, because

    979
    I have travelled through France frequently. The answer is that the headlamp beams on French cars are generally of a lower intensity than those on British cars. That is the reason for the lack of dazzle. It is not the colour, but the lower intensity.
    Mr. G. Wilson: Would my right hon. Friend agree that the Road Research Laboratory investigated this matter some years ago and came to the conclusion that the French were wrong.
    Mr. Marples: Yes. It was in 1957 when this was investigated and it was found that people in this country preferred white headlamps.

    London Transport
    Mr. Albuasked the Minister of Transport what reply he has made to the representations he has received from the Middlesex County Council urging him to appoint a committee of inquiry into London Transport.
    Mr. Marples: My Department has told the Middlesex County Council that its representations are being considered. As the hon. Member no doubt knows, I already have under consideration a similar request from other quarters.
    Mr. Albu: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that such an inquiry would at least disclose where the responsibility lies as between London Transport Executive and his own Department? Would not he agree that it would also show the urgent necessity of getting on with the Victoria line and the fact that failure to do so is one of the causes of the present trouble?
    Mr. Marples: The House must remember that there was a very exhaustive inquiry by the Chambers Committee into London Transport between 1953 and 1955. The Committee spent two-and-a-half years looking at it, and found that it was conducted efficiently and with due regard to economy.

    Motor Cycles (Passengers)
    Mr. Stratton Millsasked the Minister of Transport whether he will introduce legislation to extend the Road Traffic Acts to provide compulsory insurance for passengers on motor cycles.
    Mr. Hay: This is one of the matters covered by the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin) which is to be debated on Second Reading on 10th February. I think we should await that debate.
    Mr. Stratton Mills: Is it not correct that the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin) covers only motor cars? As it has become the practice of insurance companies, with the growth of this form of transport, to exclude liability for personal injury to passengers, is not this now a matter for urgent action, even if it involves higher insurance premiums?
    Mr. Hay: I do not wish to anticipate the debate which is to take place in ten days' time, but I am advised that the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Loughborough covers motor cars and motor cycles.
    Mr. J. T. Price: Is it not a fact that in the practice of insurance companies a passenger in a motor vehicle, injured in a collision involving two vehicles, is bound to recover damages against either the driver of his own vehicle or tile driver of the other vehicle? Is it not therefore rather superfluous to introduce legislation to meet something which is already covered in practice by insurance existing under present Statute law?
    Mr. Hay: Perhaps that is a matter which the hon. Member should take up with his hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough.

  RAILWAYS

    West Indies (Recruitment of Personnel)
    Mr. N. Pannellasked the Minister of Transport to what extent it remains the policy of the British Transport Commission to recruit personnel in the West Indies.
    Mr. Marples: As my predecessor informed my hon. Friend on 18th April, 1956, recruitment is a function of management, and is not a matter in which I would wish to interfere with the British Transport Commission's discretion. The Commission is short of manpower in certain grades and in

    981
    certain localities. A large-scale recruiting drive in this country has not met with sufficient response, and the Commission is, therefore, making up the deficiency by recruitment elsewhere.
    Mr. Pannell: In view of the great increase in immigration from the West Indies during the past year, does not my right hon. Friend agree that this agency is now redundant and that suitable personnel could be recruited in this country through the various organisations concerned with the welfare and settlement of these immigrants? Will he make a recommendation to that effect?
    Mr. Marples: No, Sir. The broad question of immigration is one for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and not for me, but I am satisfied that the British Transport Commission has made every endeavour to recruit labour in order to keep its services in a satisfactory state for the travelling public.
    Mr. Mellish: Will the Minister take it from hon. Members on this side of the House that those who are employed by the London Transport Executive and who come from the West Indies are doing a fine job, are extremely courteous and are very well liked by the public, and that most Londoners are grateful that they are over here?
    Mr. Marples: I think that they play a most useful part in maintaining essential services during a period of full employment.
    Mr. Pannell: On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.

    Electrified Lines (Fencing)
    Mr. C. Royleasked the Minister of Transport, in view of the recent incident in which nineteen foxhounds were killed on the railway line near Dover on Saturday, 14th January, whether, in the interests of public safety, he will give a general direction to the British Transport Commission to safeguard effectively all their electric lines from access by persons and animals.
    Mr. Hay: No, Sir. We do not consider that this is a matter which it would be
    982
    proper to deal with by a general direction. I am advised that the Commission could not reasonably be expected to provide more secure fencing than existed at the site of this particular occurrence.
    Mr. Royle: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will look at the matter another way. In view of other occurrences of this kind which have taken place and the potential danger to the travelling public arising there from, will he now instruct that prosecutions for trespassing should be instituted against masters of hounds?
    Mr. Hay: I do not think that my right hon. Friend has any power to instruct that prosecutions should be instituted.

    Early Morning Fares
    Mr. Spriggsasked the Minister of Transport if he will give a general direction to the British Transport Commission to retain cheap early morning fares on all forms of public transport for which it is responsible where such fares exist at the present time; and if he will similarly instruct his traffic commissioners to refuse applications they have received to raise early morning fares on public service vehicles.
    Mr. Marples: No, Sir.
    Mr. Spriggs: Is the Minister aware that early morning cheap tickets for workers travelling over fairly long distances to their jobs are a facility which he could have used his influence to retain and that, because of economic circumstances, many of these people have been driven on to the roads, where many more accidents have happened as a result? Will not the right hon. Gentleman realise that it is his responsibility to do something about alleviating the distress on the roads and obviating accidents?
    Mr. Marples: In my view, these fares can no longer be justified on either social or economic grounds. Outside London, there are cheap day return fares available at any time which are cheaper than early morning fares, and I do not consider that the abolition of early morning fares will cause any great hardship.

    Motive Power Units and Rolling Stock
    Mr. Popplewellasked the Minister of Transport if the proposed new railway boards will have power to produce their own motive power units or rolling stock.
    Mr. Fernyhoughasked the Minister of Transport if the proposed railway boards will have authority to produce their own rolling stock and motive power units and equipment.
    Mr. Marples: Paragraph 14 of the White Paper states that the Railway Workshops will be vested in the British Railways Board. I contemplate that the forthcoming legislation will give this Board the statutory power which the hon. Members have in mind.
    Mr. Popplewell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware how much pleasure it will give to the railway industry to have this assurance that it will be left entirely to the proposed Railways Board to produce at long last its own motive power units? Is he aware that this will be a very good move indeed, particularly in view of the difficulties the British Transport Commission is having with inferior motive power units which have been supplied by outside industry?
    Mr. Marples: Without endorsing the last part of that supplementary question, I am glad that the hon. Gentleman finds this paragraph of the White Paper satisfactory—as, indeed, most of the other paragraphs are. [HON MEMBERS: "Oh."] I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take the copy of the White Paper that he has torn up and stick it together again now.
    Mr. Fernyhough: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is pleasant for us to see that he is becoming a little less doctrinaire? Would he not agree that it is very necessary, in view of the inability of private contractors to supply reliable equipment, that the railways should have power to produce their own so that they will not have to carry the can of the abuse which they are getting at the present time and which should be placed on other shoulders?
    Mr. Marples: I myself would prefer not to discuss these failures while they are the subject of inquiry by the Chief
    984
    Inspecting Officer of Railways. Any Member in any part of the House who makes allegations of that nature is not being very helpful at this moment.
    Mr. Nabarro: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the builders of these power units have an extensive export trade to all parts of the world, and that if the railway workshops are to have a monopoly of building power units for the British railway system it will negative any possibility of extending our world-wide export trade in this very important equipment?
    Mr. Marples: I am quite certain that the export field should always be borne in mind in this respect.
    Mr. Nabarro: Hear, hear.
    Mr. Manuel: Is the House to take it that the Minister has just given a pledge that the existing railway workshops are to be kept in being under the new Board?
    Mr. Marples: The answer is quite clear. The White Paper says that the railway workshops will be vested in the British Railways Board and the responsibility lies with the central Railways Board, so that the Board must decide how the workshops will be used.

    Superannuitants
    Dame Irene Wardasked the Minister of Transport whether his consultations with the British Transport Commission about the pensions of railway superannuitants have been concluded and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. Marples: I would refer my hon. Friend to the statement I made during the course of the debate on 30th January.
    Dame Irene Ward: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether, when the statement on the scheme for increasing superannuitants' pensions is made, he will make it perfectly plain whether it is the original scheme as put forward by the British Transport Commission or whether it is that scheme whittled down by negotiations with his Department, so that we may know who really is taking responsibility for meeting the claims of these people?
    Mr. Marples: I will arrange to produce full details, to be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Dame Irene Ward: That is not the answer. Can my right hon. Friend give me an assurance on which is which?
    Hon. Members: Answer.
    Mr. Speaker: Question No. 54.
    Hon. Members: Answer.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. So much noise interferes with business. I called Question No. 54.

    Station, Stoke-on-Trent
    Dr. Strossasked the Minister of Transport whether the station of Stoke-on-Trent has been included in the capital sum allocated for the improvement and extension of railway stations.
    Mr. Marples: The Commission has put to me no proposals for major works at Stoke-on-Trent Station. I understand, however, that it proposes to undertake certain minor works there in the course of the electrification work on the London-Midland main line.
    Dr. Stross: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware how very disappointing and unbusinesslike this is? Is he aware that it was originally proposed by the Commission to spend £1 million on this station because of the vast amount of traffic that goes through it and because it is quite inadequate to deal with the business of North Staffordshire? Will he do something himself and suggest that there should be a further allocation and a radical alteration by way of improvement?
    Mr. Marples: No, Sir, because this is a matter for the Commission. If it were to put forward proposals to me, I should certainly consider them on their merits.
    Mrs. Slater: Will the Minister approach the Commission about it, because a tremendous amount of freight as well as passenger traffic goes through the station and the conditions for the men who work there are simply appalling and it is about time some improvements were made, if only for them?
    Mr. Marples: The Commission watches proceedings in this House carefully and I have no doubt that it will note what the hon. Lady has said.

  SHIPBUILDING

    Orders (Credit Finance)
    Mr. Willeyasked the Minister of Transport what action he has taken regarding credit finance for shipbuilding orders.
    Mr. Marples: The President of the Board of Trade announced in October that the Export Credits Guarantee Department will offer guarantees to shipbuilders at cheaper rates. This, with the further export credit measures applying to all industries he also announced in October, will, I hope, be of some help to our shipbuilders in securing foreign orders. I am also considering representations the Shipbuilding Conference has made to me about other aspects of the problem of credit.
    Mr. Willey: Can the Minister confirm or deny that he appointed an eminent accountant to advise him on this matter? If he has not, will he take such a course? He will realise that this is regarded by the shipbuilding companies as probably one of the more important matters affecting orders.
    Mr. Marples: They have made strong representations to me and I assure the hon. Gentleman that they will be thoroughly gone into.
    Mr. McMaster: Does my right hon. Friend agree that all proper steps should be taken to ensure that British shipbuilding yards do not suffer any disadvantage as compared with European or Far Eastern yards?
    Mr. Marples: Yes. They should compete on equal terms.

    Shipbuilding Advisory Committee (Sub-Committee's Report)
    Mr. Willeyasked the Minister of Transport whether he will make a further statement on the work of the sub-committee of the Shipbuilding Advisory Committee to consider the future of the shipbuilding industry.
    Mr. McMasterasked the Minister of Transport what action he proposes to take to combat increasing unemployment in British shipbuilding yards.
    Mr. Marples: The sub-committee of the Shipbuilding Advisory Committee is

    987
    now preparing an interim report which I hope will be ready before long. The Government will consider carefully any recommendations it may make.
    Mr. Willey: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for so informing us, but will he keep the House well informed and make as full a statement as he can when he receives the report?
    Mr. Marples: Yes, certainly I will. I am very anxious to receive this report, because the sub-committee comprises members of the union, employers, and independent people, and I am hoping that it will be a valuable report.
    Mr. McMaster: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the urgency of this matter, because in the shipyards of Belfast over 6,000 men are threatened with redundancy within six months?
    Mr. Diamond: "You have never had it so good."
    Mr. Marples: Certainly I am aware of the urgency and difficulties of the shipbuilding industry.
    Mr. Albu: Will these discussions include action arising out of the D.S.I.R. Report, and will the right hon. Gentleman suggest to the shipbuilders that they do not help their own case by denigrating what is already a Report which they have signed by agreement and which is in fact a compromise?
    Mr. Marples: The sub-committee of the Shipbuilding Advisory Committee did see the D.S.I.R. Report, and I have no doubt that it took it into account. As I said before, because on the subcommittee we have both employers and employees, I am hoping that we shall have a good report.

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (INCREASED CHARGES AND CONTRIBUTIONS)
The Minister of Health (Mr. Enoch Powell): With permission, I wish to make a statement.
The net estimates of the National Health Service and the Health Departments for next financial year indicate an increase of 11 per cent. over those for this year. This follows upon an increase of over 8 per cent. this year and
988
over 6 per cent. the year before. The total cost in the current financial year is about £867 million, of which £663 million will be met by the Exchequer.
The Government are determined to continue their policy of developing the Health Service and, in particular, to carry though a long-term programme of modernising our hospitals. These objects would be in danger if the cost of the Service to the Exchequer were allowed to go on increasing at so high a rate. The Government have, therefore, decided that certain steps to reduce the net estimates are necessary.
The cost of a number of items for which charges are made has increased substantially since the charges were last fixed, and it is proposed to adjust them.
The charges for dentures will be increased by amounts ranging from 5s. to 15s. On the other hand, in order to put more emphasis on conservation, the charges for dental treatment will not be raised and children and expectant and nursing mothers will be relieved in future of the present charges for dentures.
The charges for spectacles will be increased by 5s. a pair, with a higher charge for bifocal and multifocal lenses. However, it is proposed that children aged 10 or over shall no longer be charged for spectacle lenses in any type of National Health Service frame.
The maximum charge for amenity beds in hospitals in England and Wales will be doubled from 1st March. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]
The cost of the pharmaceutical services this year will be about £92 million gross, £80 million net. Since the charge for prescriptions was fixed at 1s. an item in 1956, the average cost of an item has increased from 5s. 1½d. to 7s. 4d. The Government are proposing to raise the prescription charge to 2s. per item from 1st March. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] We believe that this measure is necessary, along with others already taken or in hand—[HON. MEMBERS: "Disgraceful."]—to restrain the increase in the cost of the pharmaceutical services.
The Government have decided that from 1st June orange juice, cod liver oil and vitamin tablets under the Welfare Foods Scheme will be sold at prices which cover the cost.

989
The existing arrangements for refund of prescription and other charges will remain in force, and arrangements will be made through the National Assistance Board for the free issue of vitamin supplements.
The Government also propose to increase the National Health Service contribution with effect from the beginning of July next by 1s. a week for the employed man—10d. from the employee and 2d. from the employer—and by the appropriate amounts for other insurance groups. [An HON. MEMBER: "They have never had it so good."] This will increase the yield from the contribution by about £49 million in a full year. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will table the necessary Ways and Means Resolution tonight.
A Bill relating to the dental and optical charges will be presented tomorrow. Regulations altering the charges for prescriptions and amenity beds will be laid on Friday, and a new Welfare Foods Order will be made shortly.
All these changes apply to Scotland, except that relating to amenity beds, for which in Scotland the charges are adjusted automatically.
The effect of all the measures which I have announced will be to reduce the net Health Estimates by about £50 million in 1961–62 and about £65 million in a full year. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."]
Mr. K. Robinson: Is the Minister aware that the comprehensive list of charges which be has just announced represents, in our view, the biggest single assault on the whole principle underlying the National Health Service since it was conceived, and a very serious inroad into the whole Welfare State? [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] Is he aware that the charges which he has announced are so comprehensive in their nature that he even tried to take credit for the one or two charges which he has not increased? Clearly, the matter is far too big to deal with in question and answer, and we shall have debates on the subject shortly.
However, I should just like to say, at this stage, that we take particular exception to the increase in the National Health Service contribution, which, of course, is a poll tax and falls most heavily on those less able to bear it.
990
As for the prescription charge, does the Minister not recall that a Committee advised him that his Department would probably save money by abolishing the prescription charge altogether? Is he aware that we regard the charging for welfare foods at cost price as being a peculiarly mean step to take?
Finally, the Minister once resigned from office. Does he not think that as the Minister responsible for a great service like the National Health Service he would have done better to return to the back benches rather than agree to these charges?
Mr. Powell: On the contrary, I should have been betraying my trust if I had agreed to an increase in the budgetary cost of this Service, for it would inevitably have resulted in the development of the Service itself having to be curtailed or limited if these steps had not been taken. The hon. Gentleman referred to the National Health Service contribution as a poll tax. It falls, of course, to be considered in the context of the whole economic position of the country, of the earnings of those who will pay it and of the tax system as a whole, but the proportion of average earnings which will, in future, be collected by way of the stamp, is not appreciably greater, in the nearest practicable comparison, than it was in 1948.
Mr. Turton: Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that the measures he has announced would not be directed in any way towards reducing the expenditure on the hospital building programme and on the improvements to the National Health Service? Will he bear in mind that when Sir Stafford Cripps imposed a ceiling of £400 million on the Health Service, he did much to retard its development? We do not want that to happen again.
Mr. Powell: It is exactly those considerations which the Government have in mind in taking these steps.
Miss Herbison: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the answer he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) proves what all of us felt in the House—and certainly many people in the country—when the right hon. Gentleman was appointed Minister of Health?

991
It seems to us that a Minister of Health should, in the Cabinet, be fighting to ensure that we have a good Health Service. I accuse the Minister of not only doing far from that, but of having incited the Cabinet to put these charges up. Is he not aware that these charges, particularly those for prescriptions, and the increases in the contribution, will fall heaviest on those people who really cannot afford to meet them?
Has he given any thought to those who are just under the National Assistance scale and who are finding it very difficult to pay even 1s. per item? Has he given any thought to the disabled who have to pay for these items? Has he given any thought to the low wage earner, who will have this poll tax put on his earnings?
I hope that the country will show very clearly in the next few days how disappointed and, indeed, how disgusted it is with the Minister and with his Government.
Mr. Powell: The hon. Lady referred, in particular, to possible hardship in connection with prescription charges. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) announced the last increase in these charges, he offered—and that offer was punctiliously fulfilled—to look at any circumstances of possible hardship, arising out of it, which might be brought to his notice. I renew that offer and pledge now.
As regards what the hon. Lady said in general, I believe that it is recognised in this House, and in the country, that, with the present rate of increase of the cost of the Service to the Exchequer, the alternative is between the measures which I have announced and a limitation of the expansion of the Service. If the House, or the country, has to choose between limiting the expansion of the Service and the measures which I have announced, I have no doubt what the decision will be.
Mr. Nabarro: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that the fundamental considerations in this matter price stability and the growth of the national economy? Do not all the measures that he has announced today contribute to that end in the ultimate? Would he not
992
agree that the aggregation of reduction of net cost of this Service, of £50 million this year and £65 million in a full year, represents only 8 per cent. of the total and ought to be judged in that perspective?
Mr. Powell: My right hon. Friend—
Hon. Members: Oh.
Mr. Nabarro: Only hon. as yet.
Mr. Powell: My hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) is quite right in reminding the House that there is an inevitable connection between the national income and what can be deployed upon a particular service, and that it is the duty of those responsible for the respective services to see that the priorities are preserved. By measures of this kind we ensure that the essential and growing elements of the National Health Service can go forward unimpeded.
Mr. Harold Davies: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many hon. Members, on both sides of the House, whatever they may say, realise that our magnificent Health Service is worse now even than that in Western Germany? Is he further aware that from his side of the House we were told, "Don't let Labour ruin it"? Members opposite have now completely obliterated the purpose of the Health Service.
Mr. Powell: I am not prepared to institute a comparison between our National Health Service and the service in any other country, but I can tell the House that the Health Service in this country is steadily providing a better and better service, that over the last five years the number of in-patients treated in hospital has gone up by 10 per cent., that the number of out-patients treated has gone up by 5 per cent., and the number of domiciliary consultations by 30 per cent., and that the most essential elements in the Service—the human material—the nurses and doctors, both inside and outside the hospital service, are steadily increasing in numbers. The Service is steadily and regularly making progress.
Mr. H. Wilson: Since the present Prime Minister introduced the individual prescription charge in 1956, when we were in a financial mess, will the right

993
hon. Gentleman tell us why it is that whenever the Government get into an economic mess it is always the patients and others in greatest need who have to bear the cost? Will he also say, since the main increase in costs has been the profits of the pharmaceutical manufacturers, why he has not taken it out of them instead of out of the patients?
Finally, is he aware that every time these charges have been announced, successive Budgets—usually before elections—have not remitted them, but that, instead, there have been big taxation hand-outs? Will he take it from us that if these measures are to be associated with a hand-out to Surtax payers in the Budget, or with any similar concession, the parry opposite can expect the most bitter—
Mr. Nabarro: Where is the hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Wyatt)?
Mr. Speaker: Order. We make better progress if we have one hon. Member at a time.
Mr. Wilson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, if that occurs, then the party opposite can expect the most bitter fight over the Finance Bill that it has ever had? Will he tell us. in view of the posters which we see all over the country, whether this is what the Government mean when they say that "the Conservatives care"?
Mr. Powell: I can with confidence leave my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to answer for his own Budget. The right hon. Gentleman said that these measures were taking it out of the patients, but it would be the patients who would suffer if the development of the National Health Service were held up.
Right hon. and hon. Members opposite have themselves had experience of this. They put a ceiling on the cost of the Service. I want the Service to continue to develop along well-thought-out lines. That is what will be to the benefit of the patients, and that will be the evidence that the Conservative Party cares.
Mr. Gaitskell: As the Minister's statement constitutes a major assault on the National Health Service, and as, in our view, it is desirable that it should be debated as a whole, I give notice that we shall immediately table a Motion of censure upon the Government.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS
  Immigration
  Mr. Osborne: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 17th February, I shall call attention to the need to limit immigration into this country, and move a Resolution.
  Capital Gains Tax
  Mr. Millan: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 17th February, I shall call attention to the need to introduce a capital gains tax, and move a Resolution.
  Advisory Council on Scientfic Policy (Report)
  Mr. Sydney Irving: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 17th February, I shall call attention to the Report of the Advisory Council on Scientific Policy, and move a Resolution.
BILL PRESENTED
  CROWN ESTATE
  Bill to make new provision in place of the Crown Lands Acts, 1829 to 1936, as to the powers exerciseable by the Crown Estate Commissioners for the management of the Crown Estate, to transfer to the management of the Minister of Works certain land of the Crown Estate in Regent's Park and to extend or clarify the powers of that Minister in Regent's Park, to amend the Forestry (Transfer of Woods) Act, 1923, as it affects the Crown Estate, to amend the law as to escheated land, and for purposes connected therewith, presented by the Chancellor of the Exchequer; supported by Mr. R. A. Butler, Mr. Maclay, Mr. Brooke, Mr. Soames, and Lord John Hope; read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 67.]

RENTS
3.52 p.m.
Mr. Eric Fletcher: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Rent Act, 1957; to provide stability of rents and security of tenure for tenants holding residential premises which by virtue of the same Act became released from rent control; to extend the jurisdiction of rent tribunals to unfurnished tenancies; to provide for the giving of information by landlords to tenants; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid.
It cannot be seriously disputed by anyone that the Rent Act, 1957, has caused very serious hardship to tens of thousands of tenants, not only in the London area, but in most of the large provincial cities. This is a problem which is not confined to London, although it may be most acute in London, as is shown by the very large number of signatories to the petitions which have been presented to the House every day of this week, and which are likely to continue to be presented on subsequent occasions. Those petitions are an indication of the mounting indignation at the operation of the Rent Act and are wholesale protests against the injustices and iniquities that so many tenants have suffered from extortionate landlords.
I need not elaborate the point that these grievances have resulted from the decontrol legislation of 1957. as a result of which about 400,000 dwellings were decontrolled by reason of their rateable value and, what has proved even more serious, nearly half a million dwellings have become decontrolled as a result of creeping decontrol, an effect which was not foreseen when the legislation of 1957 was introduced.
As a result of decontrol, whenever there has been a change of occupier—and the landlord has often brought about a change of occupier by very dubious mean—experience has shown that intolerable hardship has been caused to numerous tenants, particularly to old-age pensioners and others living on small fixed incomes.
There is no dispute about the evils which have resulted from the Rent Act. The Minister himself has admitted them. In his circular of 18th August last, he drew attention to the fact that some landlords were imposing terms on their tenants which he himself said were quite
996
unreasonable. He reminded the public that he had drawn the attention of the House to the fact that there were some swindlers among landlords in the market and he also drew attention to the fact that reports had come into his possession to show that new landlords were exploiting local shortages of accommodation by demanding rents grossly out of keeping with the age and condition of the property offered.
There is thus no dispute about the situation which calls for a remedy, and the object of the Bill is to suggest that the only way in which these evils can be cured is by amending legislation. The Minister has tried three other methods, all of which have failed.
In his circular, he appealed to the good will of landlords, asking them to be more reasonable and less harsh in their treatment of tenants. Experience has shown that that appeal has failed. He then suggested that people might escape the perils of the Rent Act by moving out of the Central London area. But experience has shown that in the districts on the periphery of London high rents are being demanded and obtained from tenants of whom many can ill afford to pay. In Ealing, landlords are charging four or five times the gross value of the property and in Putney they are charging seven times as much. Yesterday, we heard of a case in which a tenant was being charged thirteen times the gross value. Tenants, therefore, cannot escape from the perils of the Rent Act by moving from one district to another.
The Minister finally suggested that the evil could be cured by persuading local authorities to make use of compulsory purchase orders, which he said he would confirm. Experience has shown that that hope was completely fallacious, for a variety of reasons, but chiefly because of the delay and cumbrous machinery required for obtaining a compulsory purchase order and because of the difficulty of giving the tenant protection in the meantime, quite apart from the inordinate burden which such a process would have placed on local authorities.
I therefore suggest that the only way in which this admitted evil can be cured is by legislation to amend the Rent Act. I seek leave to introduce a Bill which would achieve seven objectives. First, it

997
would give tenants in three-year tenancies a right of renewal for a further period of years at existing rents. I make that suggestion because the Minister originally hoped that three years would be sufficient to provide a free market at stable prices, but that hope has proved entirely fallacious and the period of three years has been found to be inadequate.
Secondly, the Bill would provide an upper ceiling on the rent of all tenancies decontrolled under the 1957 Act. That ceiling would be a fixed multiple of the gross value.
Thirdly, the Bill would abolish creeping decontrol, which has proved thoroughly pernicious and far more extensive than was ever contemplated. The Minister's own report has shown that the percentage increase of rents charged to new tenants has been twice that charged to existing tenants, the result of creeping decontrol.
Fourthly, the Bill will extend the jurisdiction of rent tribunals so as to give them power to fix rents in the case of furnished lettings as well as unfurnished lettings, and also to fix conditions of the tenancy.
Fifthly, the Bill would prohibit landlords from charging premiums in respect of any tenancies controlled before 1957, or their renewal. I am not sure whether hon. Members realise that in many instances landlords are not content with making a quite savage increase of rent, but, as a condition of granting a new tenancy, also demand a large premium, sometimes running into hundreds of pounds.
Sixthly, the Bill would give every tenant the right to require the name and address of his landlord and to withhold his rent until that information was given. That suggestion is made because experience shows that some of the worst landlords tend to conceal their identity under a cloak of anonymity. This provision would have a very salutary effect and it would be only common justice if every tenant had the legal right to know the identity and address of his landlord.
Finally, the Bill that I have in mind would stop the growing practice whereby a number of landlords, as a condition of granting a new tenancy, are requiring tenants to undertake responsibility for all repairs, external as well as internal repairs, something which is contrary to
998
what the Minister has always contemplated was the object of the Rent Act.
I recognise that the Minister has given some assurance that he will introduce a Bill to deal with the limited matter. That promise was given before Christmas, but it has not yet been fulfilled, and I do not know when it will be. The reason why I ask leave to introduce my Bill is that I do not consider that this important matter and the injustice suffered by tenants under the Rent Act are matters that can be safely left to the Minister or to the Government.
This is a matter which affects all hon. Members, and the Bill would give us a wider opportunity of correcting the manifold abuses that now exist. I am sorry to say this, but I consider that this matter is so serious that it cannot be left in the hands of the present Minister. I regret that he has shown himself to be callous in his disregard of the undoubted hardship that is being suffered by tenants all over the country.
4.2 p.m.
Vice-Admiral John Hughes Hallett: The object of the Bill which the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) seeks leave to introduce is simply to reimpose control on all those houses that have been released by the operation of the 1957 Act. The hon. Gentleman described his proposed Bill as an amending Measure, but in many respects it would really amount to the repeal of that Act.
The persistence of the hon. Gentleman is remarkable. He reminds me of one of those ageing warriors who returns again and again to the theme of the old battles that we had in the last Parliament in order to refight them, but I think that we should spend very little more time on this Measure. I therefore rise to oppose his Motion for leave to introduce the Bill.
The 1957 Act, and the policy that lay behind it, has been accepted by a Majority of the electorate. It was endorsed at the last General Election.
Mrs. Harriet Slater: They had no alternative.
Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I would like to remind the House that the Rent Act had three main objects. First, we wanted landlords to keep their houses

999
available for letting instead of selling them whenever they could obtain vacant possession. which had become the invariable practice before the passage of the Act. In that, the Measure has largely succeeded, otherwise the present agitation about these high rents could hardly have arisen.
Secondly, we wanted to make the rents yield a sufficient return for proper repairs and maintenance. That, too, has been achieved to a large extent, though I agree that it is disturbing to read in the Rent Act inquiry that so many tenants are not insisting on repairs being carried out. There has been no lack of publicity about how to go about it, and it is rather extraordinary to find that three-quarters of the people who say that they have asked for repairs to be carried out have never bothered to fill in Form G. This is not a ground for changing the law. It is a case for local councillors, welfare visitors, and so on, to educate tenants both as to their rights and how to secure them.
Thirdly, and perhaps most important, it was hoped that by permitting a fair return we would encourage the private building of houses to let and the modernisation of old property. Judging from my constituency, a good deal of modernisation is in progress, and, in the main, to let. However, I concede that building for letting has not materialised. This is a considerable disappointment, because there is a large number of people who are able and even anxious to pay higher rents for new houses, but who, for one reason or another, cannot buy. If their needs could be fulfilled, they would move and make more room for people lower on the income scale.
The Opposition bear a heavy share of the responsibility for deterring the private developer. Who, after all, will invest money in property which is liable to be municipalised on terms verging on confiscation if, in a moment of folly, the electorate were to return another Socialist Government?
It is no part of my case to pretend that the housing situation is everywhere satisfactory, although it has improved out of all recognition since 1951. There are some bad landlords, many of them men who came into the business recently.
1000
That, too, I am afraid, is the inevitable aftermath of twenty years' stagnation on the market. The principal sanction against them is the threat of compulsory purchase, and the hon. Gentleman has no ground at the moment for saying that that has failed.
However, suppose that it did prove insufficient. That would be no sufficient ground for repealing the Rent Act, though it might be ground for harsher sanctions and for bringing these evil men within the arm of the criminal law. I would not shrink from that, but cases of exploitation are happily rare. None the less, I recognise that there is a certain amount of unrest among tenants who are in no way being exploited. That is because too many people still find it hard to accept the facts about rising prices and higher indices as applied to rental values. Twenty years of frozen rents have frozen their outlook.
The Times, last September, calculated that the increased indices alone would support an increase of rents of about 200 per cent. above the 1956 level. In fact, the evidence of the inquiry shows that increases have been substantially below this, particularly in the case of sitting tenants. In the highest case, that of a small house in the London area, the average was 145 per cent. Again, years of security of tenure have led many people to think that the mere fact of having lived for a long time in a particular area entitles them to go on living there, if necessary at someone else's expense, all the days of their lives, and thereafter for the house to pass to their children.
We on this side believe that people who cannot afford an expensive area should, when they retire, endeavour to move somewhere cheaper. That is particularly important for those who live in the London area. Nevertheless, there still remain a minority of tenants who can afford neither to pay nor to move. We recognise that, but that is not a ground for restoring rent control. The remedy lies in the 3 million council houses that exist, a number which will suffice, and more than suffice, if only they are allocated to the people who really need them. Those local authorities who refuse either to apply some sort of needs

1001
tests to new applicants or to apply differential rent schemes to existing tenants are simply not using subsidised housing for the purpose for which it was intended.
Socialists believe that housing should be provided as a social service. We on this side believe that wherever possible—and I stress wherever possible—it should be paid for privately. That is the real issue between us. Yet, to the extent that the social service concept is applied, surely the cost must, in fairness. be borne by the community as a whole, as it is in the case of council housing. Surely it is the height of dishonesty to seek to charge it up to one section of the community, namely, the owners of houses.
Then again, to the extent that housing is treated as a social service this is surely inconsistent with extreme security of tenure. If tenants are to be paid and subsidised out of public funds it is not unreasonable to require them to live where the houses are available. It was the disregard of these two principles that made rent control as the years went by, ever more unjust and ever more inefficient.
Mr. J. T. Price: Rubbish.
Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: As a temporary expedient to meet an emergency it may have been justifiable. As a permanent institution it would be intolerable. To reimpose it now would be an act of reactionary folly without parallel even in the history of the party opposite.
Mr. Michael Stewart: On a point of order. Before the House proceeds to a Division on this matter, could you, Mr. Speaker, inform us as to the position, in voting in such a Division, of hon. Members who are the owners of decontrolled property, or are shareholders in property-owning companies?
Mr. Speaker: That is a matter which is the responsibility of the individual Member. I cannot give guidance about it.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 12 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of Public Business):—
The House divided: Ayes 176, Noes 237.

Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

Tomney, Frank

Parker, John (Dagenham)

Short, Edward

Wainwright, Edwin

Parkin, B. T. (Paddington, N.)

Silverman, Julius (Aston)

Warbey, William

Pavitt, Laurence

Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

Watkins, Tudor

Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

Weitzman, David

Peart, Frederick

Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

Wells, John (Maidstone)

Pentland, Norman

Small, William

Wells, Percy (Faversham)

Popplewell, Ernest

Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

White, Mrs. Eirene

Prentice, R. E

Sorensen, R. W.

Whitlock, William

Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

Spriggs, Leslie

Wilkins, W. A.

Probert, Arthur

Steele, Thomas

Willey, Frederick

Proctor, W. T.

Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

Williams, D. J. (Neath)

Randall, Harry

Stones, William

Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

Rankin, John

Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)

Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)

Redhead, E. C.

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

Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

Reid, William

Swingler, Stephen

Woof, Robert

Reynolds, G. W.

Sylvester, George

Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Symonds, J. B.

Zilliacus, K.

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

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

Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Ross, William

Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)

Mr. Mellish and Mr Albert Evans.

Royle, Charles (Salford, West)

Thornton, Ernest

Division No. 35.]

AYES

[4.12 p.m.

Ainsley, William

Diamond, John

Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

Albu, Austen

Driberg, Tom

Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

Ede, Rt. Hon. Chuter

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

Awbery, Stan

Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

Bacon, Miss Alice

Edwards, Walter (Stepney)

Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)

Fernyhough, E.

Kenyon, Clifford

Beaney, Alan

Fitch, Alan

Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

Bence, Cyril (Dunbartonshire, E.)

Fletcher, Eric

Lawson, George

Blackburn, F.

Foot, Dingle

Ledger, Ron

Blyton, William

Forman, J. C.

Lee, Frederick (Newton)

Boardman, H.

Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

Lipton, Marcus

Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S.W.)

Ginsburg, David

Mahon, Dr. J. Dickson

Bowles, Frank

Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

McCann, John

Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

Gourlay, Harry

MacColl, James

Brockway, A. Fenner

Greenwood, Anthony

Mclnnes, James

Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

Grey, Charles

McKay, John (Wallsend)

Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Beiper)

Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

Mackie, John

Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

Griffiths, W. (Exchange)

McLeavy, Frank

Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

Gunter, Ray

Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

Callaghan, James

Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

Manuel, A. C.

Castle, Mrs. Barbara

Hamilton, William (West Fife)

Mapp, Charles

Chetwynd, George

Hannan, William

Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

Collick, Percy

Hart, Mrs. Judith

Marsh, Richard

Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

Hayman, F. H.

Mayhew, Christopher

Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

Healey, Denis

Millan, Bruce

Cronin, John

Herbison, Miss Margaret

Milne, Edward J.

Crosland, Anthony

Hilton, A. V.

Mitchison, G. R.

Crossman, R. H. S.

Holman, Percy

Monslow, Walter

Cullen, Mrs. Alice

Houghton, Douglas

Moody, A. S.

Darling, George

Howell, Charles A.

Morris, John

Davies, G. Elfed (Rhopdda, E.)

Hoy, James H.

Mort, D. L.

Davies, Harold (Leek)

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

Moyle, Arthur

Davies, Ifor (Gower)

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Neal, Harold

Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

Hunter, A. E.

Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)

Deer, George

Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

Oliver, G. H.

de Freitas, Geoffrey

Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

Oram, A. E.

Delargy, Hugh

Janner, Sir Barnett

Owen, Will

Dempsey, James

Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas

Paget, R. T.

NOES

Agnew, Sir Peter

Farr, John

Joseph, Sir Keith

Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)

Fell, Anthony

Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

Arbuthnot, John

Finlay, Graeme

Kerby, Capt. Henry

Ashton, Sir Hubert

Fisher, Nigel

Kerr, Sir Hamilton

Balniel, Lord

Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

Kershaw, Anthony

Barber, Anthony

Fraser, Hn. Hugh (Stafford & Stone)

Kimball, Marcus

Barlow, Sir John

Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

Kitson, Timothy

Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)

Freeth, Denzil

Lagden, Godfrey

Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

Gammans, Lady

Lambton, Viscount

Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos & Fhm)

Gardner, Edward

Lancaster, Col. C. G.

Berkeley, Humphry

Gibson-Watt, David

Langford-Holt, d.

Basins, Rt. Hon. Reginald (Toxteth)

Glover, Sir Douglas

Leaysy, J. A.

Bldgood, John C.

Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)

Lindsay, Martin

Biggs-Davison, John

Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)

Linstead, Sir Hugh

Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

Goodhart, Philip

Litchfield, Capt. John

Bishop, F. P.

Gower, Raymond

Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

Black, Sir Cyril

Gram, Rt. Hon. William

Longden, Gilbert

Bossom, Clive

Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R.

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

Bourne-Arton, A.

Green, Alan

MacArthur, tan

Box, Donald

Gresham Cooke, R.

McLaren, Martin

Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John

Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

Brewis, John

Gurden, Harold

Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute & N. Ayrs.)

Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

Hall, John (Wycombe)

McMaster, Stanley R.

Bryan, Paul

Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

Bullus, Wing Commander Eric

Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

Maddan, Martin

Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.)

Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

Maitland, Sir John

Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

Markham, Major Sir Frank

Carr, Compton (Barons Court)

Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macolesf'd)

Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest

Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

Marshall, Douglas

Channon, H. P. G.

Harvie Anderson, Miss

Marten, Nell

Chataway, Christopher

Hastings. S.

Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

Chichester-Clark, R.

Hay, John

Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)

Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

Mawby, Ray

Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

Heath, Rt. Hon. Edward

Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

Henderson, John (Cathcart)

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

Cleaver, Leonard

Henderson-Stewart, Sir James

Mills, Stratton

Cole, Norman

Hendry, Forbes

Montgomery, Fergus

Cooper, A. E.

Hicks Beach, Maj. W.

More, Jasper (Ludlow)

Corfield, F. V.

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

Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

Costain, A. P.

Hill, Mrs. Evellne (Wythenshawe)

Nabarro, Gerald

Coulson, J. M.

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

Nicholson, Sir Godfrey

Craddock, Sir Beresford

Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

Noble, Michael

Crosthwalte-Eyre, Col. O. E.

Hirst, Geoffrey

Nugent, Sir Richard

Crowder, F. P.

Hobson, John

Oakshott, Sir Hendrie

Cunningham, Knox

Hocking, Philip N.

Osborn, John (Hallam)

Curran, Charles

Holland, Philip

Osborne, Cyril (Louth)

Dance, James

Hollingworth, John

Page. John (Harrow, West)

d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John

Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)

Deedes, W. F.

Hopkins, Alan

Partridge, E.

de Ferranti, Basil

Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patricia

Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

Digby, Simon Wingfield

Howard, John (Southampton, Test)

Peel, John

Doughty, Charles

Hughes-Young, Michael

Percival, Ian

du Cann, Edward

Hutchison, Michael Clark

Peyton, John

Duncan, Sir James

Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

Pitt, Miss Edith

Eden, John

Jackson, John

Pott, Percivall

Elliot, Capt. W. (Carshalton)

James, David

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

Jennings, J. C.

Prior, J. M. L.

Errington, Sir Eric

Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho

Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.

Johnson, Erie (Blackley)

Profumo, Rt. Hon. John

Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

Proudfoot, Wilfred

Quinnell, Miss J.

Tapsell, Peter

Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek

Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

Wall, Patrick

Renton, David

Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)

Ward, Dame Irene

Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

Teeling, William

Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold

Ridsdale, Julian

Temple, John M.

Watts, James

Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

Wells, John (Maidstone)

Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

Whitelaw, William

Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)

Thomas, Peter (Conway)

Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

Scott-Hopkins, James

Thompson, Richard (Croydon S.)

Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

Seymour, Leslie

Thomton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

Sharples, Richard

They, Arthur (Bradford, W.)

Wise, A. R.

Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir Jocelyn

Tilney, John (Wavertree)

Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

Skeet, T. H. H.

Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

Woodhouse, C. M.

Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher

Tweedsmulr, Lady

Woodnutt, Mark

Spearman, Sir Alexander

van Straubenzee, W. R.

Woollam, John

Speir, Rupert

Vane, W. M. F.

Worsley, Marcus

Stanley, Hon. Richard

Vaughan-Morgan, Sir John

Stodart, J. A.

Vickers, Miss Joan

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett and

Studholme, Sir Henry

Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

Mr. Goodhew.

Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)

Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  HYDE PARK (UNDERGROUND PARKING) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  4.20 p.m.
  The Minister of Transport (Mr. Ernest Marples): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  I have to inform the House that I have it in Command from Her Majesty to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Hyde Park (Underground Parking) Bill, has consented to place her prerogative and interests so far as they are affected by the Bill at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
  Before I come on to the Bill itself and the question of off-street car parking, I should like to say that one of the great features of modern times has been the immense growth of traffic especially in the urban areas. This impact has been felt mostly. I think, in big cities such as Birmingham, where the local authority is the traffic authority and where they have their inner ring road, and so on, and in London, where I myself have special responsibilities. Of course, there are many ways of trying to ease the traffic congestion we now suffer from, and I should like to give a few illustrations of what is happening in London before I come to the question of the provision of off-street car parking.
  In London, the new Road Traffic Act has made much easier the job of tackling the London traffic and I express again my appreciation to the Opposition for the part which they played in assisting with that Measure. I hope that they will give the same assistance with this Measure. The London Traffic Management Unit, which has now been established, has a number of expert traffic engineers, and the methods by which we are tackling the problem are numerous. There are many one-way streets. I think that the House will have had experience of Park Lane and the East Carriageway and what a difference it has made to London traffic. In London we are embarking on one-way traffic streams. The largest will commence at Tottenham Court and Gower Street on 16th
  1008
  May. I wish that it could have been before, but it is on that date because of the difficulty about trolley buses at the north end of Tottenham Court Road. These are only some of a number of schemes which are coming in.
  We are trying to eliminate right-hand turns in two-way streets. Any hon. Member who drives a car will know the difficulty of going east along the Bayswater Road and turning into Hyde Park. That has been a great cause of traffic congestion. There, the right-hand turn will be eliminated and many other right-hand turns will be eliminated—in the Marylebone Road, and so on.
  Another thing that we are trying is urban clearways. One will be to London Airport. I am certain that when we mark the road to the airport—and during the peak hours we shall remove standing vehicles—we shall get a far greater volume of traffic moving to and from the west and London. Another study which the new Traffic Management Unit is making is to try to get some arteries, as it were, in the inner part of London, within a two-mile radius of Aldwych. We have already earmarked 50 miles of roads which, we hope, will be the main arteries and we shall try to ease the traffic flow on those roads.
  For example on the east-west route namely, Sussex Gardens to Euston Road and Bayswater Road to High Holborn and five north-south routes—Park Lane, Edgware Road, Baker Street, Gloucester Place, Charing Cross Road, Tottenham Court Road, Hampstead Road, Kings-way, Eversholt Street, Houndsditch, the Minories, Middlesex Street and Russell Street.
  I believe that main arteries should be kept free for moving traffic. In addition, we are to earmark a further 40 miles of streets which will be a link between the inner and the outer area, especially during peak periods. Then there are such things as new works like the Hammersmith flyover where, every time I pass I see that great progress has been made, and the Hyde Park scheme; and we are to start the Chiswick-Langley elevated road, which will be the motorway out to the West. When it is constructed over parts of the Great West Road I am certain that it will make a great deal of difference for people travelling to and from London by air.

  1009
  In London itself, we have, I am glad to say, an origin and destination survey. We have had discussions with the London County Council which have been both amicable and agreeable. A team of consultants has been appointed which will have the benefit of the experience of some of the leading United States traffic engineers and, also, hon. Members will notice, in the replanning of urban areas, the great emphasis now being placed on segregating the pedestrian from the motor car. There are all these things and many more, but they do not alter what must be the order of priorities for roads in our city centres.
  I maintain that the first priority on a street in the centre of a city should be for moving traffic. Then, some streets are wider than others and the flow is determined by the inter-sections and not necessarily the width of the street. Therefore, where we have spare space it should be used in one of two ways, for the loading and unloading necessary for the commercial life in the city and secondly, it should be used for temporary parking by those people who wish to come to the city to transact business. I have always maintained that spare space should be used for eight temporary parkers for one hour a day each, rather than for one man for eight hours a day.
  When one comes to permanent parking I am bound to say that we must provide off-street parking for the motorist. Some people prefer to live in the centre of a city and park their cars, and provision must be made for them. There are those who will want to come to the city and leave their car for most of the day, or for half a day. They should be parked off the street and pay an economic price for parking. I wish to say a word about temporary parking and parking meters—
  Mr. John Wells: Before my right hon. Friend leaves the matter of arterial ways—he said a great deal about arteries to the West—can he say something specific about the Old Kent Road being the gateway to the Continent?
  Mr. R. J. Mellish: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As I understand it, this is a debate on the Second Reading debate of the Hyde Park (Underground Parking) Bill. I am quite
  1010
  willing that the discussion should be wide, but if we are to have questions about travel facilities through the whole of London and the outlying roads we should like to know whether that is in order.
  Mr. Speaker: I am obliged. I was wondering about it, too. I gather that the Bill seeks powers to make a cavern under Hyde Park which will be filled with vehicles coming on the congested arteries into our City. I suppose that in so far as the need for accommodation under the Park is related to those roads, it is proper to refer to them otherwise, I should have thought that it was not.
  Mr. Marples: I only used that, Mr. Speaker, by way of illustration; to say that whatever else we did by way of traffic engineering it would not rid us of the necessity to provide off-street parking in the centre of London and to use what space was in the streets for temporary parking. I was seeking to come to the Government's parking policy so as to justify the Bill—
  Mr. A. C. Manuel: On that point—and I mentioned this in a previous debate—is the Minister saying that on some of the main urban roads out of the city he is thinking of a complete ban, in the interests of safety?
  Mr. Marples: We are making a survey of the principal arterial roads to the centre of London so that we can see that these roads, especially during peak hours, are kept free from stationary vehicles. That would mean that a large number of motorists would be able to move in and out during those periods. The first experiment is an urban clearway from Knightsbridge to London Airport.
  As you yourself, Mr. Speaker, will know from your constituency, when we provide meters it is more than ever necessary to provide off-street parking. In the centre of London—because this car park under Hyde Park deals mostly with the Mayfair end of the West End of London—we have had a great growth of meters. We have found that system to be the best way of regulating the traffic and keeping it moving, and traffic wardens and the ticket system have made it even more effective. In the early days there was a great deal

  1011
  of opposition to parking meters, but with each successive scheme the apposition has been less.
  The growth of meters in London has been very rapid. In 1958, there was one scheme for 650 meters; in 1959, one scheme for 480 meters; in 1960, four schemes for 3,530 meters, and already, in 1961, there are six schemes in the centre of London for 3,200 meters, and two further schemes far 1,580 meters at Woolwich and Croydon. Local authorities are considering further schemes—
  Mr. G. R. Mitchison: Before we get to the Bill, can the Minister tell us whether he has considered the use of parking meters for advertisement purposes? It might be useful.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): That would be far beyond the scope of the Bill.
  Mr. Marples: Observing your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I shall probably discuss this with the hon. and learned Member outside the House, where it will be in order—
  Mr. William Baxter: What is the net revenue from the parking meters, and what profit do we make?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not think that that is within the scope of the Bill.
  Mr. Marples: Again, therefore, I shall not be able to give an answer.
  It is quite clear that it is the policy of the Government to have these parking meters, and it is my earnest desire to give all possible help to local authorities that wish to have meters, discs, or whatever system they choose. I hope shortly to discuss more energetic action with the Metropolitan Boroughs Standing Joint Committee and the Association of Municipal Corporations, which have indicated their willingness to help.
  We have now to consider the question of off-street parking, because if we are to have these meters in the centre of London it is only fair to the motorist to give him a place to which he can take his car. That was one reason why the Government were very anxious to include this Bill in this Session's legislation; so that the work could start at
  1012
  Hyde Park—if the House approves the Bill—while the present road works there are continuing. I think that it would be folly to let those present road works reach completion and then, six months later, tear them up, and start digging a hole in the centre of Hyde Park.
  In the centre of London, the local authorities and private enterprise are between them getting on well with the job of providing off-street parking. In the Cities of London and Westminster, and in the boroughs of St. Marylebone, Holborn, St. Pancras and Finsbury, 12,000 car spaces have either been provided or are being planned in this way. The City of London has plans to provide, either by itself or in combination with private developers, a total of 7,000 car spaces, most of which will be ready within five years.
  In the Mayfair area, the Westminster City Council is building a garage at Audley Square-Waverton Street, which will take 360 cars, and has plans for garages at Savile Row and Whitcombe Street to accommodate another 600 cars. Private enterprise has completed a garage at Curzon Street House for 100 vehicles, and one is projected in Bourdon Street for another 200 cars.
  Although the Government have firmly decided against giving aid from central funds for the provision of off-street parking, we do wish to help in any way we can, apart from a direct monetary grant. In the Road Traffic and Roads Improvement Act we included provisions to make it easier for local authorities to provide garages, and also to make possible maximum development by allowing, for instance, shops to be combined with garages.
  I remember that during the Committee stage of that Measure, hon. Members on both sides wondered whether advantage would be taken of that provision. I am very glad to say that quite a number of local authorities have indicated to me that this very proposal will help them to put car parks where, normally, they would not have been able to put them—because it would have been uneconomic—by combining them with shops, and so on.
  Mayfair, of course, is an extremely difficult place in which to provide off-street parking, because of the expensiveness of sites. That is where Hyde Park

  1013
  comes in as really a godsend to the Government. The site is there, and we believe that the Bill will be very valuable, as it will make provision for an underground garage to be built in the northeast corner of the Park. For what I hoped would prove to be for the convenience of the House, I have had a map prepared. I thought that that would make it easier for hon. Members to follow the proposals in the Bill than would a long description telling them exactly where the garage would be.
  This garage would also make it easier, not only for people coming to the centre of London and for people living there, but for the hotels in Park Lane and Oxford Street. There, a great deal of congestion is caused by chauffeur-driven cars hanging about the entrances for hours on end. By the Bill, they will be able to get accommodation in this garage, and I hope that that will assist matters considerably.
  Underground garages beneath the Royal Parks were advocated in 1951 by the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee, but I think that it is only with the advent of meters that such garages have become commercially viable. I have considered this scheme in great detail with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Works and his staff, to whom I am very grateful for their cooperation, and for the time and energy that they have devoted to the scheme. Both my right hon. Friend and I are satisfied that an acceptable scheme can be devised without unduly harming the Park's amenities. We are also satisfied that it will fit in with the road system—there is no point in erecting a garage that is too big, and carries so many cars that it is impossible for them to filter into and out of the adjoining roads.
  This is purely an enabling Bill. It is needed because there are long-standing statutory restrictions on the power of the Crown to dispose of land in the Royal Parks, whether by lease or otherwise. The Bill does not authorise specific work; it simply enables me, as the Minister of Transport, to let land within an authorised area for an underground garage, for a filling station and for ordinary ancillary garage activities—subject to a number of important restrictions. When referring to ancillary services I have in mind very minor repairs and such things as the washing
  1014
  of cars, but nothing in the nature of major repairs will be allowed. Petrol pumps will be included.
  There is no limit on the duration of the powers, but the maximum lease permitted by the Bill is ninety-nine years, and at the expiration of any lease granted the Minister of Transport will consult the Minister of Works about future action. The authorised area for the scheme is 36 acres—
  Mr. Mitchison: Before the right hon. Gentleman comes to that, I hope that he will say something about the rent. Letting implies a rent, and I hope that he will tell us by whom the rent will be payable, the conditions, and so on. We on this side are very interested in the financial aspect.
  Mr. Marples: I certainly will, and if, when the hon. and learned Member makes his speech, he will say that he wishes for further elucidation, I shall take careful note of what he says and shall answer in the winding-up speech at the end of the debate.
  The authorised area is 36 acres. This provides for accesses, underground roads, emergency exits and all that sort of thing. It gives the developer some room for manœuvre in the silting and design of the garage itself. The area developed as a garage would be considerably smaller, probably about six acres, with a capacity for 1,000 or 1,100 cars. The site chosen was based upon the needs for an open space free of trees, for the best situation for access from neighbouring roads and causing minimum disturbance to amenity 'in the Park and also to be as close as possible to the source of custom.
  The location of the accesses is defined on the map which has been published as a White Paper. The accesses have been agreed with the Ministry of Works after full consultation with London County Council and the police. The location of the petrol station is shown at the foot of the ramp at the eastern end. The ramped vehicle access and probably one pedestrian exit are outside the park fence near the eastern road and other eastern exits will probably be underground, with the Park Lane system.
  At the end of Park Lane many pedestrians cross when the lights are green for pedestrians and red for motor traffic,

  1015
  but it is certainly a hazardous business for the pedestrians. Ultimately, there will be pedestrian subways linked with this underground garage in Hyde Park.
  The House will notice that the filling station is to be at the bottom of the eastern ramp. It will be a 12 ft. ramp which will not be seen, nor is it unsightly. The design and signs will be agreed with the Ministry of Works and subject to the normal planning procedure of London County Council. There will be a small number of ventilation shafts among the trees. These may be concealed in park shelters and their placing will be agreed with the Minister of Works. There will be certain emergency exits in the park and also smoke exits in the form of pavement lights.
  Some trees will be affected, but the number is not likely to exceed 15. The precise details will depend on the detailed layout. The Minister of Works, under the Bill, will retain absolute control over interference with trees. There will be the absolute minimum of interference with the amenities and we shall ensure that it is kept to the minimum. Vehicle accesses on the eastern and north side of the park fence will have to be set back very slightly to allow for vehicle and pedestrian access from outside the park fence. The civil engineering technique of what is known as "cut and cover" will be used.
  In other words, the whole of the cut will be in the centre of Hyde Park and will be covered afterwards and amenity interests will be taken very great care of. This is much cheaper than the method of normal tunnelling and it will mean that the Parade Ground, used for ceremonial purposes, will be restored completely. The accesses to the garage and some emergency exits will have ventilation shafts and smoke vents flush with the surface.
  In all this work I intend to work in closest collaboration with the Minister of Works. I shall consult him in particular on the proposed terms of whatever lease is granted and on the materials used in the work. The Bill allows me to make regulations to control public order subject to development. Public control on the Park surface will continue to be exercised by the Minister of Works
  1016
  under his Royal Parks regulations and the developer of the garage will have to submit proposals to London County Council for planning approval. He will also be bound by all normal fire control and safety requirements.
  If and when Parliament approves the Bill, I propose to grant a lease on a competitive basis for the purpose of building and operating the garage The Bill would permit me to grant such a lease either to a local authority or to a private developer. Discussions have already taken place with Westminster City Council, but at the moment it seems unlikely that the Council would be interested in taking a head lease. It therefore seems most likely that private enterprise will be entrusted with this task.
  A number of firms have already shown interest and, as I said in reply to a Question on 30th November, such firms have been given some information on the conditions likely to apply. This, of course, has been done entirely without commitment.
  Mr. Mellish: What about London County Council?
  Mr. Marples: The local authority concerned is Westminster City Council and I approached that authority. It would be normal for Westminster City Council, as it is doing all the developments in Waverton Street. and so on, to be approached.
  Mr. Mitchison: Is there any precedent for constructing an underground car park?
  Mr. Marples: There is a precedent in Finsbury Square, in the City. That is a private enterprise car park.
  Mr. Mitchison: For how many cars?
  Mr. Marples: I should have to have notice of that question. I do not know at the moment, as I have not been there recently.
  The Bill places a maximum limit of ninety-nine years on any lease. The actual length of the lease granted will be one of the matters dealt with in the competitive tender. As to the rent, the Government would be prepared, if necessary, to agree initially to a nominal rent so that the heavy capital cost might be recovered. Nevertheless, we shall

  1017
  bear in mind that the operation of a garage at this key site may well prove lucrative. In that event, we shall, naturally, take steps to see that the Government participate in the profits.
  No Government expenditure will be involved in the building and operation of the garage. The whole cost will fall on the developer. If Parliament approves the grant of the powers, it will be necessary to invite the developers to submit tenders on terms and conditions notified to them. The successful tenderer will have to prepare detailed construction plans and there is some statutory undertaker's apparatus in the subsoil which will have to be moved. We shall press forward with all stages of this work as fast as possible.
  I cannot say when work on building the garage will begin, but it will be started while the present road works are continuing. Therefore, I think that this gives encouragement to the private motorist in the centre of London who will see that we have his interests at heart and are making a very determined and unconventional attempt to meet his requirements. In America, I saw a number of underground car parks, in Chicago and Los Angeles. I have written to those places for details of financial terms and conditions and the experience they have had. That information I intend to scrutinise very carefully when it arrives.
  Mr. Albert Evans: Will the House have an opportunity of seeing the terms of the tenders and the suggested nominal rent and the later financial provisions which are to enable the State to take back something of the profit which accrues?
  Mr. Marples: I do not know about the tenders, but any conditions I send out I am willing for the House to see. I am quite prepared to allow the House to know the basis, but, if a confidential tender is put in, it would be difficult to disclose details of one without disclosing details of another.
  Mr. A. Evans: Will the right hon. Gentleman put in the Library the terms of the tender and the financial details?
  Mr. Marples: I am quite prepared to do that with the terms and conditions under which I ask people to tender.
  Sir Wavell Wakefield: Can my right hon. Friend explain whether there will be one tender for the actual construction and another for the operation of the garage? I understood him to say that it is to be a tender for both purposes and not separate tenders.
  Mr. Marples: The actual terms have not been decided on and, as I have said, I shall put the details in the Library so that the House will be fully informed. It may well be that we shall have people to construct and operate the garage. I think that would be more desirable than to get someone to construct it and someone else to run it. We do not want to have to deal with more than one developer or a consortium.
  Mr. W. Baxter: Will the right hon. Gentleman have any control over the charges to be levied?
  Mr. Marples: No. They will be exactly the same as in some of the other garages built in the centre of London. It will be the economic price and it will not be a dictated price. It will probably be similar to that charged at Selfridge's and it will have to bear some relation to the cost. But it must be a very fair deal from the Government's point of view, because ultimately, when the heavy capital cost has been recovered, this will be a key site and will be lucrative. It must be a fair division between the Government and private enterprise.
  For a long time the motoring organisations have been pressing the Government to take action in the provision of off-street car parking. I think that it is the job of local authorities and private enterprise to provide that off-street car parking at economic prices, and it is the Government's job especially to help the local authority in acquiring suitable sites, because in many cases private enterprise itself cannot find the sites.
  It is, therefore, with confidence that I commend the Bill to the House, and I hope that it will be given an unopposed Second Reading.
  4.51 p.m.
  Mr. G. R. Mitchison: The Minister began with a long exposition of various matters, the undoubted relevance of which I found a little difficult to appreciate. I think that we all agree

  1019
  with him that there is a need for more car-parking facilities in London; I cannot imagine anybody denying it. But what is he doing? He is giving away what belongs not to him but to the Crown and is managed by the Minister of Works, and he is giving it away on terms which remain singularly obscure. The part of his speech which I wanted to hear—it came at the very end—was very vague indeed; it related to the terms and conditions under which this provision was to be made.
  The Nugent Report, Cmnd, 812, some time ago emphasised the need for these very facilities. This is no new discovery by the right hon. Gentleman or by any of the numerous committees which are supposed to be looking after London traffic. If London traffic could be managed by committees, I am sure that it would be all right now. In this respect it is rather like the Highlands.
  The Nugent Report agrees that,
  "The obstruction of traffic by indiscriminately parked cars should be dealt with by parking meter schemes"—
  to which the right hon. Gentleman referred—
  "strict enforcement of No-Waiting Regulations and the provision of multi-storey garages to meet the demand of the essential long-term parker".
  He is a new man to me. He must be a relative of the hypothetical tenant about whom we are always hearing in rating cases. Apparently we have to consider "the essential long-term parker".
  The plan has grown a lot. About a year ago, on 3rd February, 1960, there were some Questions about it. The hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Sir W. Wakefield) referred—it seems to be quite well known to everybody—to the delays in proceeding with underground car parks at Cavendish Square—I do not know what has happened there—and the north-east corner of Hyde Park.
  The map indicates quite clearly not merely the north-east corner of Hyde Park, which I think is Speakers' Corner, but quite a large area around the whole side of Hyde Park—36 acres, of which six acres are to be occupied by the actual garage space. I do not know what would have happened if they had used 36 acres. I think that the risk about this garage is that it might prove
  1020
  to be rather too large. It is certainly required, and no doubt the right hon. Gentleman has information as to the local requirements to justify this pretty extensive Measure, but that even those who are not traffic experts will agree that one very large car park underground is not quite as good as a number of smaller car parks spread about in different places.
  What the Nugent Committee had in mind, and what I think was intended for some time, were multi-storey car parks. I will not say that multi-storey car parks are necessarily right, but it is interesting 'to notice that multi-storey car parks are being used in a great many provincial areas. Only the other day an exceedingly attractive photograph appeared in a newspaper of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport opening a multi-storey car park. This was at Bedford. By whom was it run? It was run by the Bedford municipality, and it was a very large car park indeed. I take it that the municipality, whatever it can do, is able to do as much underground as it does over-ground, and I was rather disappointed to hear that, although the right hon. Gentleman had had discussions with Westminster City Council, the Government are so intent on abolishing the L.C.C. that he did not even think it worthwhile to talk to the L.C.C. about the possibility of the L.C.C. doing the job.
  I know of an even simpler solution than that. We are dealing with Crown property. It has been Crown property for a very long time. It is proposed to use it for what is claimed to be a public purpose. It is proposed to use it for the relief of London traffic congestion. For that purpose a great deal of public money is necessarily and rightly spent at present. For instance, roads are widened, traffic wardens are provided and the whole apparatus and responsibility of the public control of transport is applied at the public expense to meet what is, after all, a public need.
  The first point which would have occurred to me, if I had had to approach it, would have been that this is Crown land which is to be used for a public purpose and that it ought to be run by some public body. I fail to see the need for handing it out to private enterprise,

  1021
  unless it is purely ideological prejudice, as so often is the case on the Conservative benches. I fail to see why the right hon. Gentleman should commit himself for any other reasons than purely ideological prejudice to saying in this case that economic charges must be paid.
  About a year ago the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke), when talking about this subject, said,
  "the parking difficulties in London and our great cities will never be solved until some multi-storey garages are erected in the centres of those cities".
  Goodness knows which costs most—a multi-storey garage on top of Hyde Park or an underground garage below it. I do not know, I doubt whether there is an immense difference, but I concede at once that the right hon. Gentleman has a long experience in these matters and great personal skill in them. I accept any comment which he makes on those lines.
  Mr. R. Gresham Cooke: The hon. and learned Member is not seriously suggesting that we should put a multi-storey garage in the middle of our beautiful Hyde Park?
  Mr. Mitchison: I am not as cracked as that. I was referring to a multi-storey garage because of what followed, and I am saying that I am not sure whether the capital cost would be very different. I was a little frightened by seeing the right hon. Gentleman express some doubt or dissent, and I thought that before I crossed swords with him on such a technical question I ought to mention expert knowledge. I come to what the hon. Member himself said, and I cannot think that there is much wrong with it:
  "Further, is my right hon. Friend aware that the economic cost of such garages works out at about 12s. 6d. per day per motor car and that on that basis they will never become popular."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd February, 1960; Vol. 616, c. 982.]
  That is very stiff. As an example of charges at other places where people have to leave their cars, I remind the House that at London Airport the charge is 4s. a day. The charge at this garage may well be formidable, more than 12s. 6d. a day. The suggestion of the hon. Gentleman was that multi-storey garages should rank for grant, because
  1022
  otherwise they would be too expensive. In this case there is to be no grant. It is to be let out to private enterprise. The charges are to be on an economic basis.
  We heard a little further elucidation of that, because we were told that it was expected that the project would be very lucrative. If it is very lucrative, which is even fruitier than an economic basis, goodness knows what the charges will be. We are invited to arrange for building a garage which will take 1,000 or 1,100 cars—at 12s. 6d. a day, more than 12s. 6d. a day, or how much a day? I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will tell us what the charges are expected to be. He was under a duty to the public to make some estimate of them. I was surprised that we did not hear a word about charges in his speech. That is what we are concerned with.
  I do not know how well off the gentleman whom the right hon. Gentleman described as "the essential long-term parker" is, but I do not think that the E.L.P., as I shall call him, exists in such numbers and with so many large purses as to be able to pay the full cost of a project like this. If the right hon. Gentleman can justify the Bill at all, it must be on the basis that he is meeting a public need and causing to be carried out what is a public duty. In those terms, nothing but a somewhat barren ideology could tie him quite so tightly to forcing the man driven to an underground park by the pressure of traffic in London to pay, not merely the economic cost of his parking, but a charge which is anticipated will yield lucrative results to someone else.
  In those circumstances, much the simplest thing to do would have been to let a public authority do the whole project. I am not certain that either the Westminster City Council or the London County Council is necessarily the right body. However, there are two right hon. Gentlemen sitting on the Treasury Bench. They both have offices. One of them manages Hyde Park and the other manages transport. Could not they manage to run a garage between them, instead of providing a lucrative proposition for somebody else, out of the needs of London traffic and the poor E.L.P., who will have to pay for it all?
  Mr. Grant-Ferris: As it is so important to save money on all the different things on which we have to save money, would it not be better to let private enterprise have a good shot first?
  Mr. Mitchison: I am not necessarily an E.L.P. I leave my car in the Temple. The hon. Gentleman's observation does not suggest that he appreciates the right way to look at a public duty. The Minister of Transport is supposed to keep the traffic moving. It is not as easy as it looks nowadays. He is doing all this as part of his public duty as the Minister of Transport. He cannot justify it in any other way. Why present some developer with a lucrative proposition at the expense of the poor E.L.P.? That chap is quite a character, and I do not see why all this money should be taken off him for this purpose.
  That is my main criticism, but I want to follow it up a little further. This is a very odd Bill. When a Minister is to receive a lot of money, there is usually a Clause in the Bill saying what he is to do with it. I do not suggest that the right hon. Gentleman will pocket it, but it is usual to make some provision for it. Provision is very carefully made in other cases. Not only will the right hon. Gentleman receive some rent, but if he had been a little less narrow-minded about this his Ministry or another public authority could have done quite well out of selling petrol. Apparently it is wrong for public bodies to sell petrol in connection with transport. They can make arrangements to provide underground parking space. They can even arrange for a lease on suitable terms, but on no account must they sell petrol. I have never understood why. It appeared in the 1960 Act, which provided that local authorities could do all sorts of things about parking, but in one obscure subsection it was provided that on no account must they sell petrol. Therefore, somebody else will make all the profits out of this attempt to meet the public need in London, certainly the profits resulting from the sale of petrol.
  Mr. Norman Cole: Unless I have completely misunderstood the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument, he has contradicted himself at least once in the last ten minutes. At one stage he said that the E.L.P., as he put it, could not pay
  1024
  12s. 6d. a day and he guessed that there would be a loss on the garage. The next moment he suggested that my right hon. Friend should take it on because there was a lucrative profit to be made out of it.
  Mr. Mitchison: It is all quite consistent. I would never lightly say that I had been consistent, but in this instance I am perfectly consistent. It is not for me to say that the E.L.P. will get off with 12s. 6d. a day. That charge was based on the economic cost of something different. He may very well have to pay much more. Like the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Cole), I am innocent in these matters. I wait to be told by the responsible Department which is seeking to meet a public need how much it is to charge the public for using the facilities it provides. I did not get the information from the Minister. I hope that we shall learn it before the day is over. I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman now if he cares to tell us what the charge will be. He does not seem interested in doing that, but it is very much to the point.
  It would have been very much better if either the Minister of Transport or the Minister of Works—or, as they are as closely associated as Tweedledum and Tweedledee, the two of them together—could have managed between them to run the garage for the public benefit and even to sell petrol. Ideology forbids a public body to sell petrol. I suppose that is the right hon. Gentleman's reason for it.
  I hope that I am making myself clear. When the Minister is called upon to act for a public purpose and to meet a public need, it is wrong that he should take measures which seem likely to result in the public paying a great deal of money for the benefit, at any rate partly, of the gentleman referred to as "the developer", that is to say, the contractor. I wonder if Mr. Clore is in on this. He has a hotel round the corner. I should not like to ask any questions on this topic. They might embarrass the right hon. Gentleman. It would have been very much better if the Minister had undertaken the project himself.
  This is a case in which the House should be told rather more than it sometimes is on Government contracts. We should know the rent and conditions.

  1025
  The right hon. Gentleman had an uneasy conscience about this. He said that it would be lucrative. At one stage he said it would be very lucrative and that the Government would ensure that they got their share back out of it. We should especially like to know what those provisions are. This is a case in which the Government might reasonably say to the contractor, "We shall have the profits once you have made a reasonable return on a percentage basis on whatever you spend on doing the job for us". I am assuming for the purpose of my argument that we shall be led—I was about to say "up the garden path", but instead I will say into this misty cavern by the route which the right hon. Gentleman has suggested and that any form of public ownership is out of the question and any form of public management only doubtfully in it.
  We shall not divide against the Bill. This is a real public need. Our objections to it are very much more the financial ones in relation to the way in which it is to be done and in relation to the result of the method on those who use the space. If the Government prune £50 million to £100 million off the National Health Service, we shall not let them off lightly when there is a question between them and some developer about who is to get the results of this very lucrative enterprise. Those results, if they are to be there at all, should go to the public, since what the Minister is doing is a public duty. This is very much a case where the activities of the developer or the contractor, or whatever we call him, should be watched very closely indeed in the public interest.
  5.12 p.m.
  Mr. W. F. Deedes: The hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) is worried about how the deal should be done. I profess that my anxiety is less than his but, it starts a little earlier in the story, I am worried about the deed that is to be done.
  The Bill, which my right hon. Friend has outlined, offers an exciting and imaginative project. It is intended, as my right hon. Friend said, as an earnest of the Government's intention to deal with the off-street parking problem in Central London, and no one would question the need to do that. It is obviously
  1026
  a Measure that is a source of triumph to the Government. We know that, because it had an honourable but surprising place in the Gracious Speech, and I am fortified by knowing that this is a subject about which my right hon. Friend knows a great deal. Technically he knows what he is about. I acknowledge that before I go on to strike perhaps a more captious note. In the circumstances, it seems rather unkind, as well as vain, to strike any kind of note at all, except a favourable one, but I must admit that there are aspects of this Measure which leave me less than enraptured. Perhaps that is because I have no engineering blood in my veins. Perhaps it is because, like the hon. and learned Member for Kettering, I either do not run a car in London or, if I do, I have the yard outside in which to park. This is an interest which every hon. Member must declare.
  At the risk involved for all who stand between the motorist and what he wants, I want to examine one or two points in the Bill rather critically. First, may I say a word, not on behalf of the great majority of car packers, but on behalf of the minority of park lovers. That they are places of value in London hardly needs emphasis, particularly the trio formed by Hyde Park, Green Park and St. James's Park, which are acknowledged to be without peer in Europe. It behoves all of us to watch very carefully any act of anyone in association with the parks. Nothing which detracts from their value or beauty, even temporarily, is to be lightly regarded.
  My right hon. Friend has spoken of the minimum of disturbance. That remark implies that there will be some disturbance. He has spoken of ventilation shafts, which I take it will be permanent, of the emergency exit, which we hope will be permanent, and of the loss of fifteen trees. This is not the first, and it will not be the last, demand made upon Hyde Park. It is not the first, as the earthworks at Hyde Park Corner now make very clear.
  Here it is perhaps apt to quote something that the then Minister of Transport said in the House three years ago, on 11th December, 1957, on the Park Lane Improvement Bill:
  "Turning to the general amenities, I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend the

  1027
  Minister of Works, who has been most helpful in all this, and who himself hopes, I think, that his new Hyde Park will be rather more private and cut off from traffic, and of rather greater amenity than the present one."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th December, 1957; Vol. 579, c. 1291.]
  The Minister of Works in question was about to lose four acres and sixty trees, and he thought that he would still have a greater amenity than the present one. It is clear, and my right hon. Friend has confirmed this, that we are now in for a really unbroken chain of operations. The Park Lane scheme, which we all commend for what it will be, has been running for some time, and I think will run on for quite a bit. One hears that this scheme is to be linked to it so there will be more or less an unbroken course of operations. I should like to hear before the end of the debate how long this project is likely to take. In Hyde Park it seems always jam yesterday and jam tomorrow, but it is very seldom that we get a clear view of today. The lines of Housman come into my mind:
  "And since to look at things in bloom
  Fifty springs are little room …"
  I wonder how soon it will be before we are able to see spring in Hyde Park without all the earthworks in between.
  This proposal cannot be considered entirely in isolation. It is not only the future prospects of this park which disquiet me. Presumably this design is an exemplar of what is possible elsewhere, and I think one has a right to wonder whether, if it is within the rules of order to inquire, what may be the sequel to be expected from other local authorities. Is this cut and cover idea for open spaces to be regarded as an example which other local authorities should follow?
  I have no doubt that, particularly under the eye of my right hon. Friend, this scheme at Hyde Park will be most skilfully done and the damage kept to a minimum. It will not be a kind of opencast mining operation. But if other local authorities get bitten by this idea, the Minister of Transport will not always be in a position to stand over them. What will be the consequences in other places to trees, open spaces, and amenities? That is something which we ought to consider before we let this Bill go.
  I feel also that it is not out of place to speak about our endeavours to make
  1028
  any serious scientific approach to the traffic problems of London. My right hon. Friend may eventually shout me down about this, but I suggest that in terms of scientific research we know less about the traffic in London than we know about bird migration, and that is supported by authorities, whom I have heard quite lately, and one or two of whom, I am glad to say, advised my right hon. Friend. We are still far behind other places which have as many or more cars in their streets. Much more close research and expensive research has to be done if we are really to discover which car is going in which direction, why the owner is in the car, why he must be there and where he is going to finish up. That must be done before we can decide where our parking places, among other things, are sited.
  I am suspicious of an operation like this which is being based on a less than an adequate survey of the general picture. Presumably—my right hon. Friend added a word of assurance here—we know all about flows of traffic likely to move from other parts of London towards this part and out of it. I accept that this flow to and from this haven will be all that it should be.
  But palpably this plan is based not so much on research as on the convenience of Hyde Park being where it is and a place where one can cut and cover without massacring our arboriculture. We have hitherto never touched more than the fringe of this problem of the car and its future in the centre of our big cities. The question to me is, as Humpty Dumpty said, "Who is to be the Master?". That is all. The longer the question is undecided, the more difficult the answer will be. I have a feeling that the solution is to be found by simple economics. What is the economic price which ought to be charged for parking in the centre of a big city all day? There is a formula to be found here, but I do not think it will be found in time to accompany this Hyde Park affair. What charges should be imposed to strike a right balance? That is to say, what charges will give the man who has good reason to bring his car into London what he needs, but will discourage the man who ought to be discouraged because his presence in his car is not really essential? There is an economic answer, but I do

  1029
  not think it is altogether on the lines of what the Government are trying to do here.
  I do not know as much about this as I should, but I think there is a great deal more to be done. Before we part with a large slice of Hyde Park—I think my right hon. Friend mentioned a total of 36 acres and 6 acres underground—we are entitled to hear about such work on a wider scale, and not only in London but elsewhere. Civil engineering on this scale demands commensurate traffic engineering. The two things ought to go together. A grand project of this kind is not really a substitute for deep constructive thought on a traffic engineering problem.
  I am sorry to be unduly captious about this. I confess a deep affection for London parks, and I think that one is entitled to have certain reservations before accepting a demand which, as day follows night, will lead to other demands on the parks. Each demand will be essential in the interests of progress, as is the project which my right hon. Friend has in mind, and each demand will be justified. Also each demand will diminish those parks just a little more. Since I think this Bill is the forerunner of other Measures of this kind, and as such it ought to be judged, I want to be a little more sure of the direction in which we are moving.
  5.22 p.m.
  Mr. B. T. Parkin: Like my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), I came into the Chamber full of curiosity about what the Minister would say about the Bill, but, unlike my hon. and learned Friend who got some answer, I unfortunately have had none as yet. I hope that we shall have more information before my hon. and learned Friend's very optimistic forecast that we shall not divide on this Bill is realised.
  The Bill as drafted is a masterpiece of concealment and evasion. The particular collector's piece is the phrase:
  "The Minister of Transport shall not be required to prevent …"
  The Bill is as careful as it could be to avoid any commitment as to what sort of engineering operations are going to take place once this hole has been dug. I should have thought that we were en-
  1030
  titled to a fairly expansive account of the discussions which took place on the architectural and engineering possibilities. After all, this is a very significant and important step. As the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) pointed out, it is a matter of great concern.
  There is a story that one of the earlier Georges asked one of his Ministers "What is Hyde Park worth?" and the answer was "Your Crown, Sir." I wondered, when the Minister was starting his speech and giving us the keynote of his estimate of the situation, whether we had been deprived of the estimable monarch or whether he had been sleeping, like Barbarossa, and whether the Minister had to explain, after all these years, why we now wanted to use Hyde Park; because, as though he were talking to somebody who was old and deaf, and with a desire to make clear what had been happening in the world, he gave us this wonderful estimate which we shall relish in HANSARD tomorrow when we read it over again, when he said that one of the outstanding features of our age is the increase in traffic.
  Perhaps, out of a desire not to upset the old gentleman, the Minister did not refer to any other outstanding features of our age or any other problems which might have been worrying people. [An HON. MEMBER: "It would have been out of order."] It would not have been out of order to explain to the owner of Hyde Park some of the problems which have been giving us such concern, and I am surprised that the Minister should have been so willing to avoid what would have been in order when discussing the Second Reading of a Bill whose purpose is to carve up Hyde Park.
  Surely we are entitled to ask what discussions have been taking place on certain aspects of the matter, and particularly on the aspect to which I am now about to come. I do not think there is a capital city in the world where any scheme for underground parking will not have been associated with the problem of Civil Defence and of deep shelters. I can understand why that has not been mentioned in the Bill, but I cannot understand why there has been no reference to it in the Minister's speech, because it will surely be in the mind of anyone who has been concerned with Civil Defence.

  1031
  I am certain that it has been in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman himself, because we know of his brilliant personal career in connection with civil engineering and in moving earth before he came into the House. One would go about the country and see whole areas covered with machinery bearing his name. He must have said to himself, "If I were doing this how would I set about it?" although it is true that in the intervening years he has become an expert at dozing other kinds of bull.
  He must have a sense of urgency and reality when he thinks about this project. Surely his train of thought must have led him to the question of deep shelters. He must have thought of something on the lines mentioned by the hon. Member for Ashford, and considered the problems of deep excavation. If this sort of architectural engineering is going to spread, I hope that we shall not make the same sort of mistakes as were made in buildings on the surface and cover whole areas with shallow constructions which make it impossible or very expensive to excavate deeper later on.
  The Minister, as a Cabinet Minister, must constantly have had before him the papers on Civil Defence, some reference to which appears in the appropriate documents from time to time. In the last two White Papers on Defence there has been a token reference to Civil Defence.
  No new development has been announced. In neither of those White Papers, nor in the two Reports of the Ministry of Health, which also contained references to Civil Defence, has there been any reference whatever to deep shelters. There have been references to other kinds of Civil Defence activities, but none whatever to the provision of deep shelters.
  If it is true that the Government have abandoned all thought of providing deep shelters for the inhabitants of London, then the Minister ought to say so. This underground car park will be an attraction, in case of danger, to the inhabitants of my constituency and of the constituency of Mr. Speaker, and there ought to be some indication of its usefulness in such circumstances.
  1032
  Is it not rather cruel to allow recruitment for Civil Defence in relation to the movement of casualties to the primary treatment centres, without there being any provision for shelter and protection of the vehicles required for this purpose? Would it not have been prudent at least to consider that in relation to this scheme?
  A lot of people enrol each year in the Civil Defence and about the same number leave it in despair and frustration. But they all start with the hope that they will learn something which will enable them to be helpful. They will note with sorrow that there is no provision for or reference in the Bill to the sheltering of their transport, and the Minister might have dealt with that point today.
  The right hon. Gentleman might have gives us a discursive, quick glimpse at the history of deep shelters and deep excavated buildings in other countries at the present time. The Chief Civil Defence Officer for the County of Middlesex was given a gold medal, not by this Government but by the Government of Denmark, for the great assistance he gave in the preparation of civil defence in that country.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I cannot connect that with the Bill at present before the House.
  Mr. Parkin: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I could, if you would only let me try.
  I think that anyone concerned with digging a hole in the Queen's back garden would have sent for such an expert and said, "Can you give us any useful advice such as you gave the Danes? Can we develop a dual purpose construction here, and what do you know about it?" We know that the Swedes have been extraordinarily lucky because they have been able to tunnel into rock. Some countries are more optimistic than others about deep shelters, but this may be because they have no rocket bases.
  This really is the nub of my inquiry. I think that we ought to be told why, like the dog in Sherlock Holmes' story, the right hon. Gentleman did not bark. That is the mystery about his speech. It is inconceivable that this aspect of the problem was not even considered by the Cabinet and by the Minister personally.

  1033
  We ought to know to what conclusions they came and whether they were technical. We ought to know whether they came to the conclusion, reached long ago by the Commonwealth Relations Minister, that there was no possibility of defending the civil population, and more recently by the noble Lord, who, speaking on the subject of Polaris, said that it was disgraceful to pretend that the danger to Glasgow was in any way increased by the presence of Polaris because everyone knew that anyone within 100 miles of Glasgow would be burnt to a cinder immediately an H-bomb was dropped.
  These opinions on the part of the Government might justify thorn in saying. "We are not going to waste money on things like that. Let us look at the fact that 7 per cent. of Londoners travel by car and only 93 per cent. by public transport. Let us put the priority where it lies." Or, alternatively, there might be another and more generous interpretation of the Government's mentality. It may be—and I suspect that this is the truth—that they know that there is, in fact, no likelihood of aggression against this country.
  Mr. Nigel Fisher: On a point of order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, but there are a number of hon. Members who would like to discuss the Bill if they could have your help, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, in doing so.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member for Paddington. North (Mr. Parkin) has been causing me some concern for some time. I hope that he will relate his remarks more closely to the subject of the Bill.
  Mr. Parkin: I am sorry to cause you concern, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. My great anxiety is to cause concern to the Minister about problems which seem connected with this proposal to dig a hole in Hyde Park. We ought to hear from the right hon. Gentleman about these matters before we decide how to vote on the Bill and we ought to be told why it is that these other considerations have not been dealt with.
  I was about to conclude that it may well be that there is a simple explanation—that the Government do not believe that there is, in fact, any military
  1034
  danger to this country and that it does not matter whatsoever. As I say, I was about to conclude on that note, and I will resist the temptation, which the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher) has presented to me, to discuss the effect on the coloured peoples for whom he shows a great interest when they came to live in this country, and whose feelings are echoed in other parts of the world.
  I hope that we shall get an honest, straightforward statement from the Minister of the discussion of the conclusions which must have been reached on this problem before the Bill is given a Second Reading.
  5.36 p.m.
  Sir Wavell Wakefield: This aspect of the Bill has, I suggest, been sufficiently dealt with in the speech to which we have just listened by the hon. Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Parkin) and, therefore. I will not now add any further observations on that subject.
  I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister on introducing the Bill. I must also at once declare a close personal interest in that I live on the corner of Upper Brook Street and Park Lane, which is extremely close to where this garage is going to be dug out. I wish, therefore, like the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), to express disappointment at the fact that the Minister has not told us a little more about the financial implications involved.
  There is the case of the E.L.Ps. of whom I am one, living in that area, and, as an E.L.P., I should naturally like to be in a position to garage my car as cheaply as I possibly can. On the other hand, I think that as Members of Parliament we also have a responsibility concerning the expenditure of taxpayers' money. At this juncture a great deal of taxpayers' money is being expended in various ways, and I should not like to see such money spent on either digging this hole or in operating costs.
  Surely there are strong grounds here for following the custom of years gone by of interesting such bodies as water boards or gas undertakings—before nationalisation, of course—whereby public money could be obtained by

  1035
  subscription. Some kind of public body could be set up to operate the project in conjunction with other underground places which may be obtained elsewhere, whether in St. James's Park, Regent's Park or in other squares. Possibly the revenue from parking meters could be used in this way. I should have thought that there could have been some means of starting up a public board with the public subscribing money at a fixed rate of interest, together, perhaps, with some participating interest laid down by Statute and a limiting of the amount of money to be charged.
  If something of that kind could be done, and there are various ways of doing it about which the Minister is no doubt aware, it would meet some of the objections which the hon. and learned Member for Kettering has voiced and which I, and I imagine hon. Members on both sides of the House, also have. Something is being provided which is publicly needed, but at the same time it ought to be supplied at as reasonable a price as possible.
  Mr. Mellish: We had better get this matter cleared up for the rest of the debate. The Minister can intervene to correct me if necessary, but, as I understand it, no public money will be provided. The work will be thrown out to tender—and I hope that the London County Council as well as private enterprise will be allowed to tender—and the contractors will develop the site. They will dig the hole and then it may be that the developer will become the operator. As the Minister said, the operational side will probably be very lucrative. If that is the case, should not the first priority be given to the Minister of Works? If, at the end of the day, the operation of this car park is going to be lucrative, he himself should undertake the task.
  Sir W. Wakefield: Like the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish), I should like a good deal more financial information on this point. I should also like to know what the prospects are. We hear that they may be very lucrative. I am not sure what will be the cost of digging the hole, but the cost of operation must be fairly well known. At the present time there is an urgent need for further long-term parking facilities in Central London.
  1036
  The Minister explained the means that he was taking to ensure a quick and easy flow of traffic from the country into Central London. That is essential, but it is no use providing that unless, when the motorist gets into Central London and wants to leave his car for a longer period than one or two hours, a place is available for him to leave it. This garage will provide for that need, if the person can afford the price charged. If the price is too high many motorists will be deterred from coming into London in their own cars. Instead they will use public transport. It may be that the price factor is intended to be used as a means of restricting the flow of traffic into Central London.
  Be that as it may, in addition to long-term parking Deeds for people coming in from the outside to Central London there is an urgent need in my constituency and Mr. Speaker's constituency for long-term parking facilities for residents. Only yesterday I received a letter from a doctor which says:
  "I live in a flat at 59, Weymouth Street, W.1 and practice at 9, Cavendish Square, W.1. I am the owner of a Rover … which I use partly as a private car and partly in the conduct of that part of my practice which refers to oral surgery involving visits to houses, nursing homes and hospitals. There is no garage vacant, public or private, near either address."
  What is that doctor and other similar people—and there are many of them—to do? They have to live and work in Central London, and they must have suitable parking facilities.
  The Bill will provide much-needed facilities in the west end of my constituency, but in other parts of my constituency there will still be urgent need, and I want to know if the Minister has any further proposals, in conjunction with the local authority, to extend underground car parking, for example, in Regents Park. I do not know to what extent the Crown Commissioners are in communication with my right hon. Friend in this matter, but there is large-scale development in Park Crescent, close to the medical area of Harley Street, which could provide suitable off-street parking facilities and which are at present urgently needed.
  That comes within the jurisdiction of the Crown Commissioners. I do not know whether any enabling Bill is required to provide off-street parking there. If it is,

  1037
  I would have hoped that provision could be included in the Bill in respect of that land, which is now available and is very suitable for the provision of parking facilities. Alternatively, provision could be made in respect of any other part of Regent's Park, which consists of a large expanse of land on which a hole could be dug out without interfering with the amenities.
  I would like to emphasise the point which has been made by my hon. Friend about the preservation of amenities. He referred to the nibbling away of a bit here and a bit there. It is extremely important that amenities should be preserved, and it is good to know that the scheme proposed in the Bill appears fully to preserve them. I hope that where the ventilating shafts protrude from the ground there will be proper screening with trees and bushes. That can easily be done. I hope that this may be an example of the possibility of valuable and practical commercial development taking place with, at the same time, an adequate screening of protrusions by proper planning.
  Unless these and other long-term parking facilities are made available, I should like my hon. Friend to state what steps are being taken to provide temporary facilities such as were provided over Christmas. These were widely used.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I cannot connect that point with the Bill.
  Sir W. Wakefield: As I understand it, the Bill is an enabling Bill to provide long-term parking facilities for Central London, and particularly for the West End. The Minister has pointed out the need for this, and has also said that extra provision will be made for speeding up the traffic flow. I thought it was relevant to argue that, while this hole is being dug in the park, temporary facilities should be made available to help the motorist. The public want to know what facilities they will have, in view of the spread of the parking meter. The parking meter schemes and the revenue from them are all tied up with the question of off-street parking, whether in Hyde Park or in the other buildings which we have heard will be erected in Westminster. After very great difficulties and many delays, and after the exercise
  1038
  of compulsory purchase powers, two sires have been acquired in my constituency, but they will not be ready for some years because of legal complications which are still to be sorted out.
  Because of all these difficulties, and the shortage of adequate off-street parking facilities, I welcome the Bill. At the same time, I am disappointed that it contains no provision for further facilities in other parks and squares, which would enable more rapid progress to be made in our aim to satisfy the needs of the long-term parker. I hope that before the Bill goes through further provisions will be introduced to provide much needed underground parking. I would earnestly ask my right hon. Friend to be a little more forthcoming and tell us more about the financial proposals for This development.
  5.50 p.m.
  Mr. Anthony Greenwood: If we are to have this scheme at all, the idea of the hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Sir W. Wakefield) that we should have it on the basis of gas-and-water Socialism is not unattractive. Nevertheless, I still feel that, as the Westminster City Council seems to be reluctant to take the initiative, the Minister ought properly to approach the London County Council and see whether it will behave in a more public-spirited fashion. If he is unable to take that attitude, I hope that he will explain rather more fully why the opportunity has not been given to the London County Council.
  My purpose, however, is to record my misgivings about the scheme as a whole. In the first place, I feel that Hyde Park should be the very last resort and, since we have done so little in other parts of London, we are not really justified in embarking on a parking scheme in Hyde Park. The Minister's Working Party which reported in 1956 said that off-street parking was needed for 20,000 vehicles. Since then, there have been estimates that the need is really for space for 30,000 vehicles, and I suspect that even that would be inadequate.
  I saw recently a report of what the Commissioner of Transit and Traffic in Baltimore told us when he visited this country about fifteen months ago. He reported that in Baltimore, which has a

  1039
  population of 1 million, there are off-street parking spaces for 25,000 cars. He explained that, subject to certain safeguards, 85 per cent. of the cost of the site and the building of an approved parking structure is advanced, to be repaid over twenty years, interest being at 3½ per cent., much lower than the prevailing market rate, and under that system, twenty-six parking garages had been built by that date.
  It was not quite clear from what the Minister said how many off-street parking spaces have so far been provided or are in view. It sounded as if the total figure was about 7,000. I hope that he will be able to tell us in more detail later exactly how many have been provided, when the remainder will be provided, and what is the Government's ultimate target for off-street parking spaces. Let us remember that, while the recommendation for 20,000 spaces was made no less than five years ago, we have gone on allowing the erection in London and in the West End of buildings with no off-street parking spaces in them. I should have thought that, before we embarked upon a scheme of this kind, we ought at least to ensure that wherever private enterprise develops a site there is adequate parking space provision.
  My second objection is this. I believe that this underground garage will be in the wrong place. I welcome what the Minister said about the success of the Park Lane Improvement Scheme. I agree entirely with what he said. There is no doubt that it has effected a very substantial improvement in the flow of traffic. I cannot help feeling, therefore, that it is a pity that we should now begin to interfere with the flow of traffic by having exits and entrances for the underground garage debouching, as it were, on the improved carriageways.
  There is the other objection that, having speeded up traffic in the area, we now propose to attract more traffic into it. It would have been much wiser, if we were to have an underground garage of this kind, to site it, perhaps, under Portman Square or under one of the squares in Paddington instead of bringing additional cars into the area where so substantial an improvement has been brought about.
  But my main objection to the scheme is the one which the hon. Member for
  1040
  Ashford (Mr. Deedes) advanced, namely, the damage to amenity. It is difficult to judge this, and I wish that the Minister had been able to present a White Paper to the House, with, perhaps, a model upstairs, from which we could really form a conclusion about the effect on amenity. After all, we do not know what will be the depth below ground level of the roof of the garage. We do not know what will be the difference in the water level in the area, and we do not really know what will be the long-term effect on the trees. I was interested to hear the Minister say that only fifteen trees would be affected. I have counted the trees shown in the designated area on the map and they total 126. I should like the Minister to explain how he arrives at his figure of fifteen.
  When the Working Party on Car Parking in the Inner Area of London reported in 1953, it made two comments which I should like to read to the House. In paragraph 62, it said:
  "From our investigations into the physical process of constructing an underground car park it is quite clear that excavating from ground level would be necessary and that no process of tunnelling or excavation without disturbing the surface of the ground would be practicable."
  I take it that that is the method to be adopted in this case. The Report goes on to say that
  "The surface disturbed temporarily in this way would be somewhat larger than the area of the finished structure."
  A little later it is said:
  "It must be remembered that trees are living organisms which grow to maturity and eventually die, and to replace them when old merely forestalls by a few years an act which is inevitable if there are to be trees in the future. In many cases we have found that garages could be provided with the replacement of only a few trees in the centre and the retention of the greater part of those on the fringe."
  It is clear that the Working Party, when considering the provision of underground car parks in London squares, was a little disturbed about the effect on the trees and, from my reading of its Report, I take it that the Working Party envisaged a more serious interference than the Minister himself seems to anticipate. I hope, therefore, that he will tell us what will be the effect upon the other 111 trees which he thinks will not be adversely affected.

  1041
  Like the hon. Member for Ashford, I am a little apprehensive about the affects of the stewardship of the Minister of Works. As the hon. Member said, we recall the Park Lane Improvement Scheme, a scheme upon which many of us worked hard at the time and which we sought to improve. I cannot help feeling that in that case trees which might have been saved have been destroyed. I hope that we shall not follow that example in the case of the underground garage at Marble Arch.
  Like hon. Members opposite, I am growing tired of this gradual destruction of amenity. There is always a compelling need which makes it obligatory upon us to make a concession of this kind. I remember our discussions about Winfrith Heath. We were told that that would probably be the only case of its kind. Now, of course, we have the construction of another establishment at Dungeness. When we agreed to the Park Lane Improvement Scheme, we were given the impression that that would be the last demand to be made. Now, we have this proposal before us.
  We are gradually allowing the amenities of the country to be eroded in the most regrettable way. I hope that this will be the last demand and that, if we agree to this proposal today, the Government will not come along and suggest that there should be further encroachments upon the Royal Parks. I warn the Government that many of us will fight a proposal to have similar undertakings in Regent's Park, St. James's Park or any other of the Royal Parks. We shall watch suggestions of this kind with growing suspicion and submit them to relentless scrutiny.
  I should be more readily prepared to welcome the Minister's proposal if I felt that it would make a real contribution towards solving London's traffic problems, but I believe that its effect on amenity and its confirmation of the principle that we can go on interfering with the Royal Parks is not warranted because of the smallness of the provision which is being made, the smallness of the contribution to the solution of London's traffic problems.
  If I were convinced that this was part of a really radical scheme for solving London's traffic problems, my attitude would be different. If, for example,
  1042
  I thought that the Minister had proposals for, perhaps, banning private cars from the middle of London and for developing London's transport system, possibly with minibuses operating between the main bus routes, I should be more prepared to give the Government the Bill without arguing against it in the way that I have. Until we have more radical, more positive and more far-sighted and far-reaching proposals than we have had from the Government, many of us will view the Bill with regret and will let it go through only in spite of our strong suspicion that we are wrong to give it a Second Reading.
  6.0 p.m.
  Mr. Nigel Fisher: I would never accuse my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) of being captious. Nor do I accuse the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Greenwood) of being captious on this occasion, because I well understand the point about amenities. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford, I am a great lover of the London parks. That is certainly a point about the Bill which we cannot possibly disregard. Nevertheless, I have been surprised at the lack of enthusiasm so far on both sides of the House for this Bill. It seems to me that it only does what many of us on both sides, including my hon. Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Sir W. Wakefield) and myself, have been urging in Questions on the Minister for years.
  The hon. Member for Rossendale said that the development should not take place in Hyde Park and that we should look elsewhere. But the whole point is that Hyde Park is central and is in an area where motorists most require parking space. Despite the amenity point, I very much welcome the Bill, which is, I am sure, really in line with what most of us, at any rate, want, namely, to get stationary cars off the street and into central and convenient car parks.
  As the areas covered by parking meters and the number of traffic wardens increase, so difficulties for the motorists increase. I have found this to my pecuniary cost. I have recently been fined on two occasions! I do not complain about that because it was quite right that I should be fined, but it is the object of using a car to be able to stop

  1043
  somewhere occasionally. It is becoming very difficult at certain times of day to stop anywhere at all in certain areas. The Hyde Park scheme will at least be a real assistance to the motorist. It will provide a central car park for the all-day parker. He is the person who clutters up the streets, impedes the movement of traffic and prevents the short-term parker finding any parking space whatever. He is the man who is using the Queen's highway as a free garage. He has done so for long enough, and he must now be prepared to pay for the parking space which up to now he has had free of charge.
  The Bill does not indicate—perhaps it was impossible for my right hon. Friend to do so at this stage—the amount which the all-day parker will have to pay. I am told that in parts of New York the parking fee is as high as £1 a day. I imagine that even in London the motorist may have to pay perhaps 10s. a day for off-street parking.
  Then there is the time factor. The time factor is rather important. My right hon. Friend gave no indication of how soon the Hyde Park underground garage will come into operation. I know that it would be difficult for him to estimate that, but, in the absence of an estimate, my hon. Friend the Member for St. Marylebone was justified in pressing the Minister to give the motorist some practical assistance in the meantime. The temporary car parks in the centre of London at Christmas time were of great assistance. But, as I pointed out by pure chance in a Question this afternoon, the problem is not merely a seasonal one. It is a continuing and increasing problem. I can see no reason why central car parks, like the Mall, Constitution Hill and Horse Guards Parade, should not be utilised until more permanent parking areas such as those envisaged in the Bill can be used.
  My right hon. Friend the Minister of Works may object to this. He may say that we have to take account of ceremonial occasions such as Trooping the Colour and Royal visits. I can understand this, but surely it would be far preferable to close these car parks on such occasions than never to open them at all except during the Christmas shopping rush. I was glad to hear my right hon.
  1044
  Friend say earlier this afternoon that he was conducting negotiations on this matter. If he is negotiating on my side, so to speak, with the Minister of Works, I wish him good fortune. To the Minister of Works I would simply say that he has been very co-operative and imaginative in allowing this Hyde Park scheme. I should just like him to be a little more imaginative and a little more cooperative and to allow us the use of these Pink Zone central car parks until the Hyde Park scheme can be brought into operation.
  There is one other matter on which I think the Minister of Transport should insist. Developers of large new blocks of offices and flats should be made to provide off-street parking as an integral part of their developments. If my right hon. Friend has not the power to insist on this, then he should come to the House and ask for it.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not pursue that point.
  Mr. Fisher: I take your point, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. But the debate has gone very wide. Even my right hon. Friend's speech, which I do not think you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, had the advantage of hearing, went extremely wide and covered the sort of point to which I am referring.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The fact that the debate has gone wide is no reason why it should go wider.
  Mr. Fisher: I was about to submit that, when one compares the line which I am taking with that taken by the hon. Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Parkin), who throughout his speech spoke about Civil Defence, I did not think that I was going unduly wide. Nevertheless, I must, as always, bow to your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and I will not pursue the point, except to say that, if my right hon. Friend needs those powers, he has only to come to Parliament and I am sure that we shall give them to him as readily and as quickly as I hope we shall give him this Bill today.
  6.8 p.m.
  Mr. Marcus Lipton: I share the misgivings of hon. Members who view the Bill with a certain amount of

  1045
  suspicion. The Government have not made up their mind on one fundamental point, namely, do we or do we not want more private cars in Central London? Without going into tedious detail, I can recall many occasions on which I have suggested to the Minister of Transport that the time has come to restrict the number of private cars coming into Central London. When I first made the suggestion there was a sort of horror-stricken gasp from the Minister at the idea that we should tamper with the sacred liberty of the individual.
  London was not constructed with the idea of coping with today's volume of traffic. It is beyond our financial means to reconstruct Central London to cope with the growing volume of motor traffic in the West End and the City. Therefore, what I suggest that we must do is this, and this is a thought which is beginning to enter the mind of the Minister. We must, as politely as possible, deter private motorists from bringing their cars into Central London. The Bill will reverse that process. It will make it easier for a certain number of motorists who do not really require to bring their cars into Central London to do just that and to deposit them in the car park in Hyde Park.
  To that extent, it is bound to increase traffic congestion. If the idea of the Bill is to make provision for the all-day parker, there will be a terrific jam at Marble Arch between, say, eight and ten o'clock each morning, with cars wanting to get into the underground garage, and another tremendous traffic jam between say, half-past four and half-past six every evening, when the cars want to come out.
  Therefore, what we must decide is to whom the priority should be given. In my submission, it must be given to those people who have to use public transport to get to and from their work. They are the people who should get first consideration. If it takes longer for people working in the West End or in the City to get to and from their work, any proposition which adds to their working day—which is what it boils down to—or any suggestion that will lengthen the working day of people who have to rely upon public transport, should be resisted or, at least, seriously questioned.
  1046
  One of these days, the Minister will have to come to the House and say, "We have now reached the limit. There is no possibility of providing any more parking facilities for private car owners who want to come up to the West End or the City either for pleasure or to go to work." We shall have to tell these private motor car owners coming from the west, for example, that they must leave their cars at, say, Ealing Broadway, use facilities provided in that area, and make the rest of their journey by Underground. Those coming from the south would have to be told to stop at Morden and come the rest of the way by Underground, and similarly with people approaching London from the east and from the north.
  We must declare the central part of London what I might call a private-car-free zone so as to enable London Transport to do the job for which it is intended, namely, to enable people to get to and from their work with reasonable comfort and without undue delays. It is quite selfish and unreasonable to place in front of the convenience of the mass of the travelling public who have to rely on public transport the convenience of a comparatively small number of private car owners. It is because the Bill reverses what ought to be the general approach of the Ministry of Transport to this important problem that I share the profound misgivings of hon. Members, on both sides, about the Bill.
  6.13 p.m.
  Mr. R. Gresham Cooke: I was amazed to hear the hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) attack the Bill, because so often at Question Time I have heard him press upon the Minister the need for more parking space in London. The hon. Member is the last person who should attack the Bill. Time is getting on, however, and I wish to say only a few words. First, I congratulate my right hon. Friend on persuading his colleagues in the Government to take this bold step at this time. It is not a moment too soon.
  I happen to live in a little cul-de-sac at the back of Chelsea Barracks. Four years ago, there were only four all-day parkers in that cul-de-sac, so much so that when the troops were parading out of Chelsea Barracks with their bands, the police could move the vehicles out of the

  1047
  way. When I counted the other day, however, there were fifty-six all-day parkers. The reason is that people have been forced out of the centre of London by the parking meters and the stricter enforcement of the law and they are now disporting themselves all round the fringes of the Pink Zone.
  I do not think that any further research into this matter is needed. There is undoubtedly a pressing need in the centre of London for these provisions. I am delighted to see from the map that the scheme will not spoil the amenities of Hyde Park. We must not do that. The work for the underground car park should be done, if possible, during the winter months. I believe that it could be done in a few months. We ought not to upset the lovers and all the others who enjoy Hyde Park in the summer.
  I am delighted to see that the petrol pumps will be placed underground, or, at least, out of sight down the slope near the entrance. If there is any doubt about them protruding above ground, an architect or the R.I.B.A. should be called in to consider how to hide them. Obviously, there must be a long lease for a project such as this, which will be developed by a development company.
  With the assistance of one or two people outside this House, I have tried to estimate how the costs of this operation will work out. As far as I can understand, it is likely that the capital construction cost will be about £1,000 a car. Then, there will be the running costs, including attendants. The developers, therefore, must recover something like £200 a car per annum, which is £4 a week or about 10s. a day. On an hourly basis, I imagine that the charge would be about 2s. or 2s. 6d. for every two hours. That sounds expensive, but it would be a tremendous facility to people who go to a meeting in, say, the centre of London and want to leave their car for, perhaps, four hours, but who at present are precluded from doing so. For a doctor who has to attend a case it would be a great facility.
  The underground car park will not be filled with what the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) called the E.L.P., the all-day-long parker. There are so many initials in this debate that I wondered whether
  1048
  E.L.P. really stood for "Elderly Labour Party". In response to the appeal by the hon. Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Parkin) on behalf of the civil defence workers, I could not help feeling that the garage would be of more use, not to civil defence, but to another C.D., the Corps Diplomatique.
  My right hon. Friend should decide to make the terms and conditions of letting the garage free in the sense that the operator should be able to make what arrangements he can for operating inside the garage. For instance, not only should the casual public be accommodated. but there should be provision for contract parking—that is, spaces let to places like hotels in the neighbourhood. I imagine that the "bread and butter" overheads of a proposition like this might well be assisted by Grosvenor House and the Cumberland Hotel taking half a dozen or a dozen spaces all the year round which they could let out to their own clients or managers. Half the problem in London is not the casual parker who comes for the day, but the man who brings his car to business because during some part of the day he has to use it to go from one place to another. It would be a great facility for firms or places like Grosvenor House to be able to enter into a contract with the developer of a garage like this for taking up, say, half a dozen places.
  Despite what has been said by some hon. Members, I hope that this garage will be a forerunner of other convenient schemes in London. I envisage that under Green Park it would be perfectly simple to have another underground garage for 500 cars.
  Mr. Sydney Silverman: What about under New Palace Yard?
  Mr. Gresham Cooke: Yes, even under New Palace Yard. In the case of Green Park, it would be simple to have another garage for 500 cars. The entrance could be from Arlington Street, under Arlington House, where there is already a garage, and under the footpath, without disturbance to amenities by the cutting down of trees. Similarly, I am told that no fewer than 2,500 cars could be parked under Horse Guards Parade without disturbing a tree or anybody. It could be done slowly, one-fifth of the parade ground at a time, until it was completed.
  Mr. Lipton: What about the forecourt at Buckingham Palace?
  Mr. Gresham Cooke: I am not making any further suggestions.
  One other interesting fact is revealed by this debate, and that is that we are approaching the time when underground car parking will be economic. This is slightly contrary to what I said a year ago. but I understand that now the price of land in London is over £10 a sq. ft. and in many places in London even above that. Where land is over £10 per sq. ft. it is even more economical to have an underground car park than it is to have an overground car park. The situation in the last year or two has altered in that respect.
  I commend the Bill to the House, and I believe that this is an example which could be followed without destruction of amenities in one or two other places.
  6.21 p.m.
  Mr. Albert Evans: The hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) was bold enough to give some estimates on the financial side of the project. He told us that its cost would be about £1,000 per car. He went on to make other comments upon the financial aspect of this project, but he failed to mention an aspect which concerns every Member of Parliament, and that is the public interest. There is a public interest in this matter which has to be safeguarded, and which the hon. Member for Twickenham failed to remember and failed to mention.
  One would have thought that even from the Government side of this Chamber some regard would be paid to the public interest and the financial repercussions of this on the Treasury. The Minister has told us that this is simply an enabling Bill permitting him to use a part of the Crown land of Hyde Park which belongs to the community through the Crown. What we are concerned with is a project which, initiated by a Minister of the Crown, will involve considerable financial outlay by some developer and a rather long wait before it yields a return, but which, ultimately, will probably yield a very considerable return. Apart from the amenity aspect, I shall confine myself to this matter of the arrangements which are to be made be-
  1050
  tween the Minister, on the one hand, and the developer on the other.
  When I interjected during the Minister's speech the right hon. Gentleman promised, when I asked him, to elaborate the terms which will be put out to promoters—to the developers—on which to submit tenders. I think that is really the nucleus of this matter before us. What are to be the terms and conditions upon which the Minister, as representing the Crown, the country and Parliament. will allow a private profit-making developer to take possession of this part of Hyde Park? We have not been told enough about that rather important aspect of the matter.
  I hope that the Minister will consider dealing with this matter not by way of tender, which the House will be unable to control, comment upon or criticise, but by another method. I hope that he will try to frame his proposals as to the developer in such a way that the House will come into the picture. We in Parliament really should not allow this valuable piece of ground which belongs to the community to be exploited for profit without scrutinising the arrangements very closely, and I hope that possibly tonight, when this debate is wound up by the Government, we shall hear more about the details of the form of tender and about the nominal rent which the Minister mentioned is to be paid for the initial years. I hope, further, that before this matter is finalised as between the Government and the private profit-making developer the House will be able to scrutinise the terms upon which this community property is handed over to a profit-making syndicate.
  6.26 p.m.
  Mr. Philip Goodhart: I too, like the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher), have been reprimanded for using a certain amount of over-ingenuity in seeking to find a place in which to leave my car, and therefore it would be fatuous of me to be over-critical of this Bill. But, apart from the question of price, unlike the hon. Member for Islington, South-West (Mr. A. Evans), I think it is highly unlikely that there is much profit to be made out of this scheme.
  There are two main considerations which everyone looking for a parking

  1051
  place seeks. The first is that it should be easy to get into and out of, and the second is that it should be reasonably convenient to the place to which one wants eventually to go, and I have certain reservations about this scheme on both scores. It seems to me that this garage will be so big that it will be a major operation to get one's car in and out of it. I was particularly glad to hear that the Minister is thinking of putting a subway underneath the carriageways, because unless that happens—and I hope it will happen quickly—it will really be a major problem to try to cross the carriageways in Hyde Park and Park Lane on foot, particularly now that my right hon. Friend has used sensible traffic engineering and that the flow of traffic is so much quicker than it was.
  I think everyone will agree that the Pink Zone parking schemes have been an outstanding success. They have been exceedingly popular with the public.
  I would join with the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) in hoping that these plans will be used in the future for further underground garage development. I have in mind the rather dreary waste spaces on the Piccadilly side of the Mall which seem now to be used only for the collection of puddles and Where one could easily tunnel out spaces for a very large number of cars. Then again, of course, there is Horse Guards Parade.
  Of course, the obvious answer to the question of the development of underground garages really lies in the great squares of London, central to the shopping districts and offices. I wonder whether the Minister has any plans to encourage local authorities or anyone else to build underground garages in St. James's Square, Portman Square, Grosvenor Square, or, indeed, any of the other great squares of London, because that seemed to be a notable omission from the plans which were coming forward on such a large scale for off-street parking in Central London.
  We should not get hypnotised by this question of underground parking or think it both cheaper and more desirable. One should be able to park on the surface rather than underground. Most people will now agree that the parking-meter scheme has been a success, but I
  1052
  am surprised by the amount of space that is allotted to each parking meter. There must be a general assumption on the part of the authorities that almost everyone in London drives a Rolls Royce, whereas, in fact, the number of people driving A30s is substantially greater. If in future this is borne in mind in the provision of surface parking, I am sure that it will be found possible to provide almost as many parking spaces as would come from quite expensive projects of the kind that we are now discussing.
  6.31 p.m.
  Mr. Sydney Silverman: I intervene for a short time in the debate. I represent a constituency which is a long way from London but I have lived and worked in London for many years now, and my wife is a member of London County Council. This is a very important London problem and I confess that I cannot understand what the Bill is intended to do and what effect it is anticipated it can produce. I am given to understand that if the Bill is passed and the underground garage in Hyde Park is created, we may find accommodation for 4,000 cars.
  Mr. Mellish: For 1,000 cars.
  Mr. Silverman: I have heard higher estimates. But supposing we do, for whom will this relief be effective? Only for those who want to bring their cars into London, leave them idle in London all day and then go home in them. It offers no relief whatever for the real problem of the London motorist, the man who needs to use his car all day long for going about from place to place, leaving it at some place where he needs to call and then picking it up and going on to the next place. This scheme will not help him, except in the sense that it will take off the streets whatever number of street-parkers are now obstructing his progress.
  Let us concede that this is, at any rate, an appreciable advantage. It may not be very large but it is something that is assessable and is some kind of relief. But for how long? Does anybody imagine that the rate of increase of the production of cars or of the use of cars in great cities and in London will be retarded? It is an upward curve and will continue to be so. Even if we grant to the fullest extent the most optimistic

  1053
  estimate of the relief that anyone can foresee in the Bill, in a year or two, if nothing else changes, the position will be as bad as ever.
  We shall have to look round for some other kind of relief. The time will come when there is no other kind of relief and we shall still go on pumping out cars in the factories, bringing them to London, and leaving the private motorist the unrestricted right to obstruct everybody else until London traffic finally grinds to a complete standstill.
  What sense is there in it? How long do the Government think that we can go on leaving London's streets as they are, pumping ever more and more unrestricted private motors into it, the private motorists parking and driving all day long? If we go on like that, how long will it be before it is impossible to move about in the streets of London? It is almost impossible now in parts of the City and of the West End and indeed of other places. The notion that we can restrict or forbid private motorists to bring their cars into the inner segment of London is greeted with howls of derision and indignant protests about the liberty of the subject, but the liberty of the subject to do what? To bring his car into London and then have nowhere to put it?
  Is it the liberty of the subject to bring his car into London and then not to be able to move it about? The liberty of the subject is a real, practical thing. It is not a paper consideration or a slogan. And it is an old principle that if giving everybody unrestricted freedom or licence in a particular respect operates to the detriment of everybody else's freedom, one is entitled without any offence against the liberty of the subject, to intervene and to regulate it. Nobody denies that.
  Suppose that we were to say, "No private cars within the central area of London at all." How would the man whom it is supposed to benefit by this scheme be injured? If the Bill goes through and we build an underground garage in Hyde Park, he will drive his car into this garage in the morning, if he can get in and there is room for him, and then he will proceed out to Park Lane and find himself a bus, an underground train, or a taxi and travel to
  1054
  wherever he wants to go. All well and good. But he could do just the same from Paddington Station, and that is what he would do if we did not allow him to bring his car into Hyde Park.
  What would he have lost or suffered? Let hon. Members consider what we could do with the traffic of Central London if private cars did not produce the congestion that they now produce. Consider how we could improve public transport by bus and how we could increase taxi-cab facilities. Everybody would be able to move about more freely, more cheaply, more expeditiously and more conveniently than they can by this exercise of the so-called liberty of the subject to get into everybody's way.
  What is the use of tinkering with the problem this way when we know perfectly well that, even if we get the utmost advantage that is contemplated from the scheme, in a year or two the position will be worse than when we started? Let us leave Hyde Park alone. If we are worried about the liberty of the subject, then let us leave him free to enjoy Hyde Park and any other amenities that London has to offer. Nobody will suffer any real deprivation of liberty or amenity or convenience if we make up our minds that this business of going on choking up our streets with an unlimited number of private cars is no good to anybody.
  6.40 p.m.
  Mr. Ede: For some years I have regarded the problem that we are discussing today as one that one can prove logically will ultimately result in nobody being able to move in London at all. Already during certain hours of the day it is quicker to walk than to rely on mechanical transport. I cannot see that any of the alternative schemes will really add to the general comfort, and that is without suggesting that anyone has been speaking foolishly in the debate.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton), for instance, said that if one lives in the part of the country where I live and wants to get into London, one has to go from Morden by train. I have tried twice during the recent Recess to get into London that way. It has the great advantage that,

  1055
  whereas before 8 a.m. I cannot get a seat on the Southern Region train at Ewell, West, if I go from Morden I can get a seat provided that I am there when the train doors open. Before we get to Stockwell the whole of the corridor between the seats is crowded with passengers. Trains run into London from Morden with a frequency that I think is entirely admirable as a piece of timing by the people who fix the railway timetable. My hon. Friend the Member for Brixton looks as if he is about to leave the Chamber. If he is now hoping to go out of London by train his chances of getting a seat will not be very good. There does not appear to be a reasonable solution to the problem of the people who want to use trains to get into London between seven and nine o'clock in the morning or even a little later than nine.
  I cannot understand what will happen when a car gets to Hyde Park and goes into the underground garage. How many of the people who will use their cars to get as far as that have a place of business within a distance from Hyde Park that they are willing to walk? After all, the people who come in by car steadily get their legs atrophied, and a walk of a few yards is a matter of a great discomfort to them. I do not know how they will get out of Hyde Park without first suddenly becoming pedestrians, for they will then have a bit of a walk, I imagine. They then have the walk to their place of business.
  Also, the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) said that some people want to use their cars during the day to travel from their place of business to keep some appointment or other. Will they walk back to Hyde Park, go out on their business, return to Hyde Park and then walk back to their office? The idea seems to me to be completely fantastic.
  I suggest that what will probably happen will be what my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman) said, that when the people go out of the car park they will want to get on the buses at a time when the buses are already overcrowded. Thus, they will not merely endure discomfort themselves but will inflict greater discomfort upon people who are already going about their business in consider
  1056
  able discomfort. I think that the patience of the people who travel into and out of London during the rush hours is the finest example that the Christian virtues still exist among the ordinary people of the country. I speak as someone who is not a motorist and whose life is concerned mainly with dodging motor cars every time I want to cross a street. I have been successful so far, but one must never press one's luck too far.
  Let us realise that the proposed scheme will benefit very few people, and they will be mainly people who are fairly well blessed with this world's goods. Half a sovereign a day, which I gather is the estimate of what this parking will cost, is a very considerable addition to the travelling expenses of people who have to come up to London at least five days a week. If one adds £2 10s. a week to their travelling expenses, it will represent a very heavy burden for all except comparatively wealthy people.
  It seems to me that we have here a problem which we have allowed to get into such a state that any scheme to improve it can generally be riddled by the application of simple logic, a subject which does not, of course, trouble the Minister of Transport, for his optimism is never destroyed by the mere workings of logic in any given situation. The problem requires a great deal more consideration than has so far been given to it. It should be put before a body of people representing all classes of society and all kinds of knowledge relating to the problem.
  I could not vote against the Bill, because it will do something. I do not think it helps the people with whom I am mainly concerned, my wretched neighbours who either have to travel up in discomfort from Ewell, West to Waterloo or else go to Morden and endeavour to get on a train there and then suffer great discomfort, such as is experienced between five o'clock and half-past six every evening by persons trying to get out of London without an undue waste of time.
  No one can say that this is a good Bill. It reminds me of what the Home Secretary said about a Prime Minister; it is the best Bill we have got. Thank goodness there are not alternatives at the moment with which we can Perplex our

  1057
  minds. However, if the Minister of Transport really desires to make any impression on the appalling problem of London transport, he must find some people who will give a great deal more frank and clear thought to it than he has so far been able to discover.
  6.50 p.m.
  Mr. R. J. Mellish: It is a long time since I spoke from this exalted position about transport—or so it appears to me. With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to start with a tribute to my very good friend—and, I believe, the friend of the whole House—Tony Wedgwood Benn, who was our leader on transport matters on behalf of the Labour Party and did a magnificent job.
  He would have enjoyed this debate today. He would have been in his element and poked a lot of fun at the Minister of Transport—something which he could do very effectively. But he would also have asked a simple question: why is not the Minister of Works replying to this debate? This Bill concerns the Ministry of Works very much, for it involves a Royal Park, and certainly the Minister of Works should have something to say.
  The Minister of Transport may be surprised at the reception which the Bill has received in the House. Of course, he is not very adept at estimating the reactions of Parliament. He has his own reactions, which are usually those of a business man's approach, to these matters. He failed to realise, in putting this plan forward and talking about an underground garage in Hyde Park, that one of the most important factors is that this is not just a London park but one of the greatest parks in Great Britain. It is something which is part of our democracy.
  I have taken the trouble to read—and I hope that the Minister, when he gets time from studying reports on roads, will do the same—"The History of Twenty-five years (1856–80)" written by Sir Spencer Walpole, dealing with the time when reform movements were active and with the tremendous fights for freedom of the parks and for the freedom of the people.
  All this may be taken for granted now, but democracy has not just occurred—
  1058
  it had to be fought for. Now the right hon. Gentleman comes along and, using typical modern jargon, says that we must have a new use for Hyde Park. He must not be surprised if a number of people have reacted violently. That is why the Minister of Works, who looks after our Royal Parks, should be replying to the debate and giving us assurances about the future of the parks.
  Nevertheless, it would be inconsistent for us to oppose this Bill, though perhaps for reasons different from those given by the Minister of Transport, In allowing this Bill a Second Reading, however, we are gravely disturbed by the lack of information which we have had up to date, and we shall want many more assurances before we agree to allow it a Third Reading.
  This is not the first debate which we have had on the problem of traffic in great cities. We have been given many figures, both for the present and the future. We believe that the priority in our cities should be for public transport on the main roads. But, having said that, one must ask: How are we to achieve it? Any hon. Member who glibly says that certain parts of Central London should he denied to the private motorist should have a look at the implications.
  If we decided to deny a large area to the private motorist, then we should have to bring in legislation in order to do it, and should have to agree to certain classes having permits to use the area despite the ban. Immediately we introduced those permits, the black market boys would print their own, and then we should have the police doing nothing else but look after permits and those who had them.
  Having said that, however, it is essential to recognise that we must say to the private motorist that, as the pattern is now forming, it will be such that if he goes into the main roads of our cities he will have to pay dearly, either by off-parking facilities or by parking meters. It is the duty of all of us to ensure that these facilities are given to those who can necessarily afford them. It is as simple as that. It may not be a good doctrine, but in 1965 we shall have 16 million vehicles on the roads. Today we have 8½ million.

  1059
  The approach, therefore, must be imaginative. We may say that the roads must be kept clear of the private motorist and that all he will be allowed to do is stop to pick up or put down a passenger. But if we do that we must provide him with parking facilities. That is why we on this side of the House consider it inevitable that Hyde Park, or any other park, where practicable, should provide underground facilities for parking. This was a natural consequence of the arguments which have been adduced up to now.
  One of the arguable points about this Measure is that the right hon. Gentleman says it is an enabling Bill. He was not able to tell us how this underground garage is to be paid for. He has not yet made up his mind whether it will be privately owned or municipally owned. We believe that it is absolutely monstrous that this has not been decided upon by the Minister at this stage.
  Either the Ministry of Works or the London County Council should own it. The Minister has said that the garage will be lucrative, and I am sure that he is right. A thousand cars a day will park there. No doubt it will eventually not only pay for itself but will make a profit. Why should this great facility underneath one of our Royal Parks be handed over to private enterprise to reap the benefit of the profit? It does not seem feasible that the State, if it provides the site to private enterprise because it cannot find sites of its own to develop, should not retain a measure of control.
  I believe that this site should be reserved either for the Ministry of Works or for the L.C.C. I cannot believe that it would be very hard to operate, or that it would need many attendants. The municipality would be able to run it just as well as would private enterprise.
  Conservative Members should be very careful about this, because at the seaside almost all car parks are owned by the local corporation, and they are run very well. No one complains about that. I imagine that Brighton and Margate and other seaside resorts represented by Conservative Members would resent private enterprise awning their sea-fronts
  1060
  and taking the profit of the car parks along them.
  I realise that I do not speak for everybody on my side of the House, just as the Minister of Transport does not speak for everyone on his side of the House, on this subject, but I believe this car park to be inevitable and a consequence of our having to live with the motorist today.
  The hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher) complained bitterly about Pink Zone parking and asked why it was not continued. There is a great deal to be said for his arguments. The Minister has bragged a great deal about the success of the Pink Zone. If it was such a success, why did he operate it only for Christmas?
  The traffic in London, particularly in Central London, is just as bad for the rest of the year as it is at Christmas. I see no reason why facilities for parking should not be allowed. The Minister says that we will be well advised to ask questions of the Minister of Works. The Minister of Works is here today and he should be getting up to answer this debate. His Department is associated with this Bill, which is trying to bring parking to central London. We believe that had the Minister of Works cooperated with the Minister of Transport on the extension of the Pink Zone facilities, it might well have been that Hyde Park need not have come into the matter. However, this car park is obviously something which we have to have because of the removal of many of the facilities which were available at the time of the Pink Zone.
  The Minister of Works (Lord John Hope): As the guardian of the amenities of the Royal Parks, I would far rather have cars underneath, where they will not show, than all over the place where they will spoil Hyde Park.
  Mr. Mellish: It is a matter of opinion. As they were parked in the Pink Zone, I do not think that they spoil the Park.
  The Minister of Transport has this very difficult problem of trying to cater for the motorist and no one—and this applies to hon. Members on both sides of the House—has the right to say that millions of pounds should be taken from motorists while at the same time they are restricted. Nowadays, the

  1061
  average person wants to buy a car, and nothing will stop that trend. We have to live with this problem.
  However, I have a complaint against the Minister of Transport and I should like him to answer some questions. I am advised that the London County Council asked for this underground garage to be built, making its request at the commencement of the Hyde Park scheme, but that the Minister turned down the request.
  Mr. Marples: No.
  Mr. Mellish: The Minister has this happy knack of saying "No" off the cuff to these questions. For example, I am told that he discussed the matter with the T.U.C. recently and is supposed to have said, again off the cuff, that he intended to drive all private motorists off the roads.
  Mr. Marples: No.
  Mr. Mellish: I am advised by the London County Council, at a very important level, that the Council pleaded with him to have this scheme ready for implementation at the start of the Hyde Park improvement scheme. In fact there has been a year's delay. Is that true? If so, what does it mean? Has extra cost been incurred because this garage was not started at the same time as the Hyde Park scheme? Is not this delay in the right hon. Gentleman's Ministry very serious?
  One of the reasons why we in London welcome the Bill is that it shows a change of policy on the part of the Government. The Minister of Defence, when Minister of Transport, made it perfectly clear that he would not give any special financial assistance towards providing car parks on expensive sites. His general attitude was unfriendly towards such schemes. We support the Bill at this stage because the present Minister has gone out of his way to find a site to try to relieve congestion in London and, in co-operation with the Minister of Works, this financial help is now being given.
  We shall not oppose the Second Reading., but in Committee we shall try to tighten the Bill considerably. We shall want to know much more about its financial implications and try to make certain that at the end of the day
  1062
  this car park is owned either by the Ministry of Works or by the London County Council. We shall want to know far more about the time factor and how long it is proposed to take to construct the car park—the Minister must have some ideas about that—and when it is expected to come into operation. We believe that, providing we are given certain assurances about the amenities of Hyde Park, the Bill will do a useful job for Londoners, motorists and the country generally.
  7.4 p.m.
  Mr. Marples: By leave of the House, I begin by wishing the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) a quick recovery from influenza. He has done splendidly today considering that he has been ill. I must now go on to ask him what was the high level source of the London County Council which said that the Council had met me and that I had turned down its request in connection with the Hyde Park Scheme.
  Mr. Mellish: The Planning Committee of London County Council, and Mr. Edmonds was my source.
  Mr. Marples: I shall have a word with Mr. Edmonds about it, because when the Hyde Park scheme was going through we were interested in this matter, and I have always been interested in it. Frankly, I was first told by the lawyers that it would be a hybrid Measure, then that it would not be and then that it would be, but I assure the hon. Member that at no time have I refused the L.C.C. or anybody else on this issue. I have been interested in it from the beginning, and I shall certainly get in touch with Mr. Edmonds on the matter.
  The hon. Member also referred to some off the cuff remarks which he said I had made when I met the T.U.C. in a 3¼-hour private meeting. We had an agreed Press release, but four different versions of what I said appeared in four different papers the next day. One part was so offensive that I categorically denied it straight away. If the hon. Member wants me to refer him to anybody, I refer him to Mr. Woodcock, the General Secretary of the T.U.C., and I advise the hon. Member to ask him what happened. He will then get the reassurance which he wants.

  1063
  Apart from that, the hon. Member seemed to agree with a great deal of the Government's policy towards oft-street parking—that it should be provided at economic prices and by local authorities in conjunction with private enterprise. I agreed with him when lie said that the motor car had become almost a symbol of social status. If anybody wants to have a motor car, then I join with the hon. Member in saying that it is premature by a long chalk at this stage to say that private cars should be banned from the centre of London.
  I think that the hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) has not thought out the matter. This is something to be considered carefully. Would doctors be permitted to have private cars in central London? Would commercial travellers be denied their cars in central London—or invalids with tricycles who now have special permits to park in Westminster and to come to London to work? I know of one or two invalids who work in Berkeley Street who have special parking facilities. What about foreigners coming here as tourists? Are not they to be allowed in the centre of London? What about business in the hotels and shops? The centre of London would be destroyed as an area if we took steps as far reaching as that.
  If he were here. I would ask the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) whether he drives to London and leaves his car in Palace Yard? I used to come here on my bicycle and he, as a little man, comes in his big car—he can only just see over the steering wheel. I can tell him that it is only by the grace of God and the absence of getting in the hon. Gentleman's way that I am at this Box today. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is not here, but I have no doubt that he is engaged on other and more important business and I wish him well in his task.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Beckhenham (Mr. Goodhart) asked what I was doing about parking in other local authority areas. I am to see the Association of Municipal Corporations and the Metropolitan Boroughs Standing Joint Committee, because in the plans which I hope to make for off-street car parking I propose to lean heavily on local autho-
  1064
  cities for acquisition of property and to do a deal in partnership, as it were, with private enterprise.
  This technique of getting these underground car parks is nothing new. It was used with the Metropolitan Railway years ago when, instead of tunnelling, which was expensive—it was moving the earth which was expensive—a hole was cut and then covered.
  Many people have been worried about the amenities of Hyde Park, but I assure them that when the car park is finished they will not be able to see that it is there merely by looking around. I am certain that visually it will be perfectly acceptable to all hon. Members. I offer that assurance to my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes), who sent me his apologies for not being able to be present and who followed me as Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. I think that the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Greenwood) will agree with me that while I was at the Ministry I did my utmost for the amenity interest of the National Parks and other areas, and I assure the hon. Member that, even with my vested interest as Minister of Transport, I could not have supported this scheme if I had thought that the amenities of Hyde Park would be damaged in any way. I assure him that the scrutiny of my noble Friend the Minister of Works and his Ministry has been as searching as any audit of a joint stock company.
  The right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), who always enlivens us with his wisdom and wit and whom I congratulate on dodging motor cars for some 78 years—he has done very well and is hale and hearty and will last for a long time yet—
  Mr. Ede: I was run down by a penny-farthing in 1890 and it taught me to have great circumspection in walking across the Queen's highway.
  Mr. Marples: I can only hope that the rider of the penny-farthing bicycle was not as erratic as the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne in his large car.
  The right hon. Gentleman might say that I am optimistic, but do not let us be too pessimistic. The Pink Zone arrangement of 1959 was an effort to try

  1065
  to get us out of a mess at Christmas time. Although there was over 6 per cent. more traffic in that year than in the preceding year the traffic flowed better. This year there was another 6 per cent. increase in traffic yet the Pink Zone worked better than it did in the previous year.
  One of the best services that a Minister of Transport can render is to ensure that public transport is able to move freely. One of the difficulties is that buses are so often delayed. This year, as in the previous year, we found London buses running into trouble on the periphery of the Pink Zone. We shall therefore have to spread further and further out.
  The hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) was kind enough to say that he would not be here when I replied to the debate. He asked what would be the cost of the garage per car. It may vary with the design of the garage, but we expect it to work out at between 7s. and 10s., which is about the price ruling in that part of Mayfair. The hon. and learned Gentleman asked where the money for the lease would go, and pointed out that this was not mentioned in the Bill. I am advised by the legal gentlemen that there is no need to have it in the Bill. Although it is not mentioned, it will, as hon. Members might well know, go to the Exchequer.
  The hon. and learned Gentleman also asked about multi-storey car parks. They are being built both in the City of London and in Westminster. He also thought that a car park for 1,000 cars was too large and would not be used. We are certain that it will be. The same thing was said about the Lex-Selfridge Garage, and it was not used until we had parking meters in the streets. When the parking meter system is extended, as it will he this year, the garage will be used. Charges will not be excessive. The operator must get a return on his money, and the price will probably be the same as that in the Lex-Selfridge Garage.
  The hon. Member for Bermondsey said that it should go to the local authority. We played fair. We went to the Westminster City Council and gave it first refusal. We asked the Council if it would like to take a lease on this. To be quite frank, the Council was interested at first, but then said that as it had so many other projects
  1066
  on hand it would be better if we dealt with it in another way. That, however, is not the final answer. The Westminster City Council is the authority responsible for parking meters. I went to the right source. All the Metropolitan boroughs in the City of London are the parking authorities for their own districts, and I do not think that I did wrong in that respect.
  Mr. Mellish: Why cannot the Ministry of Works take it over?
  Mr. Marples: I do not think that it would be appropriate for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Works to take it over because he is not in business to provide car parks.
  It is an education to be at the Dispatch Box. It is an education to hear the conflicting advice that I get from hon. Members opposite. If I appoint a committee they say that there are too many committees. On the other hand, I was faced with a deputation led by the hon. Gentleman who asked me to set up another committee. At Question Time today I was reproved very amiably and in courteous terms, by the hon. Gentleman who considered that I had too much work to do. The hon. and learned Member for Kettering took precisely the opposite line and suggested that I should take on this additional task. Whatever one does when one is a Minister, one is bound to be wrong. The Opposition must make up their minds what they want.
  I told the hon. Member for Islington, South-West (Mr. A. Evans) that I would place in the Library a copy of the draft lease which we shall send to tenderers. This garage will be let in precisely the same way as the service areas on the M.1. We shall prepare a general specification of what we have in mind for the structure, fire precaution requirements, and so on. The organisations will provide their own designs. We shall vet those designs, and the companies which tender will estimate, as they did for the M.1, their capital costs, their expenses and the income that they are likely to get. After that, they will bid for the lease. They will bid the variable rent which they think they can afford to pay. They may make it variable in many ways. That is the competitive element in it.

  1067
  We at the Ministry of Transport will watch this very carefully, and the Treasury will watch the Ministry of Transport. The interests of the House will be looked after as they are in the ordinary course of events.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher) asked how soon the garage would be ready. The first step is to get the authority through Parliament. People outside sometimes wonder why we are a little slow in this House. They expect us to go straight into Hyde Park and start digging. As soon as the House gives permission—I cannot move before that and it would be improper to do so—and detailed plans are sent out, the actual construction time will depend on whether it includes two summers or two winters. It will take between eighteen months and two years to build—two years at the most. If the weather is fine and not like it has been lately, it will probably be completed within eighteen months of the detailed drawings being ready.
  My hon. Friend said that the Ministry should insist on the developers of new office buildings providing adequate off-street car parking facilities. They do that now, and there is no need for additional powers. The standards have been varied by the London County Council and we are again looking at them in the light of modern requirements.
  Without any party feeling, I am bound to say that every expert in this country has under-estimated the increase in cars and the amount of garage accommodation required on new housing estates and in new towns. Only eight garages per 100 people have been built in the new towns, and that has proved to be inadequate. The garage accommodation has fallen far short of what is required.
  The hon. Member for Rossendale asked why this site had been selected. The answer is that it is a convenient site. It is near Mayfair where sites are very hard to find, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton pointed out, when one does find them they are expensive and may be awkwardly shaped for building. The London County Council as the planning authority—with which I shall be in close contact very shortly on another matter—agrees that a 1,000 car garage will not overload the surrounding
  1068
  roads. The London Traffic Management Unit has looked at it. My Departmental engineers have also looked at it, and we are certain that it will not overload the roads.
  The hon. Member for Rossendale counted 126 trees in the authorised area and asked about the remaining 111 trees. The answer is that we expect the garage itself to be under the parade ground where there are no trees. It is only the entrance and access tunnels which will interfere with the trees.
  The hon. Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Parkin) made a most interesting speech on underground garages. He asked why we were carving up 36 acres. The answer is that 36 acres were taken as the area in which work would take place—to put the spoil and to get a good amenity background to it—but only six acres will be used for the actual hole in the ground. If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I will not go into the other points that he made because they were rather far-reaching. As he was mat wholly in order during the whole of his speech I do not think that he would expect me to go into matters that he raised as deeply as he did.
  My hon. Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Sir W. Wakefield), who is always interested in these things, asked what else could be done about off-street parking. I am seeing the Association of Municipal Corporations. I have also seen such people as the Kensington Borough Council. As parking meter schemes are extended it will be necessary for the various authorities to take action to provide facilities for off-street parking, and I want them to prepare their plans in plenty of time.
  I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for St. Marylebone that the exhaust vents and emergency exists will be screened. As I said, after it has been completed one would not know that there is a garage there unless one were told.
  My hon. Friend quoted from a doctor's letter to say that there was not sufficient accommodation for off-street parking in the area where the doctors normally live and work. St. Marylebone Council was very good. It got a site in Harley Street where it proposed to allow some off-street parking. However, one or two

  1069
  doctors round there objected to it. Then they wrote to me to say, "Where can I park my car?" I very nearly told them.
  I think I have answered most of the questions and have not taken up too much of the time of the House. I am obliged to the House for not opposing the Bill. If the enthusiasm of the other side was not quite what I hoped and expected, I will, nevertheless, drown my disappointment in a few moments. I thank the House for giving the Bill an unopposed Second Reading.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 38 (Commital of Bills).

FLOOD PREVENTION (SCOTLAND) BILL
Order for consideration; as amended (in the Standing Committee), read.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Bill be re-committed to a Committee of the whole House in respect of the Amendments to Clause 2, page 2, lines 7 and 26; Clause 12, page 8, line 12; and Clause 13, page 8, line 30, standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. Secretary Maclay.—[Mr. Maclay.]
Question amended, by adding, at the end:
"and in respect of the Amendments to Clause 2, page 2, line 26; Clause 3, page 2, line 38, standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. William Ross."—[Mr. Ross.]
and, as amended, agreed to.
Bill immediately considered in Committee.
[Sir GORDON TOUCHE in the Chair]

FLOOD PREVENTION (SCOTLAND) BILL

  Clause 2. (POWERS OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES.)
  7.23 p.m.
  The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith): I beg to move, in page 2, line 7, to leave out first "or".
  It might be convenient to the Committee if we also take the Amendment in line 7, after "alteration", insert "or major reinstatement".
  Hon. Members will recollect that in Committee I gave an undertaking to consider the drafting of Clause 2 to make it clear that maintenance and management operations were the day-to-day works of a routine nature which any prudent local authority might be expected to carry out and that they were not intended to embrace, for example, the clearance of major obstructions from a watercourse. That was the meaning we tried to convey in the original draft of Clause 2 (1, (a). We specified by a reference to cleansing, clearing and repairing the types of operations which might appropriately signify maintenance and management operations.
  I said, however, that I recognised that the use of the word "clearing" in this paragraph might possibly result in local authorities who wish to remove large boulders or other major obstacles from

  1071
  a watercourse being debarred from carrying out the work under a flood prevention scheme and so not getting a grant. This was never our intention. The Committee will recollect that I undertook at the outset to remove the word "clearing" from the paragraph, and I will deal with that in a subsequent Amendment.
  The purpose of the second Amendment now under consideration is to insert the words "or major reinstatement" in Clause 2 (1, c). I think this reference more accurately covers the sort of clearance and restoration work which is beyond the scope of maintenance and which should be dealt with under a scheme and so qualify for grant. As I said, we had never intended it should be otherwise. I am grateful to hon. Members for raising the point. I hope that the Committee will now feel the Amendments effectively cover the matter.
  I should, perhaps, say that the first of the two Amendments on this line, which is to leave out the word "or", is purely a drafting Amendment which is consequential on the second Amendment.
  Mr. William Ross: Since we are discussing both proposed Amendments together, I think it is only fair to express our appreciation to the Joint Under-Secretary of State for having listened to what we said in Committee and to have gone this far in making these changes. I cannot, however, entirely agree with him about what he has said. I persuaded him in Committee that it would be unfair to ask a local authority to take over a new responsibility, such as a watercourse, and to clear it and put it in a state of proper efficiency. The initial operation might well be quite a considerable one and might be a very expensive one. Where the Government have the ward "clearing" in the original Clause, it meant that no grant would be available and the operation would be considered to be purely a matter of maintenance. However, our logic prevailed and the Government said they would do something about it.
  We will look at what they have done. They propose to put in the words "or major reinstatement". Our complaint—and it is one we voice time and time again about the Government, and particularly about a certain Scottish Minis-
  1072
  ter—is that they just cannot resist the lure of language. If a thing is simple they have to put in some other word. Obviously, if we are asking a local authority to assume a new responsibility and that responsibility is a watercourse, which is not in a reasonable condition, and the local authority, first of all, has to reinstate it, the Government are not satisfied with the simple word "reinstatement", but they must have the words "major reinstatement". Why on earth should it be "major reinstatement".
  We must appreciate that it is going to be left to the Secretary of State to decide whether it is "major" or whether it is "minor". If this is the differentiation that will be placed on it the difference to the local authority is whether it will be grant aided. I presume that if it is merely a reinstatement, somehow or other someone will contrive to call it maintenance. I hope that having gone so far to be persuaded in Committee the Secretary of State will be persuaded to leave well alone in relation to the word "reinstatement" at which he first arrived. I hope that he will resist the temptation to put in a word which merely complicates, obstructs and restricts the work of local authorities in relation to what they might be able to get from the Government in carrying out a task which, hitherto, has not been their responsibility.
  With those remarks, I invite the Joint Under-Secretary to say that he is prepared to consider the position and to see whether he can, at a later stage, delete the word "major", so leaving the matter quite clear and yet still within the bounds of the authority of the Secretary of State. Why not trust local authorities for a change? Let us get rid of this horror of clarity which seems to come over the Joint Parliamentary Secretary or the Secretary of State when he deals with legislation in relation to Scottish affairs.
  7.30 p.m.
  Mr. E. G. Willis: Having heard the lucid and persuasive plea of my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), I am sure that the Government will have something to say. I appreciate that the Joint Under-Secretary may feel that he is not empowered to concede anything, but we

  1073
  have with us tonight the Secretary of State, who is always amenable to the reasoning put forward from this side of the Committee. He appreciates its cogency and understands the fight that we put up to get the best we can for Scotland. I should think that he would appreciate the very good arguments put forward by my hon. Friend.
  What does the word "major" mean? When does "major" cease to be major and become minor? I do not know. The Lord Advocate is also here tonight, completing a veritable array of talent, legal and everything else, on the Front Bench. I am sure that he would be prepared to advise us on the meaning of the word. He will be able to tell us what construction the courts will place upon it.
  I can understand the meaning of the phrase "reinstate a watercourse", but I cannot understand how it can be reinstated in a major way. If a local authority reinstates a watercourse it reinstates it. There is a good reason for leaving the word out. As my hon. Friend pointed out, in the final analysis the Secretary of State will decide whether to accept the proposals of a local authority. If he thinks that something is not the kind of reinstatement which should qualify for grant, I have no doubt that he will tell the local authority, "This is not in order under a flood prevention scheme; this is the type of work we expect you, as a local authority, to carry out in connection with the maintenance of the scheme." He will send the application back and suggest that the authority should frame the scheme again, leaving that part of it out.
  The inclusion of the word "major" is likely to deter a local authority from applying. It will be apt to think that the grant is paid only for something big. That is surely what the word "major" means. Members of a local authority, seeing the word, are likely to say, "We had better not put this in," and will be apt not to apply for the moneys which the House, including the hon. Member, thinks it is entitled to. I am sure the hon. Member would not like to treat local authorities in that way. In those circumstances, I hope that we shall have some reply on this point. There is something in this argument. The word
  1074
  "major" does not seem to serve any useful purpose, especially in view of the other safeguards contained in the Bill.
  Mr. Galbraith: The word "major", to which the hon. Member has taken exception, was put in in order to differentiate between the minor sort of reinstatement which might come under cleansing and the major kind which might occur if large boulders had to be cleared out. However, I agree with the hon. Member that there is not a great deal in it, and I am prepared to consider deleting the word.
  Mr. Ross: That is very generous of the Joint Under-Secretary. He has just made one of the best speeches I have heard from him for a long time. If we go on in this way we shall finish up with a really good Bill, despite all its limitations.
  Mr. A. C. Manuel: I want to clear my own mind on this point. The Joint Under-Secretary will know that in Clause 3 (2, b) there is a reference to the paragraph which the Amendment would alter. It refers to the fact that the powers mentioned in the paragraph
  "shall (without prejudice to the generality of that paragraph) include power to remove any dam or other work situated, or any tree growing, in, on, over or under the watercourse."
  Is the Minister quite certain that the insertion of the words "major reinstatement" will not be misleading when read in conjunction with that paragraph?
  Mr. Galbraith: We shall be able to consider that point in another place.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendment made: In page 2, line 7, after "alteration", insert or major reinstatement".—[Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith.]
  Mr. Ross: I beg to move, in page 2, to leave out line 26.
  This Amendment will come as no surprise to the Joint Under-Secretary. If the words proposed to be left out are retained, it will mean that the Secretary of State has power to tell local authorities, at the start, that whatever else they do in relation to flood preventing operations they must not do anything about sewers or water mains. He may regard me as a little churlish, because he has

  1075
  answered some of our arguments by putting down a later Amendment. It is true that that Amendment partly meets the points we made in Committee, but even if we accepted it as adequate I do not see why he should not see his way to accept this Amendment.
  If, in the first and most important operational Clause, we provide that a local authority can do A, B, C, D, E, F and G, it seems strange to provide that it must not do anything about sewers or water mains when, in Clause 12, we provide that it can do something about them, even if only in a limited way.
  Secondly, bearing in mind the fact that the Clause is governed by the reference to the purpose of the Bill, which is
  "for the prevention or mitigation of flooding of non-agricultural land"
  in the areas of local authorities, the construing of any reference to a watercourse as including a sewer or water main would mean that any operations in addition to that work must be operations relating to flood prevention or mitigation.
  In that respect, the fears that he expressed in the Standing Committee are quite unjustified—the will remember what they were, although he may not like to be reminded of what he said. He said—and I think that this is the real reason behind the Government's obduracy—that unless those words were there some unscrupulous Scottish local authority would use these powers to get, perhaps, a new sewer or something like that, and would get a better grant under this Measure than under other legislation. I think that under the desk of every civil servant at the Scottish Office there must be a placard with the words, "Never forget—do not trust the local authorities".
  Not only have we the limiting words that the work must be related to flood prevention or mitigation, but we have the overall dominion and surveillance and control of the Secretary of State over all these things. I cannot therefore conceive of some small—or large authority—even if it were so unscrupulous as to try that sort of thing—being able to get round the whole Scottish Office. Even if it did, I am perfectly sure that it would not get past
  1076
  the eye of the Secretary of State for Scotland.
  I still think, therefore, that although the Government have gone in a very roundabout and imperfect way to meet objections that during the Committee stage they considered were valid, they would have done far better to accept the advice we gave on these words and on the financial provision Clause, which would permit grants to be given for work connected with the sewers and water mains.
  They have done the second part of the job for us, and acceptance of the Amendment would, I think, put us in the position of trusting the Secretary of State, trusting the local authorities, and trusting the words of the Bill that anything done in relation to these things would be related to flood prevention and mitigation. The Government's Amendments are not at the moment under discussion, so I shall not deal with them, but I think that they are subject to valid criticisms that could be better met were this Amendment accepted.
  Mr. William Baxter: I support the argument advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross). In the course of cleaning up a river, an authority might have to deepen it, and that, in turn, might mean an alteration of some water main or sewer belonging, perhaps, to a local authority adjacent to that doing the work. If the Clause is left as it is, that could give rise to a certain amount of feeling, and it would be in the best interests of local authorities and of the Department if the Government were to accept this Amendment.
  7.45 p.m.
  Mr. Manuel: To leave in line 26 will undoubtedly cause confusion. By a later Amendment, the Government show that they are cognisant of the difficulty here, and are, I presume, indicating that they would be prepared to take our point of view where a local authority, in relation to a water main or a sewage pipe, had to divert the previous course or, in deepening operations, had to lower the existing level. To do that is quite common. Since I spoke on this subject in the Standing Committee I have taken particular note of the number of authorities that have, passing through their townships, burns and rivers in which are

  1077
  housed sewage systems, water mains and other like services.
  It is possible that we have been a little timorous; perhaps we should also have included electricity, gas and other services. We want our view to be very firmly in the Government's mind. Acceptance of this Amendment would avoid misunderstanding and confusion. As the Amendment standing in the name of the Joint Under-Secretary goes more or less the whole way on this matter, I do not see much value in now retaining this line. When the Government's Amendment is accepted they will assume the onus in that connection, so I do not see that the hon. Gentleman is laying himself open to anything such as he fears.
  Mr. Galbraith: After the pleasant way in which we started our proceedings, I must confess that I thought that the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) was perhaps slightly churlish in not accepting what we proposed.
  The effect of this Amendment—which, as the hon. Gentleman stated, we discussed at considerable length in the Scottish Standing Committee—would be to include sewers and water mains as defined in Clause 15 amongst the watercourses on which, under the Bill, local authorities could do work. I said in Committee that I could not agree that a local authority should be able by this Bill to carry out work that should be done as part of its own or another authority's responsibility for sewering or for providing water for its area. Perhaps the phrase I then used—of which hon. Members have been good enough to remind me—was a little unfortunate.
  On that occasion, however, I undertook to look at the drafting of Clause 2 to see whether anything could be done to allow local authorities to carry out under the Bill work on a sewer or water main to the extent that such work was necessary to prevent urban flooding. I have done this, and while I do not wish to anticipate consideration of later Amendments, I think that I can say that we have achieved the desired results by the Amendments that my right hon. Friend seeks to make in Clause 12, page 8, line 12, and in Clause 13, page 8, line 30.
  The Amendment that we are now discussing goes very much further than is
  1078
  necessary to achieve what the Opposition asked me in Committee to try to achieve. It would not only enable flood prevention authorities to carry out work on installations that are the concern—and, in some cases, the highly specialist concern—of the sewerage and water authorities, but would make it possible for the flood authorities "to encroach on functions that properly belong to those other bodies.
  I have given this matter very careful thought—because I agree with the hon. Member for Kilmarnock that it might have been better if we could have introduced the concept at this early stage in the Bill rather than later on—but I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that the proper thing to do in order to achieve what the Opposition want is to arrange for any necessary work on sewers and water mains to be specified in the flood prevention scheme, and to have it done—with the assistance of whatever contribution from the flood prevention authority may be thought appropriate—by the authority whose job it is to provide these water or sewerage services.
  Our Amendments enable the flood authorities to get grant on the contribution which they make for this purpose to the sewerage and water authorities. As that also meets another point made by the Opposition, I hope that, with that explanation, the hon. Gentleman will not feel disposed to press the Amendment.
  Mr. Willis: I did not find the argument of the hon. Gentleman very convincing. By leaving these words in Clause 2, he indicates to local authorities at the beginning of the Bill That when they are dealing with watercourses they cannot include any sewers or water mains. He says that he has met us—we are very grateful for that—by making provisions later in the Bill, in Clauses 12 and 13, for work to be done on those and to be paid for. I wonder whether that does what the hon. Gentleman says it does—makes it possible for those to be included in flood prevention schemes.
  Clause 2 deals with the powers of local authorities in the preparation of flood prevention schemes and in maintaining and managing such schemes. In that Clause the hon. Gentleman deliberately excludes these two things, yet he has told us in justification that he wants

  1079
  a local authority to include them in schemes put before him. Unless he does something about these words, or puts something into Clause 4 which tells us about flood prevention schemes, it does not seem that he will be giving a local authority power to do the things for which he is now providing the money.
  He is deliberately excluding the local authority from undertaking this work while at the same time providing money for it to be carried out. Surely there is a contradiction there. The contradiction comes out all the more clearly by virtue of what the hon. Gentleman has said in justification for refusing to accept this Amendment. If he left these words out, what difference would it make? The local authority would include the work. I have no doubt that it would see that it was done in the best possible way, as the local authority responsible for sewerage and drainage, or by another authority responsible for those services. If the local authority tried to take the Scottish Office for a ride—a particularly difficult thing to do, I imagine—the safeguard would be that the scheme has to be approved by the Secretary of State. In view of that, there is no need for these wards.
  This suspicious attitude of mind towards local authorities is astonishing. My hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. W. Baxter), my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) and my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) have all given many valuable years of service to local authorities. They have played leading parts in local authorities. With the wealth of their experience on how local authorities operate, they have said to the hon. Gentleman that it would be better to leave these words out. In view of the practical advice he has been offered and the arguments which he must admit have some validity, surely the hon. Gentleman can look at this matter again?
  We appreciate what the hon. Gentleman has done in relation to later provisions, but that will not have value if a local authority cannot do anything under those provisions. We cannot see how that can be done if these words are left in the Bill.
  Mr. Galbraith: The difficulty is that hon. Members opposite have not appreciated the practical problems involved. They seem to be assuming that the flood prevention authority and the sewerage authority are to be the same.
  Mr. Manuel: They usually are.
  Mr. Galbraith: They may be, or they may not be. I agree that if they are the same authority there is not the same obstacle in the way of accepting the Amendment, but equally they may not be the same authority. That is where we run into difficulties; because, if the Amendment were accepted, it would be giving the flood prevention authority power to enter in and act on another authority's sewers or water mains.
  On reflection, I think that is something which the whole Committee would agree would not be a good thing. For that reason, I cannot accept the Amendment.
  Mr. Ross: We had lengthy discussions on this point in Committee upstairs, but this is the first time that the hon. Gentleman has dragged in this argument. The Bill gives the right to a local authority to go into another local authority's area and on to someone else's land to conduct operations in relation to that land The hon. Gentleman should appreciate, also, that that could be done only under a flood prevention scheme, and, before such a scheme is even discussed with the Secretary of State, it has to be advertised. Anyone with any concern in relation to it has the right to give evidence and make objections. I think the hon. Gentleman is making a mountain out of a small molehill.
  Bearing in mind that in most cases the sewerage authority, the water authority and the local authority doing work, are most likely to be the same authority, the sewers and water mains are most likely to be within the area of the authority which initiates the scheme. I do not say that that will always be the case, but I think the difficulties are being overestimated. On the other hand, I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not underestimating the difficulties in relation to his solution.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) put some very cogent points. That is why I allowed this Amendment to remain on the

  1081
  Notice Paper, despite the fact that the Joint Under-Secretary has suggested that there is a way round this difficulty without making any change in the Clause. We shall have to examine that point when we come to it. I do not know whether the Lard Advocate has looked at this from the point of view of the legality of the alternative to the Amendment I have moved. A flood prevention scheme includes flood prevention operations and those operations are specifically defined in the Clause. That means that they will not include anything to do with sewers and water mains.
  8.0 p.m.
  There are considerable difficulties in what the hon. Gentleman has suggested. We are pressing the Amendment, not only because we think it is right, but because we have doubts about the validity of the Government Amendment, well meaning as it is within its limits. Does not the Minister appreciate that all the restrictions which he requires are in the Clause to meet the objections which he has advanced both in Standing Committee and today? This cannot be dealt with at all unless there is a scheme for flood prevention or mitigation. It must be included in a flood prevention scheme if it is to attract grant. If it is only maintenance, it does not come within the scheme and the Secretary of State is not concerned because he is making no payment. If it is to cost anything, then it must be in a scheme which must be prepared and published to everyone, including any authority which might be concerned. Finally, the scheme must be confirmed by the Secretary of State.
  For the life of me I cannot understand why the Secretary of State, the Lord Advocate, and the Joint Under-Secretary of State do not see the logic and the sense of that. They are being far too timorous. I cannot help feeling that it is not the last argument which the hon. Member advanced which carries weight with him. He had made up his mind long before he produced it. The true reason is that he fears that local authorities might get away with something. The Government lack faith in themselves because, after all, they have to confirm the schemes. I feel very strongly about this, because what we suggest is such common sense. We must press common sense on the Government,
  1082
  and I therefore ask my hon. Friends to divide on the Amendment.
  Mr. Manuel: Surely this is not a subject on which we ought to have to divide. The Joint Under-Secretary of State said that the authority concerned might be the local authority but it might not. If it were not the local authority directly, it would most probably be one of a combination of local authorities. A sewerage authority, after all, is not an abstract body divorced from local authorities; it is either itself a local authority or is in partnership with other local authorities in dealing with a sewerage scheme. The Minister is making confusion worse confounded by taking the powers outwith the local authorities.
  I am convinced that the provisions we suggest would create not the slightest difficulty. The local authorities would agree harmoniously about this. With experience of this work, I say that the Minister's fears are quite unfounded. I challenge him, because I think that he has made no sounding of local authority opinion in this matter. I am certain that had he done so he would have received every assurance he wanted about possible future difficulties.
  Mr. Galbraith: The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) accuses me of being suspicious of local authorities. The trouble with him is that he is suspicious of me and my motives, and without any justification.
  Although he does not believe me, I have tried to meet his point about whether a local authority should have power to meddle with another local authority's sewers. It is a matter of judgment. The hon. Member considers that the local authority ought to have power to do so, but I consider that it ought not. I had hoped that it would not be necessary for the Committee to divide on this Amendment, but in any event I cannot make any further move at all on this subject.
  Mr. W. Baxter: This proposal is only incidental to the scheme being proposed by the local authority. It proposes a scheme to the Minister for flood prevention in an area and, in the course of carrying it out, it finds it necessary to interfere with another local authority's sewers or water pipes. Surely it is reasonable in those circumstances that

  1083
  the authority which presented the flood prevention scheme should have power to deepen the mains or alter the course of a main without having to consult the other authority and to hold up the scheme. The only way in which it would be interfering would be in deepening the river for flood prevention purposes—and those are the purposes of the Bill.
  The necessity to consult other local authorities will add a great deal of extra time and trouble. I have been associated

  Division No. 36.]

  AYES

  [8.8 p.m.

  Agnew, Sir Peter

  Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

  Percival, Ian

  Aitken, W. T.

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Pilkington, Capt. Sir Richard

  Arbuthnot, John

  Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

  Pitt, Miss Edith

  Ashton, Sir Hubert

  Harvie Anderson, Miss

  Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch

  Balniel, Lord

  Hastings, Stephen

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Barlow, Sir John

  Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

  Prior, J. M. L.

  Barter, John

  Heath, Rt. Hon. Edward

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho

  Berkeley, Humphry

  Henderson, John (Cathcart)

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Black, Sir Cyril

  Hendry, Forbes

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Bossom, Clive

  Hicks Beach, Maj. W.

  Ramsden, James

  Bourne-Arton, A.

  Hiley, Joseph

  Relmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

  Box, Donald

  Hill Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)

  Renton, David

  Brewis, John

  Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

  Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

  Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

  Hobson, John

  Roots, William

  Channon, H. P. G.

  Holland, Philip

  Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

  Chataway, Christopher

  Hollingworth, John

  Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)

  Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

  Hopkins, Alan

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

  Howard, John (Southampton, Test)

  Seymour, Leslie

  Cleaver, Leonard

  Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John

  Sharples, Richard

  Cole, Norman

  Hughes-Young, Michael

  Shaw, M.

  Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Spearman, Sir Alexander

  Costain, A. P.

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Stodart, J. A.

  Coulson, J. M.

  Jackson, John

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

  Craddock, Sir Beresford

  Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

  Studholme, Sir Henry

  Critchley, Julian

  Jennings, J. C.

  Tapsell, Peter

  Cunningham, Knox

  Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

  Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)

  Curran, Charles

  Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

  Temple, John M.

  Currie, G. B. H.

  Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

  Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

  Deedes, W. F

  Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

  Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

  de Ferranti, Basil

  Kerr, Sir Hamilton

  Thomas, Peter (Conway)

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

  Doughty, Charles

  Kimball, Marcus

  Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

  Duncan, Sir James

  Linstead, Sir Hugh

  Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Litchfield, Capt. John

  Tilney, John (Wavertree)

  Elliott, R.W. (N'wc'stle-upon-Tyne, N.)

  Longden, Gilbert

  Tweedsmulr, Lady

  Emery, Peter

  MacArthur, Ian

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Errington, Sir Eric

  Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

  Vane, W. M. F.

  Farr, John

  McMaster, Stanley R.

  Vaughan-Morgan, Sir John

  Finlay, Graeme

  Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

  Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

  Fisher, Nigel

  Maddan, Martin

  Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Markham, Major Sir Frank

  Wall, Patrick

  Fraser, Hn. Hugh (Stafford & Stone)

  Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Marten, Nell

  Watts, James

  Freeth, Denzil

  Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

  Mawby, Ray

  Whitelaw, William

  Gammans, Lady

  Mills, Stratton

  Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

  Gardner, Edward

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Wilson Geoffrey (Truro)

  Gibson-Watt, David

  More, Jasper (Ludlow)

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Glover, Sir Douglas

  Nabarro, Gerald

  Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard

  Goodhart, Philip

  Neave, Airey

  Woodhouse, C. M.

  Goodhew, Victor

  Noble, Michael

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Grant, Rt. Hon. William

  Nugent, Sir Richard

  Woollam, John

  Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R.

  Osborn, John (Hallam)

  Worsley, Marcus

  Green, Alan

  Page, John (Harrow, West)

  Gresham Cooke, R.

  Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

  Partridge, E.

  Mr. Bryan and Mr. Pearson.

  Gurden, Harold

  Peel, John

  NOES

  Ainsley, William

  Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)

  Boardman, H.

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Beaney, Alan

  Bowden, Herbert W. (Leios, S.W.)

  Awbery, Stan

  Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

  Bacon, Miss Alice

  Blackburn, F.

  Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

  with local authorities for a long time, and I think that it is foolish to include the Clause in the Bill as at present drafted. The Bill simply enables the presentation of flood prevention schemes, and the interference with sewerage and water mains would be only incidental to the operation.
  Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 170, Noes 128.

  Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

  Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Castle, Mrs. Barbara

  Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Chetwynd, George

  Kenyon, Clifford

  Ross, William

  Colliok, Percy

  Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

  Short, Edward

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Lawson, George

  Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

  Crosland, Anthony

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

  Cullen, Mrs. Alice

  McCann, John

  Small, William

  Darling, George

  McInnes, James

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  McKay, John (Wallsend)

  Snow, Julian

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

  Mackie, John

  Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

  de Freitas, Geoffrey

  McLeavy, Frank

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Dempsey, James

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Steele, Thomas

  Diamond, John

  Manuel, A. C.

  Stones, William

  Ede, Rt. Hon. Chuter

  Mapp, Charles

  Swain, Thomas

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

  Sylvester, George

  Edwards, Walter (Stepney)

  Marsh, Richard

  Symonds, J. B.

  Evans, Albert

  Mellish, R. J.

  Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

  Fernyhough, E.

  Millan, Bruce

  Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)

  Fletcher, Eric

  Milne, Edward J.

  Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)

  Forman, J. C.

  Mitchison, G. R.

  Thornton, Ernest

  Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

  Moody, A. S.

  Tomney, Frank

  Ginsburg, David

  Morris, John

  Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

  Moyle, Arthur

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Gourlay, Harry

  Neal, Harold

  Warbey, William

  Grey, Charles

  Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)

  Watkins, Tudor

  Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

  Oram, A. E.

  Weitzman, David

  Gunter, Ray

  Oswald, Thomas

  Wells, Percy (Faversham)

  Hamilton, William (West Fife)

  Owen, Will

  Whitlock, William

  Hannan, William

  Padley, W. E.

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Hart, Mrs. Judith

  Pargiter, G. A.

  Williams, D. J. (Neath)

  Hayman, F. H.

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

  Williams, LI. (Abertillery)

  Herbison, Miss Margaret

  Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

  Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

  Hilton, A. V.

  Pentland, Norman

  Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)

  Holman, Percy

  Popplewell, Ernest

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

  Howell, Charles A.

  Prentice, R. E.

  Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

  Price, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Woof, Robert

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Probert, Arthur

  Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

  Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas

  Proctor, W. T.

  Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

  Randall, Harry

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

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

  Rankin, John

  Mr. Cronin and Mr. Ifor Davies.

  Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith: I beg to move, in page 2, line 26, at the end to insert:
  "and in the foregoing subsection cleansing ' in relation to a watercourse means the removal from the watercourse of mud, silt, debris or other obstructive matter in the ordinary course of good maintenance".
  The Amendment follows on from what I have already said on the earlier Amendments, taking major reinstatements out of the category of maintenance work. Its purpose is to clarify for those who will operate the Bill the types of minor operations which will be covered by maintenance work.
  Hon. Members will remember that we had a fairly lengthy discussion in Committee on the theoretical distinction between cleansing and clearing a watercourse. This served to demonstrate the doubt which might have arisen with these words in juxtaposition. During the course of the debate, I was asked by hon. Members opposite to define the meaning of "cleansing" in this subsection. I explained then that the reference was intended to cover comparatively simple operations, such as the removal from a watercourse of weeds, branches or sand if it was causing silting.
  1086
  I have given further consideration to the point and feel that it might be helpful if the matter were put beyond doubt by defining the operation of cleansing in the Bill. The Amendment does this, and at the same time serves to make it doubly clear that major clearance of a watercourse is not intended to be dealt with under maintenance operations and so will qualify for a grant. I hope that this Amendment will commend itself to the Committee in the same way as the earlier Amendments have done.
  Mr. Ross: All I want to do is to give the Joint Under-Secretary full marks. He has done very well indeed, because the original wording of the Clause was very complicated and far from clear. A very telling speech on cleansing was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey). I hope to convince even my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) that the Government have done very well in the definition of "cleansing".
  The hon. Gentleman said that we had had a long argument in Committee. He keeps talking about long arguments. The trouble is that it takes a very long

  1087
  argument to persuade the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends to accept common sense. I think that he will admit that by adding these words he has made the position much more clear. To that extent it is a much better Bill. I hope that in future he will be much more grateful when he improves his Bill as a result of our complaints and helpful suggestions in Committee.
  Mr. W. Baxter: I seek clarification. The Amendment seeks to define cleansing as removing mud, silt and debris. What about effluent from an industrial undertaking or a badly constructed or obsolete sewage works? That can cause obstruction in watercourses. How would that be dealt with under the Bill?
  Mr. Galbraith: If a watercourse was obstructed by it, it would come under the Bill. If it were not, the effluent might have to be dealt with under the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) (Scotland) Act, 1951.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Clause 3.—(SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS AS TO POWERS OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES.)
  Mr. Willis: I beg to move, in page 2, line 38, to leave out from "that" to "flooding" in line 39.
  This raises the point on which we had fairly considerable discussion in Committee. As the Bill stands these words would appear to me to mean, apart from what the right hon. Gentleman said that they meant, that a local authority could never carry out a flood prevention scheme if the flooding of agricultural land was incidental to that scheme. That is good enough. But the argument that I put forward in Committee was that the general impression created in the mind of anyone reading the Bill, when he read the words:
  " … an incidental result of the exercise …"
  would be that a small amount of agricultural land might be covered but not a large amount. I think that the average town councillor or town clerk would probably place that interpretation upon
  1088
  the words. We discovered during the course of the proceedings that in point of fact a local authority could carry out a scheme designed to prevent or mitigate the flooding of land in its area, not being agricultural land, even though one of the results of the scheme was perhaps to prevent and mitigate the flooding maybe of hundreds of acres of agricultural land.
  During the course of the Bill, I put to the right hon. Gentleman the example of a small river valley being dealt with simply as the result of the local authority, the county council or some other authority, undertaking a scheme under the Bill to prevent the flooding of urban property in one small village. This is what could happen. One can think of small villages that are from time to time flooded. A local authority could under this Bill—this was the interpretation placed upon it by the Government and I was very pleased as well as surprised by this interpretation—prepare a scheme to prevent the flooding of this wee village of maybe twenty or thirty houses. Although the scheme itself might be of a character to prevent the flooding of hundreds of acres of land in the same river valley, it would be still possible to carry it out under the Bill. The argument at the time was that with these words in the Bill no local authority would think that that was possible. It was argued that the word "incidental" would convey the impression that it was permissible to prevent the flooding of say twenty acres—a small area—of agricultural land as an incidental result.
  The right hon. Gentleman pointed out that prevention of flooding of hundreds, if not thousands, of acres would be incidental to the scheme. He admitted that that would be, a correct legal interpretation of the words, but that is not the impression given to people reading the Bill. Therefore, we suggested in Committee that the right hon. Gentleman should look at this again to see whether another form of words could be found. I believe that he undertook to do that. We should like to know the result of his researches and what he has done in this matter.
  I put to him this point that, even if he leaves these words, his fears that a scheme might be possible which dealt solely with agricultural land cannot be

  1089
  real fears when we come to read Clause 1 (1), which states:
  "For the purpose of preventing or mitigating the flooding of land in their area, not being agricultural land, any council to whom this section applies may, so far as they think fit and subject to the provisions of this Act, exercise all or any of the powers specified in subsection (1) of the next following section."
  I do not pretend to be a lawyer, but it seems to me that with that subsection in the Bill it would be quite safe to leave out the words that we propose should be let out, and that the local authority would still only be enabled to carry out a flood prevention scheme under the Bill if in fact the primary purpose of that scheme was to deal with flooding. The Lord Advocate may be able to tell us whether that is in fact the legal interpretation. It seems to me that it may be the legal interpretation, in which case these words could be left out, and if they were left out, I think that the local authority would have a better' idea of what is possible under the Bill.
  I am quite sure that many local authorities, as the Bill stands at present, would not place upon it the construction that was placed upon it by the Government during Committee stage. I do not think that any of my hon. Friends thought that the Bill meant what the right hon. Gentleman said that it meant, and I do not think that any of 'his hon. Friends thought so either. If that were thought by Members of Parliament who study the Bill, I think that it could equally be thought by local authority officials who study the Bill. I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether he would be prepared to have another look at the Clause to see if these words can be left out or some other words put in their place.
  The Lord Advocate (Mr. William Grant): As the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) so rightly said, this matter was discussed at some length in Standing Committee. I believe the matter was left in this way that I would be prepared to reconsider the word "incidental" on the basis that I would welcome his advice on the matter. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] The question was whether we should get another word to replace the adjective "incidental". I have thought very hard, as I am sure the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East has, and it appears that neither of us,
  1090
  so to speak, has born fruit in that respect.
  Mr. Willis: The right hon. and learned Gentleman will appreciate that during the Committee stage I tendered about eight columns of advice which were duly recorded in the OFFICIAL REPORT. He might at least have read and studied that advice. I appreciate that he would not be able to grasp all the points during the Committee stage.
  The Lord Advocate: I have read more than once what the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East said, but the advice which he tendered was not what I would call "incidental" advice.
  The position, as was explained to the Committee, is that a local authority can do work on agricultural land if it is necessary for the purpose of preventing or mitigating flooding on non-agricultural land. All that this amounts to if we leave the words in, is to make it clear that if work is done on agricultural land it must be an essential part of the flood prevention operations on non-agricultural land.
  8.30 p.m.
  The hon. Member referred back to the opening lines of Clause 1 and he suggested that if the words were left in local authorities might be uncertain what was intended. My view is that the words make it clear that if their main purpose is the prevention of urban flooding, if I may put it that way, they may do work on agricultural land if that is incidental to that main purpose. If I may put it in a slightly military way, let me describe the operation of the exercise. Incidentally, we had a little trouble about "exercise" in Committee, but we are not now dealing with that. First, we get an operation order and then we get the object. Here we have the object—the prevention of flooding on urban nonagricultural land. To attain that object one is allowed to do anything incidental to that, even if one goes beyond the scope of the non-agricultural battle field, if I may put it in that way. If we get into trouble, it will only be through leaving out those words.
  Agricultural land can be dealt with under the Land Drainage (Scotland) Act, 1958.
  Mr. Manuel Mr. Manuel indicated dissent.
  The Lord Advocate: The hon. Member for Central Ayshire (Mr. Manuel) shakes his head. I say it can be. I do not say it necessarily will be. The powers are there. This is to make it clear that if there is an overlap, the overlap onto the agricultural land can only be as an incidental result of the main purpose in the Bill, that is preventing or mitigating flooding in the urban or non-agricultural land.
  Mr. Manuel: I am grievously disappointed by the contribution from the Lord Advocate. I have spoken frequently on this aspect of the problem. In the context of many schemes that will be put up to the Secretary of State for Scotland, the word "incidental" will be quite wrong and misleading.
  I want to pose to the Committee the main problem in my consituency which I am sure the Secretary of State and the Joint Under-Secretary of State know well. I am thinking of the village of Glengarnock where there will not be a great urban area to be dealt with, but none the less it will be to deal with that urban problem that the scheme will be presented The agricultural part of it will be incidental to it so far as costs or length of river are concerned It will be several miles below the village of Glengarnock that the river will need to be deepened and it is on that that the main cost of the scheme will arise To say that it is incidental would be misleading and would give a completely wrong impression.
  I should have thought that the Lord Advocate, instead of giving us wisecracks would have considered some more appropriate word to cover the situation. We must be definite that this means that where agricultural ground has to be relieved of flooding to a much greater extent than the urban area which is being cleared, the job will nevertheless not be held up.
  I hope that we can make it perfectly clear that we intend to solve flooding problems and to present urban flood prevention schemes even though the greater part of the area is agricultural land. I hope that we shall have a definite assurance from the Secretary of State that, even though the scheme would be largely relieving agricultural flooding,
  1092
  if the main complaint is, as he knows it has been at Glengarnock, of the flooding of a factory and houses in the village, he will not resolve not to authorise the scheme because the greater part of the on-cost would lead to the relief of agricultural land in the area.
  Mr. W. Baxter: It seems to me that the word "incidental" conveys the impression of something of no importance or of a somewhat slight nature pertaining to the scheme. It does not indicate, as we would like it to indicate, that it may be a major portion of the scheme. I would suggest that the word "incidental" be left out and that the wording should read, "Notwithstanding that as a result of certain operations this is required to be done" or words to that effect. Words of that kind would let it be seen in the proper light that this may be an important operation and not a small, incidental part of the whole. The Lord Advocate should clarify that point.
  The Lord Advocate: I am certainly willing to look at any suggestion that the hon. Member makes. As for the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis). I have looked at it and he will remember that I said in Committee, not with my tongue in my cheek but quite honestly, that any assistance that he could give me I would gratefully receive
  Mr. Willis: I am rather humble about these matters, and, as the Lord Advocate knows, the legal profession in Scotland has a very valiant champion in the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East. But I must say that, after listening to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, my unbounded admiration for the legal profession in Scotland has been sadly diminished on learning that he is unable to find a suitable alternative to this word. We suggested to the right hon. and learned Gentleman words such as "as a result of the exercise" or "notwithstanding that one result of the exercise is so-and-so" or something of that kind.
  Surely it was not beyond the wit of the legal profession and of this eminent body of people gathered in Edinburgh to advise some words which would have met this point. I am losing faith gradually in the legal profession and coming

  1093
  more and more to admire the sea lawyer tactics of some of my hon. Friends rather than the activities of the genuine lawyers in Parliament.
  Mr. James Dempsey: I can recall the discussions on this matter. I can remember that the Lord Advocate was offered several words and that the lay members of the Committee guided the right hon. Gentleman. It is surprising to find that at this stage the Lord Advocate, with all the legal wit at his command and all the intelligentsia of St. Andrew's House at his elbow, cannot find a suitable word.
  The Lord Advocate: I sometimes can express in a single word what I feel about speeches by hon. Members opposite.
  Mr. Dempsey: I am sure that after all the assistance, guidance and advice that the Lord Advocate has been given tonight, he could have another look at this subsection and at the terms of the Amendment. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows a suitable word—and I hope that it will not be a four-letter word, incidentally—I am sure that he could put it before us at the next stage of the Bill to be incorporated in the Clause to meet this point.
  Mr. Ross: My attitude to legislation, particularly when we get some of the pearls of wording that are advocated by the Lord Advocate, has been "Never put a word in when you can take some out." What we are proposing in our Amendment is to delete some words, which will leave us with perfect sense. It will also remove "incidental" altogether. What is the need for that word? After all, nothing can be initiated in this matter unless, first of all, it is for the purposes of preventing or mitigating flooding in non-agricultural land.
  With our Amendment the Clause would read:
  notwithstanding that flooding of land other than such land … is prevented or mitigated."
  That is perfectly clear. There would be no complications and no false impressions over what "incidental" means.
  It is 1st February today. We discussed this matter on 8th December, and the Lord Advocate has spent hours each day since then wondering what he can do to
  1094
  get rid of "incidental" which causes wrong ideas to spring up in the minds of the Opposition—and also in the minds of hon. Members opposite, because we had a variety of legal and non-legal interpretations of what "incidental" meant. We had an indication of the vastly widened scope of flood prevention in relation to the Bill in the first speech by the Joint Under-Secretary. There we saw the whole of Scotland as the scope of the battleground—if I may use the strange metaphors of the Lord Advocate—in the exercise of flood prevention.
  Let the Lord Advocate study again exactly what our Amendment does. Let him place it in its setting not only in relation to this Clause but in relation to the words that govern action under the Bill, and I defy him to pick holes in it from any legal point of view. There is no doubt about that. Why is the assembled trinity of legislators representing Scotland on the Government Front Bench so unwilling to accept common sense and clarity when it is placed before it? If we do not get an adequate reply, we must once again take our common sense into the Division Lobbies.
  Mr. Thomas Steele: After the speeches from this side of the Committee, we ought at least to be told the reason why the Lord Advocate, after his thoughts on the matter, wants these words kept in the Bill.
  The Lord Advocate: I have two principles: one is that I am in favour of brevity and the other is that I am in favour of clarity. My opening speech was commendably brief. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) thought I was about to sit down and I thought that he intended to intervene, and that rather shortened my speech.
  I have looked at this matter, and I realise the force of the argument about the operative words at the beginning of the Bill, but I consider that, from the point of view of clarity, it is made perfectly clear in the Clause that the powers must be subject to the consideration that the main object must be the prevention of flooding in non-agricultural land but that the work can be carried out notwithstanding that an incidental result is the flooding of land which is of an agricultural character.
  Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause:—

  NOES

  Ainsley, William

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Hannan, William

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Hart, Mrs. Judith

  Awbery, Stan

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

  Hayman, F. H.

  Bacon, Miss Alice

  de Freitas, Geoffrey

  Herbison, Miss Margaret

  Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)

  Dempsey, James

  Hilton, A. V.

  Beaney, Alan

  Diamond, John

  Holman, Percy

  Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

  Ede, Rt. Hon. Chuter

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

  Bence, Cyril (Dunbartonshire, E.)

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Blackburn, F.

  Edwards, Walter (Stepney)

  Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas

  Boardman, H.

  Evans, Albert

  Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

  Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S.W.)

  Fernyhough, E.

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

  Fletcher, Eric

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

  Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

  Forman, J. C.

  Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

  Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

  Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

  Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

  Castle, Mrs. Barbara

  Ginsburg, David

  Kenyon, Clifford

  Collick, Percy

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

  Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Gourlay, Harry

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Crosland, Anthony

  Grey, Charles

  McCann, John

  Cullen, Mrs. Alice

  Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

  McInnes, James

  Darling, George

  Hamilton, William (West Fife)

  McKay, John (Walisend)

  The Committee divided: Ayes 160, Noes 124.

  Mackie, John

  Popplewell, Ernest

  Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

  McLeavy, Frank

  Prentice, R. E.

  Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)

  Manuel, A. C.

  Probert, Arthur

  Thornton, Ernest

  Mapp, Charles

  Proctor, W. T.

  Ungood-Thomas, Sir Lynn

  Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

  Randall, Harry

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Marsh, Richard

  Rankin, John

  Warbey, William

  Millan, Bruce

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Watkins, Tudor

  Milne, Edward J.

  Ross, William

  Weitzman, David

  Mitchison, G. R.

  Short, Edward

  Wells, Peroy (Faversham)

  Morris, John

  Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

  Whitlock, William

  Moyle, Arthur

  Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Neal, Harold

  Small, William

  Williams, D. J. (Neath)

  Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

  Williams, LI. (Abertillery)

  Oram, A. E.

  Snow, Julian

  Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

  Oswald, Thomas

  Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

  Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)

  Owen, Will

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

  Padley, W. E.

  Steele, Thomas

  Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

  Pargiter, G. A.

  Stones, William

  Woof, Robert

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

  Swaln, Thomas

  Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

  Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

  Sylvester, George

  Pentland, Norman

  Symonds, J. B.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Mr. Howell and Mr. Lawson.

  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Clause 12.—(CONTRIBUTIONS TO AND BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES.)
  Mr. Galbraith Mr. Galbraith I beg to move, in page 8, line 12, at the end to insert:
  "or by a sewerage or water authority in carrying out, or paying compensation in respect of, any operations for the diversion of a sewer or, as the case may be, a water main, being operations connected with the improvement or alteration of a watercourse and specified in a flood prevention scheme made by that local authority."
  It may he convenient to discuss at the same time the Amendment in Clause 13, page 8, line 30, leave out from "incurred" to "in" in line 31.
  The Deputy-Chairman (Major Sir William Anstruther-Gray): If that is convenient to the Committee, yes.
  Mr. Galbraith: As I have already explained, in Standing Committee I undertook to look at the drafting of the Bill to see whether anything could be done to allow local authorities to carry out work on a sewer or water main to the extent that such work was necessary to prevent urban flooding.
  I also said that I would not wish to exclude the possibility of co-operation between authorities, or different departments of the same authority, for that purpose. The Committee will recollect that the point arose because the definition of the word "watercourse" in Clause 2 (2) expressly excludes any sewer or water main.
  I am afraid that it has not been found practicable to proceed by way of amending the definition of watercourse in the
  1098
  Bill, because this would have the effect of giving a flood prevention authority power to carry out work on sewers or water mains itself and thus to encroach on the statutory functions of sewerage or water authorities, and we have dealt with that matter.
  I believe, however, that we have achieved the desired result in that, where it is necessary to divert a sewer or water main which is causing an obstruction likely to cause urban flooding, it will be possible to include the work in a flood prevention scheme, and because of this to obtain grant on the expenditure even though the work is to be carried out by the sewerage or water authority.
  I think that the most convenient way to achieve what is wanted is to give the flood prevention authority power to make contributions to the sewerage or water authority for works of this nature, provided that they are an essential part of the operation and are specified in the flood prevention scheme.
  I know that hon. Gentlemen were equally concerned with the financial aspects of the matter. The Bill as originally drafted not only precluded the flood prevention authority from carrying out any work on a sewer or water main, but also expressly prohibited grant from being paid on any expenditure incurred in connection with a sewer.
  I cannot think that that situation is likely to arise very often, but I appreciate that it might conceivably cause a local authority, faced with heavy expenditure, to think twice before moving a sewer or water main, and that it might thereby act as a brake on its flood prevention scheme.

  1099
  The Amendment in Clause 13, page 8, line 30, puts the matter right. If a flood prevention authority ever finds itself faced with the sort of situation that we have in mind, it will be able to arrange with the sewerage or water authority to re-site the main and to reimburse that authority in the form of a contribution under Clause 12 and to claim grant on this expenditure.
  This fully meets the undertaking that I gave in Committee, and I am glad that it has been possible to do so. I hope that hon. Gentlemen will feel that we have made a good job of this.
  Mr. Ross: We are grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the attention that he has paid to this matter. It must have caused him considerable trouble to decide how to fit it in.
  I am not as happy as he is about having met the undertakings that we sought. In Committee upstairs he said:
  "… I agree that there may be a case for any necessary alteration in the location of the sewer or water main which is carried out by the local authority to be done as a flood prevention job under this Bill."
  That is when there is a need for a diversion. He went on to say:
  "There may also be cases, though I would think they would be comparatively rare, where it might be convenient for a local authority to provide extra capacity to deal with the flooding in a new sewer which is needed in any case for the purposes of the Public Health Act."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 8th December, 1960, c. 55.]
  The hon. Gentleman led us to believe that he appreciated two particular instances where, in relation to flood prevention, it would be desirable to have operations affecting sewers and water mains. The Amendment refers to
  "operations for the diversion of a sewer, or as the case may be, a water main, being operations"
  and so on.
  9.0 p.m.
  In other words, the hon. Gentleman has dealt only with the one specific case of diversion of a sewer or a water main and not with the question of the inadequacy of a sewer in relation to flood prevention. So, although he has done well, he has not done well enough. While we are grateful for what he has done, we would point out that where one is taking steps in relation to flood prevention, and it is obvious that in order to
  1100
  obviate that flooding it will be necessary to spend some time and money on a new sewer, then specifically to omit that from one of the things to be done is somewhat illogical. I hope that, while the Under-Secretary of State appreciates that we are glad that he has done what he has, he realizes that we are still rather dissatisfied about this point.
  Not only is his Amendment limited to the diversion of a sewer; it is limited to operations connected with the improvement or alteration of a watercourse. Why did the hon. Gentleman still further limit it? It may well be that, as it is empowered to do under Clause 2, a local authority is creating a new watercourse and the creation of that new watercourse might mean the diversion of a sewer or water main. According to this Amendment that would not be covered, because it is limited purely and simply to the words:
  "being operations connected with the improvement or alteration of a watercourse,"
  unless he is now going to tell us that "alteration" includes a new watercourse.
  There is a ring of familiarity about the words
  "improvement or alteration of a watercourse".
  We find them in Clause 2 (1, c) which refers to:
  "the improvement or alteration of any watercourse."
  The hon. Gentleman will remember that the first thing we did today was to put in some words there to make it read:
  "the improvement, alteration or major reinstatement of any watercourse".
  Does the hon. Member propose to include major reinstatements in this case as well? I think that that is absolutely essential. If he is to carry forward the phraseology of Clause 2 (1, c) into Clause 12 he should also include that.
  There are two points on which we have not been met, one arising from an Amendment that he has made. I am sorry that the Lord Advocate is not here, but I would ask the Under-Secretary of State—on a point which was raised in discussion a little earlier with my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis)—where this fits into the whole pattern of a flood prevention scheme. We have already had a definition of a flood prevention scheme in Clause 4. A flood prevention scheme

  1101
  is a flood prevention operation other than maintenance, and this provision is for other than maintenance. To get a definition of the words, "flood prevention operation" we are sent back to Clause 2, which specifically says that flood prevention operations shall not include work done on a sewer or water main.
  How is a local authority to be able to satisfy the requirements that we are now asked to specify in the Amendment, when it would appear from Clause 4 that the definition of a flood prevention scheme is limited to flood prevention operations that specifically exclude sewers and water mains? This is why we are being so insistent. The quite unnecessary ingenuity of the Scottish Office has led it into considerable difficulty. It has got round this, but has done so very clumsily and not without incurring a certain measure of legal doubt.
  There is also the other aspect, of introducing new authorities. We have had a certain amount of discussion on that. Although the Government Amendment meets our point about sewers and water mains half way, it is really quite unsatisfactory. The Scots are not in the habit of looking a gift horse in the mouth. We subject it to a minute examination, and having done so on this occasion we find that, although it is wanting in certain respects, it is possible for us to accept it.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Clause 13. — (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS.)
  Amendment made: In page 8, line 30, leave out from "incurred" to "in" in line 31—[Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith.]
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended (in the Standing Committee and on recommittal), considered.

  Clause 2.—(POWERS OF LOCAL AUTHORI- TIES.)
  Amendment made: In page 1, line 20, leave out "clearing".—[Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith.]

  Clause 4.—(FLOOD PREVENTION SCHEMES.)
  Mr. Willis: I beg to move, in page 4, line 25, at the end to insert:
  (5) A local authority before making a flood prevention scheme shall consult with any improvement committee functioning under section three of the Land Drainage (Scotland) Act, 1958, where any land situated in the improvement area administered by such a committee is contiguous to or forms part of the land affected by the proposed flood prevention scheme.
  We are galloping through the Bill, as is customary with Scottish Members. One of our criticisms of the Government all along with regard to this Bill, the previous Bill and the Government's general attitude towards drainage is their lack of any idea of co-ordinating efforts to prevent and deal with flooding. The 1958 Measure made provision for a group of land owners to undertake work to prevent flooding and to form committees for the administration and maintenance of their schemes. They might, therefore, be involved in flood prevention work on land that is either contiguous to or which forms part of the land considered by the local authority for inclusion in its own scheme.
  It does not require a great deal of thought, nor does it need a great deal of knowledge of how these things are done to appreciate that it is desirable that there should be some co-operation between the two parties. We do no want a local authority to take over work that should be done by the land owners. We know that the Government are always very courteous and kind to the land owners, and would like to do all sorts of things for them that they probably would not do for other sections of the community, but I am sure that in this case we do not want a local authority operating a scheme that overlaps one operated by a group of land owners.
  That is the simple case. I should have thought that in order to prevent overlapping and any waste of public money—and that should appeal to the Government—it is desirable that there should be consultation between the two bodies in an effort to co-ordinate what is being done with what is proposed to be done. That is what this Amendment seeks to achieve. The Clause as it stands makes it obligatory on a local authority to consult other local authorities when the circumstances are somewhat similar. We on

  1103
  this side think that there should be the same consultation with an improvement committee functioning under the 1958 Act.
  The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John Maclay): The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) has sounded, as he usually does, a very persuasive and convincing note. I recognise that, in some ways, this Amendment seems reasonable and appears to make a constructive approach to close co-operation between the parties concerned with carrying out flood prevention and land drainage schemes. The hon. Gentleman has clearly stated what the result of this Amendment would be.
  I agree in general principle that when there is any relation between a land drainage and a flood prevention scheme, there should be some consultation. In fact, if there were consultation between the people who are separately contemplating these schemes there might result, with mutual advantage, a joint scheme. I do not, however, think that consultation would be stimulated by inserting those words. The fact is that a requirement to consult in particular circumstances may actually discourage consultation where the circumstances do not arise.
  If one puts in a requirement to consult in certain circumstances, the feeling is that, when what has been specified has been done, all the other obligations have been fulfilled and there is no need to do more. Not every land drainage scheme has a committee already associated with it, and by the time the committee has been appointed the scheme has been published and settled, and the result of such a requirement may be considerable delay and less prospect of collaboration.
  It is not only land drainage interests that are involved here; one can think of a good many other interests, especially those mentioned in paragraph 3 (1) of the Second Schedule. A statutory obligation to consult all those bodies at the preliminary stage might give rise to serious and unnecessary delays. However, the Second Schedule does require that when a scheme has been prepared a copy must be served on every such body by the authority preparing it. This gives those bodies the right to lodge objections
  1104
  and, if necessary, pursue them at a public inquiry. In actual practice, it means that they approach the authority promoting the scheme in order to seek adjustment of any points which are causing them concern.
  I therefore suggest to the House that the substance of what the Amendment seeks to secure is already incorporated in the Bill and that to write in what the Amendment suggests would unduly complicate the whole proceedings. It might lead to just the kind of delays which we are always trying to avoid in matters of this kind. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Member will not think it necessary to pursue the Amendment.
  9.15 p.m.
  Mr. Thomas Fraser: I have listened with very great care to what the right hon. Gentleman said. A land drainage scheme is the sort of thing which normally causes flooding. The whole point of a land drainage scheme is to take water from the land a little more quickly than it has been taken hitherto. We find that a great deal of flooding in main water courses is occasioned by the improved drainage that has been effected in recent years.
  In the circumstances, if a land drainage scheme is being carried through under the provisions of the 1958 Act and that scheme is contiguous to a small burgh through which the river runs and the small burgh has experienced flooding such as that experienced in Wigtownshire some months ago, the flood prevention authority would wish to consult the improvement committee because both schemes will attract money which we in Parliament provide under these two separate Measures. If there is a scheme in an agricultural area contiguous to a small burgh which has been causing flooding, it is concerned to have a flood prevention scheme made under this Bill. Before the flood prevention scheme is proceeded with we should require that there is consultation with the improvement committee. If the Secretary of State says that the objection to the Amendment is that there will not be an improvement committee in all cases, we should look at the drafting again, but surely there can be no objection to the principle.
  Sir James Duncan: What is the point of consulting?
  Mr. Fraser: The Secretary of State thought that there would be great advantage in consulting, but both schemes are subject to the approval of the Secretary of State. If as a result of consultation it were found that the two schemes were, if not one and the same, so closely related that they should be given effect to simultaneously instead of having the landward scheme under the 1958 Act considered by one Department of the Secretary of State's Office at St. Andrews House and the other scheme going through a small burgh being considered by another Department at St. Andrews House—
  Sir J. Duncan: It is functioning already.
  Mr. Fraser: I do not follow the hon. Gentleman. The land drainage scheme is in operation and that is for agricultural land. If the urban land has previously suffered flooding and the council of a small burgh—or a large burgh—seeks to initiate a scheme under this Bill, it has to submit the scheme to the Secretary of State for approval.
  In the Amendment we seek to say that persons promoting a scheme under the Bill to be submitted to the Secretary of State should consult those who have been given approval for another scheme, the success of which will increase the flooding. Surely the authority submitting a scheme under the Bill to the Secretary of State for his approval should be fully conversant with what the other authority is doing, as should the Secretary of State's Department, which is considering the scheme under the Bill. As a result of these consultations it would be possible to see whether it was sufficient to provide works which would counter the kind of flooding which had taken place in the past or whether it was necessary to add some further works to take care of the additional water which would be a consequence of the scheme made under the 1958 Act.
  This makes so much sense, and to fail to do it would make so much nonsense, that for the Secretary of State to allow the Bill to go through, dealing with flooding, without seeing that his own Department, in considering a scheme, will take fully into account any additional flooding which will be occasioned by a scheme under the 1958 Act, is quite
  1106
  beyond my comprehension. In view of all the consultations which have to take place between different authorities from time to time, there can be no more sensible requirement than to have consultations in these circumstances.
  I ask the right hon. Gentleman to agree to an Amendment to call the attention of the authority promoting the scheme under the Bill to the desirability of having these consultations. The drafting of our Amendment may not be as sound as if it had been done by the Parliamentary draftsmen or the Lord Advocate, but if the principle is sound I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept it and incorporate it in the Bill.
  Sir J. Duncan: I intervene only because I twice interrupted the hon. Member and I wish to explain my interruptions. he started by saying that it is possible that as a result of a scheme under the 1958 Act flooding will be increased upstream, and he suggests that there should be consultation, in connection with the flood prevention scheme, with people downstream. But the Amendment implies that the improvement committee already exists, because the word is "functioning". It is of no interest to them. Their only interest is to get rid of the water in their area, and the point of consultation does not arise. There might be a point if there were a question of the improvement committee being set up simultaneously in the agricultural land with the flood prevention scheme in the urban land, but that is not suggested by the wording of the Amendment.
  Indeed, all this consultation has been contemplated in the Bill and in my right hon. Friend's speech. There is provision in the Second Schedule to deal with this sort of thing. Under paragraph 3 all these people have opportunities of being consulted. Copies of the draft Order have to be made. Under paragraph 2 everybody has an opportunity of raising objections. In those cases there is provision for consultation, but in the other cases a proposal just for consultation and not for action seems rather futile. For those reasons I agree with my right hon. Friend that the Amendment would add nothing useful to the Bill and would be of no benefit in producing results from the Bill.
  Mr. Manuel: My hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) shed much light on the subject and talked a great deal of common sense in stating our reasons for tabling the Amendment. I want briefly to advance one or two more reasons. I said in Committee that I was rather perturbed at certain implications of what was intended in connection with the presentation of schemes and, even more so, in connection with maintenance.
  Clause 2 (2, b) says that the expression "watercourse" includes
  "any ditch, drain, cut, canal, culvert, sluice or passage carrying or designed to carry water, together with the walls, pipes or other works containing or intended to contain the same."
  Ditches do not make themselves, and conditions may arise under which there has been a drainage improvement committee or a drainage scheme which has attracted grant from the Government. The local authority is now being called upon to undertake maintenance by clearing all drains and ditches. The people who own them and whose land the drains and ditches are making more fertile will be relieved of the burden of maintaining something for which they have received a grant.
  I mentioned this in Committee. I had hoped that the Joint Under-Secretary would pay some regard to it and try to ensure that money is not squandered. If within the ambit of a scheme presented by a local authority there is an improvement committee or a drainage grant has been received by the land-owning interests, an attempt such as the Amendment makes should be made to ensure that suitable arrangements can be arrived at about maintenance of the ditches and culverts. We are sincerely trying to avoid a clash in connection with the ancillary drainage provisions if there is a conflict of interest between the two authorities and no consultation.
  Mr. Steele: I was encouraged by the opening remarks of the Secretary of State. He led us to believe that the purpose behind the Amendment was a useful one and that he sympathised with it and recognised that consultations between the various bodies should take place and that it would be wise that each should know what the other was doing.
  1108
  He went on to pour cold water on the idea, because he said that it was not a good thing to provide in a Statute that consultations should take place. He said—I understand and appreciate the point—that once a Statute provides that a certain thing should be done it can be argued that other things which are not mentioned should not be done. During the passage of another Bill concerned with the same principle hon. Gentlemen on the back benches opposite felt that it was a great victory when they wrote into the Statute that an English Minister had to consult the Secretary of State for Scotland. They thought that by getting this they had in fact achieved something.
  9.30 p.m.
  I can see that the Secretary of State recalls the incident. We said at the time that it was making nonsense of legislation when we had to put into a statute that two Ministers of a Government should consult with each other. I must confess that, although the Secretary of State for Scotland was sympathetic, the speech of the hon. Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan) convinced me that an Amendment of this kind was essential. He said that the attitude of the land drainage improvement body was, "We will get on with our job. We are all right, Jack, never mind about the others".
  He went on to tell us that if we turned to the Second Schedule we would see that provision was made for consultation. But that is not so. Provision is not made there for consultation. Provision is made for the Secretary of State for Scotland to publish a scheme and, if any one objects to it, he can enter his objections. The Land Drainage Board in this case is not objecting to the scheme. According to the hon. Member for South Angus, "It is all right and not in the least bit worried about it".
  It is true that the improvement of land drainage means that more water will flow into the river more quickly and will proceed down the river more quickly. If, in fact, a local authority is making provision under a scheme to ensure that urban land is not flooded and goes to all the trouble of putting up a scheme to the Secretary of State for Scotland and having it published, and then, at that stage—to take the best from the speech of the hon. Member for South

  1109
  Angus—it finds that the Improvement Committee under the 1950 Act is in fact going ahead with another improvement, then, of course, the scheme which the local authority is putting forward is not sufficient and would obviously have to be looked at again. It is clear that the two things go together.
  Surely it is only right and proper that a local authority should consult with this other body so that it can see what is happening and ask that body at that stage what further proposals it may have so as to avoid any difficulty in preparing a scheme. That seems to me to be sensible. If the Improvement Committee takes the view of the hon. Member for South Angus that, "We are all right, Jack, never mind anyone else", then that is, quite frankly, an indication that consultation is more essential than ever.
  I hope that the Secretary of State will reject the speech of his hon. Friend. He was, in his speech, much more sympathetic. I am quite sure that he will be able to tell us, now that the hon. Member for South Angus has shown that it is necessary to have an Amendment of this kind, that he will be prepared, if not to accept it in its present form, at least to agree that in another place a suitable Amendment will be put forward.
  Mr. Maclay rose—
  Mr. Ross: I was hoping to try to dissuade the Secretary of State from saying what he was about to say. I know him only too well. He started by paying a compliment to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) and said how persuasive he is. I should like to tell the Secretary of State what I think of his speech. It was far from persuasive. "Feckless" is probably a more suitable Scottish description of his speech.
  The right hon. Gentleman said that there should be such consultation, but he then said there would be a great danger, and that if we put into the Bill a requirement for consultation it would just mean that a local authority would consult the improvement committee and nobody else. The trouble with the Secretary of State is that he has just arrived at this Bill. I ask him to look at subsection (4) which says:
  1110
  "A local authority, before making a flood prevention scheme relating to operations on land in the area of another local authority, shall consult with that other local authority."
  What is that subsection doing there if there are all these terrible consequences to be expected from consultation? The hon. Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan) said that consultation is futile. If he believes that it is futile, he should do his Parliamentary duty and table an Amendment to remove this provision for consultation.
  There are to be two ways of dealing with flooding. This is not our idea. This is the brilliant concept of the Secretary of State, that flooding can be divided into flooding on agricultural land and flooding on non-agricultural land. We have one Measure dealing with flooding on agricultural land and another dealing with flooding on urban land. Of course, the waters which overflow the banks know all about this and divide themselves carefully into one or the other. What we want are comprehensive works for the prevention of flooding. Flooding is flooding, whether it is in town or in country. We have the 1958 Act and now we are presented with this Bill. In spite of that, we say "Let us make the best of this bad job."
  Not long ago I asked a Question about the number of schemes carried out under the 1958 Act. At that time three such schemes had been carried out and forty-five other cases were under consideration. So here we have this problem, and a number of improvement committees are to be set up. Surely where flood prevention operations have to be carried out in one area, it is only sensible for the bodies which are administering these operations to act in co-operation and consultation. That is all we ask.
  We are trying honestly and sincerely to prevent flooding, and the right hon. Gentleman refuses to give us any comprehensive plan in relation to flood prevention. So we say "Let us make the best of this". The hon. Member for South Angus talks about all sorts of difficulties which might arise. He says that there might not be an improvement committee in the area, and that, even if there were, they would need both circumstances to arise at the same time. Does he not appreciate that the problem is the same?

  1111
  Here is an authority which has had the right from the Secretary of State to go ahead and carry out similar operations in the same area. If it could do nothing else, it might possibly give advice and the benefit of its experience of snags that might arise in operations in that area. I cannot see what is to be lost by accepting the Amendment. It is not an Amendment in the sense that it would destroy anything that the Government have in the Bill. It is an addition to, and it strengthens and makes more effective what the Government themselves propose.
  I hope that the Secretary of State, having read this part of the Bill, will recognise the futility of his first arguments and that, having done that and listened to the persuasive speeches of my hon. Friends, he will at least suggest that he will think about the matter again. This is not the last word on the Bill and the right hon. Gentleman should not close his mind to such useful co-operation.
  Mr. Maclay: I was getting worried that the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) did not think that the speech of his hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) had been as persuasive as I thought it, but he ended up by putting the matter right.
  The hon. Member for Kilmarnock based his argument a little on the fact that he did not know whether I recollected what was in the Bill. I have refreshed my memory on the subsection with which we are dealing. I would remind the hon. Member that the words are:
  "A local authority, before making a flood prevention scheme relating to operations on land in the area of another local authority, shall consult with that other local authority."
  Confident as I am of the good relationships that exist between local authorities in Scotland, I think that it would be going a little far if one made it possible for one local authority to go a long way in thinking up a scheme which would be carried out on the land of another local authority without consulting that body. Surely this is elementary reasonableness.
  It is another matter when we come to consider the substance of the Amend-
  1112
  ment. I am not in any disagreement with my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan) who put a perfectly good argument. It is tempting, Mr. Speaker, to relieve you of listening to a certain amount of argument which may seem to show that there is little between us; if I thought that the Amendment could be accepted without making the operation of the Bill unnecessarily more difficult, I would accept it. I am convinced, however, that the Amendment is unnecessary and that the purpose of hon. Members opposite will not be achieved by it.
  There is some advantage in being an omnibus Minister, if that is what I am, in that I am responsible for both agriculture and health in Scotland. It is clear that there is no risk of a scheme getting going in one Department and another in another Department without their being brought together by administrative means. It is putting unnecessary obstacles in the way if we lay down in a Statute that there must be consultation with committees, none of which even exist at present, although there may be some in the future.
  Mr. T. Fraser: Is it not a fact that schemes under the 1958 Act are considered by the Department of Agriculture, whereas schemes under this Bill will be considered by the Department of Health?
  Mr. Maclay: I pointed out that I am an omnibus Minister. All these things come to me, much to my sorrow at times—though at times it is a convenience. I assure hon. Members that in principle everything that happens in my Departments is known by me. Each of the two Departments is bound to know what is going on in the other, and by administrative means we can achieve our purpose.
  It is always difficult to get things just right for hon. Members opposite. Earlier this evening the hon. Member for Kilmarnock propounded the great principle, which he said always guided him and which sounded very impressive, that his approach to legislation was never to put a word in when one could take some words out. I would say to him that another good principle is never to put conditions in a Bill when one can leave them out without damaging the

  1113
  Bill and particularly when those conditions make that Bill more difficult to work.
  9.45 p.m.
  I think the House would be extremely ill-advised to risk holding up a procedure which can work perfectly well without the Amendment when the Amendment would make it a great deal more difficult to work. Therefore, I ask the House to reject the Amendment.
  Amendment negatived.

  Clause 6.—(BYELAWS.)
  Mr. Galbraith: I beg to move, in page 5, line 11, to leave out from "may" to the end of line 14 and to insert:
  "for the purpose of preventing the obstruction of any particular watercourse in their area so as to be likely to cause the flooding of land, other than agricultural land, whether in their area or not, make byelaws regulating or prohibiting the deposit of rubbish or other material in or near the watercourse".
  During the Committee stage, hon. Gentlemen opposite criticised the drafting of Clause 6 (1) on the ground that reference to the manner in which rubbish was deposited in a watercourse appeared to be a reference to the physical manipulation of the rubbish into the watercourse rather than the effect which the depositing of the rubbish would have on the watercourse. I agree that there may be something in this, and the Amendment, therefore, seeks to improve the drafting of the Clause to remove any ambiguity on that score.
  At the same time, the Amendment covers a very real type of case, which we discussed in Committee, where rubbish is deposited on a dump near a watercourse and is likely in time to spill over and get washed into the stream, thereby causing an obstruction, and possibly causing flooding further down.
  Hon. Gentlemen will recollect also that I undertook during the Committee stage to consider whether the Clause might be redrafted to meet the point of an Amendment by the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey), who suggested that the power to make byelaws might be extended to cover the prevention of any interference with the normal flow of a watercourse. I said then that I was not able to accept the Amendment as it was worded although I had a good deal of sympathy with its
  1114
  object. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman will now feel that in introducing into the Clause a reference to the prevention of obstructions in a watercourse I have gone some way to meet him. I believe that the Clause, as amended, will give local authorities all the powers they need in relation to the making of byelaws having regard to the permissive nature of the whole Bill, and I hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite will agree that we have gone as far as we can to meet them.
  Mr. A. Woodburn: During the Committee stage I spoke on the first point mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, and I thank him for trying to meet me.
  However, on reading the Amendment, I still feel a little puzzled about the word "deposit". The impression given to me by "deposit" is that it is the act of somebody depositing something in a stream. I suggested earlier that obstruction might result from neglect. Suppose there is in the middle of Kilmarnock a wall which the water undermines and the owner of the wall does not keep it in good order and the wall collapses into the stream. I am puzzled as to whether the person "deposits" the wall in the stream or whether the wall just falls in. Flooding might be caused equally by that person's neglect.
  What strikes me about the whole of this is that neglect is not really covered by the Bill, and that more damage might be caused by a person's neglect than by any incidental depositing of rubbish in a stream. I have held out the possibility of a wall collapsing, but there are a number of other possibilities. I should be glad if the Joint Under-Secretary or the Lord Advocate could make clear what "deposit" means. Is it a conscious act on the part of someone, an act which he has actually committed, or does "deposit" include the results of neglect where the person ought to have prevented the incident from happening by keeping the wall, the bridge or whatever it might be in order.
  Mr. Dempsey: I am grateful to the Joint Under-Secretary of State for coming part of the way as far as obstruction is concerned, but he will recall that during the Committee stage I also referred to dumping. He should have

  1115
  considered dumping because, as I read the Amendment, byelaws to cover dumping are governed by the words
  "… so as to be likely to cause the flooding of land …"
  In other words, there will be no byelaws to cover the situation in which dumping takes place excessively in many rivers, but still does not reach the stage of actually causing a flood.
  It may be argued that we are dealing with flooding only and can deal with dumping only when it reaches the stage at which flooding takes place, but the mere fact that dumping can, at some stage, contribute to flooding should lead to its prohibition from our rivers. I know a place in Lanarkshire where the width of the river has narrowed because of dumping, and at a certain stage flooding is bound to take place. The mere fact that dumping can be a contributory element in flooding should have been ample reason for the Secretary of State to consider eliminating it altogether.
  I believe that it is difficult to apply a byelaw dealing with flooding arising out of dumping. One must ask the questions: at what stage does flooding take place, and what degree of dumping is necessary before flooding occurs? This can create a tremendous amount of difficulty in the implementation of effective byelaws.
  The mere fact that we are to allow dumping to take place in our rivers to a certain degree—dumping which, enormous as it is in many respects, has not actually sparked off flooding—is a weakness in the Amendment. I was hoping that the Government would correct that indecision.
  Apart from many other factors, we all know that dumping is a great menace to children, who naturally gravitate towards water in their play. I thought that we could have taken advantage of this legislation to stop dumping in our rivers on a large scale and by large businesses—for it is done not by men with wheelbarrows but by large scale concerns. I hoped that, in view of the charitable outlook the Under-Secretary of State took during our discussions, we would have an Amendment to prohibit dumping.
  I am appreciative of the distance which he has already travelled towards
  1116
  our point of view, and I am grateful for it, but I would have preferred him to be definite about river dumping and to have included a provision prohibiting it entirely.
  Mr. Steele: The operative words in the Amendment are
  "… be likely to cause the flooding of land …
  There might be some doubt about what those words mean. This can be decided only in the courts, but it would be useful to hear what the Lord Advocate has to say about the matter. I want to consider those words and also the words
  "… in or near the watercourse."
  The serious flooding in part of my constituency was caused because sawdust from a sawmill was piled beside a water course. At that stage, of course, it did not cause flooding, but when we had a storm and a heavy rainfall, water came down the stream and gradually seeped away the sawdust and carried it down the stream to a small bridge where it blocked the stream so that the water piled up and two or three houses were flooded.
  That was something about which nobody could do anything. The local authority had no power and the owners of the flooded property took what action they could, but although they tried to keep the stream clear at their own expense, the owner of the sawmill was not prepared to take any action. If the intepretation of this provision suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Coat-bridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) is correct, there is not yet a solution to this problem. However, if the Lord Advocate is certain that the words
  "be likely to cause the flooding of land"
  would cover a case of this kind, then my constituents will be very happy.
  The Lord Advocate: The right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) suspected that "depositing" meant "voluntarily depositing". I am fairly certain that if a person allowed his wall to get into a state of neglect with the result that stones fell into a river, that would not be depositing within the terms of the Bill. Apart from that, there still remain common law rights, and, if anybody is injured, there would be a common law remedy outside the Bill.

  1117
  The hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) wanted to make any depositing an offence, whether it was voluntary or involuntary. I was in sympathy with some things he said, but it has to be remembered that this is a Bill to enable councils to take measures for the prevention or mitigation of flooding, and, even if we had drafted an Amendment to meet his argument, I doubt whether it would be in order. However, I will take note of his comments.
  He and his hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Steele) asked what was meant by "likely to cause flooding". The example given by the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Steele) is typical of the type of case which would be covered. As it turned out, the depositing of sawdust caused flooding, and anyone knowing the weather of Dunbartonshire would have been able to say that it was likely to cause flooding, and so the case would have been covered.
  I was also asked whether the phrase "in or near" was sufficient to cover the matter when the depositing was some distance from the watercourse. It would be impossible and extremely undesirable to lay down limits. For instance, if we laid down a distance of 100 yards, that might cover cases which ought not to be covered and might not cover cases which ought to be included. However, when the depositing is likely to cause, and in fact does cause, flooding, as happened in the example, and when it is near enough to cause the flooding, it would clearly be covered by the byelaws which can be made.
  Mr. Ross: I am interested in the language of the Lord Advocate and, indeed, of the Secretary of State for Scotland in relation to this. They may be saying "likely to cause flooding" but that is not what the Amendment says. That is the language of the Bill as originally drafted.
  It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
  Proceedings on the Flood Prevention (Scotland) Bill and the Agricultural Research etc. (Pensions) Bill exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. I (Sittings of the House)—[Mr. Maclay.]
  Question again proposed, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill.
  Mr. Ross: The Lord Advocate will appreciate that in trying to meet the objections raised to the original language the words in the Amendment make the position much more difficult. Originally, there was power to make bye-laws for the purpose of preventing flooding. It was relatively easy to decide whether something would cause flooding. The words now proposed will make it much more difficult for a local authority to decide something about which it must satisfy the Secretary of State for Scotland, because the Amendment says:
  "for the purpose of preventing the obstruction of any particular watercourse in their area so as to he likely to cause the flooding of land, other than agricultural land, whether in their area or not … "
  How on earth will anyone be able to decide a thing like that with certainty? How can it be justified? How can we ask a local authority to make bye-laws to cover only the flooding of non-agricultural land? This is the height of stupidity to which we have been reduced by this constant insistence on nonagricultural land.
  I hope that the Lord Advocate, with the leave of the House, will explain why it was thought desirable to introduce this for the first time in the Amendment. Our original difficulty was that of being able to prohibit the dumping and depositing of rubbish, because there was no provision to deal with that. Dumping was not an offence. Depositing also was not an offence. It was "depositing in such a manner", and so on, that caused considerable difficulties to any local authority which tried to prosecute people under that provision. I think that the Secretary of State for Scotland will now find it even more difficult to decide whether the obstruction of any particular watercourse in any area by this dumping would be likely to cause flooding of land—not the flooding of agricultural land, but just land which is other than agricultural land.
  While we are satisfied that the Government have tried to get round our original difficulties by making the sanctions which local authorities can apply much more effective, they have spoiled their efforts by dragging in this reference to land

  1119
  other than agricultural land. They have not only spoiled their efforts, but have made this quite nugatory.
  I do not know whether we are grateful for this. I do not think that the Lord Advocate is grateful for the speech that I am making, but I hope that he will appreciate that there is a difficulty here and will promise to think about it again.
  Mr. T. Fraser: I am unhappy about the Amendment for another reason, or perhaps I should say an extension of one of the reasons given by my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross). The subsection will now read:
  "Subject to the provisions of this section, a local authority may for the purpose of preventing the obstruction of any particular watercourse in their area …"—
  the watercourse that might be obstructed has to be in their area—
  "so as to be likely to cause the flooding of land, other than agricultural land, whether in their area or not, make byelaws regulating or prohibiting the deposit of rubbish or other material in or near the watercourse."
  I should like to know what the Government have in mind. One got the impression that in their original draft they envisaged the local authority making byelaws for the prevention of flooding in its own area, but under this alternative wording which the Secretary of State has put before us a local authority making byelaws for regulating or prohibiting the deposit of rubbish or other material in a watercourse in its area might do so for the purpose of preventing flooding of some urban land in the area of another local authority.
  I can envisage circumstances in which it might be desirable to do that, but we have not had any indication of what the Government have in mind. As a matter of fact, they resisted an Amendment a little earlier where we wanted consultation between the urban authority whose land might be flooded and the other authority which was causing the flooding. That has been resisted as being quite unnecessary, but it seems to be necessary to put in the Bill a byelaw-making power for one authority to regulate the depositing of material in or near a watercourse in its area to prevent flooding of land in the area of another local authority. In what circumstances does the right hon. and learned Gentleman envisage a local authority taking
  1120
  steps to make such byelaws for the protection of the area of another authority?
  The Lord Advocate: If, by leave, I may reply, the circumstances I envisage are cases where local authorities are cooperating. One has the case of flooding occurring further downstream in the area of another local authority and, as a matter of neighbourliness, the upstream local authority under these provisions could make byelaws to prevent the deposit of this, that and the other material in the watercourse as it passes through its area to prevent flooding at a point further downstream. As the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) remembers, and as I think he will accept, in the Clause as it stands there is the broad principle that a local authority normally can make byelaws only in regard to any act done within its area. We allow the local authorities to pass byelaws to prevent something happening in their area even if it is a matter which affects a local authority or an urban district further downstream. I think that the hon. Member will agree that that is reasonable.
  Mr. T. Fraser: It is precisely because I think that it is so necessary that I wanted there to be consultation with the people upstream who will be causing the flooding. That is why we suggested the earlier Amendment.
  The Lord Advocate: That was not in relation to one local authority and another but in relation to a local authority and an improvement committee under a land drainage scheme. There is a little difference.
  The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) asked why the provision was limited to land other than agricultural land.
  Mr. Ross: I am referring to flooding that will take place at some future time. The provision affects only the flooding of non-agricultural land.
  The Lord Advocate: The Bill deals only with the prevention and mitigation of flooding of non-agricultural land, as is seen from the Long Title. Even if we had left the Clause as it stands, the provision would have been read as being concerned with flooding within the scope of the Bill. We have merely made it

  1121
  clear that only non-agricultural land is affected.
  Mr. Fraser: The Lord Advocate has referred to the Long Title, which enables local authorities
  "to take measures for the prevention or mitigation of flooding of non-agricultural land in their areas."
  The Amendment would seem to go beyond the provisions of the Long Title.
  The Lord Advocate: In that case we are fortunate in having the Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.

  Clause 11.—(COMPENSATION.)
  The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 7, line 20, to leave out from the first "the" to the first "the" in line 23 and to insert:
  "carrying out of any flood prevention operations".
  It might be convenient if this and the following Amendment, in line 23, were taken together, because they are closely connected. The two Amendments are designed to meet certain criticisms made in Committee in regard to the continuing liability of local authorities if, having carried out a flood prevention scheme and then failed to maintain it, damage occurs further down the river. The object of the two Amendments, taken together, is to provide that if the local authority has carried out these operations it will not be liable for any omission to maintain thereafter. It will be liable for any omission during the carrying out of the work, if that omission should cause damage. That is why the word "omission" is left in line 28.
  On the assumption that the two Amendments are carried, a local authority is clear in two years from that date. If, through omission, there is a crumbling of a dam which causes damage further down the river, liability does not arise.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendment made: In page 7, line 23, leave out "right was exercised" and insert "operations were carried out".—[The Lord Advocate.]
  10.15 p.m.
  The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 7, line 39, at the end to insert:
  "or ten years from the completion of the flood prevention operations, whichever is the earlier"
  1122
  I do not think I need to go into this Amendment in detail. It gives effect to an undertaking, and I think that everybody is happy about it.
  Amendment agreed to.

  Clause 14.—(CROWN RIGHTS.)
  Mr. Ross: I beg to move, in page 9, line 1, at the beginning to insert:
  "Before carrying out any flood prevention operations or making a flood prevention scheme".
  I think that it would be for the convenience of the House if we also took the Amendment in the same page and line—leave out from "land" to end of line 4 and insert:
  "the local authority shall consult with the appropriate authority in relation to such land".
  They both cover the same point.
  It might, perhaps, be very much simpler if I were first to read the Clause as it now stands, and then give the amended version. The present wording of subsection (1) is:
  "In relation to any Crown land nothing in this Act, or in any scheme made under this Act, shall (except so far as the appropriate authority consents) affect prejudicially any estate, right, power, privilege or exemption of the Crown."
  If these Amendments are accepted the subsection will read:
  "Before carrying out any flood prevention operations or making a flood prevention scheme in relation to any Crown land the local authority shall consult with the appropriate authority in relation to such land."
  I think that it is about time that we dragged ourselves into the twentieth century—and into the second part of the twentieth century—in relation to these Crown lands, Departments of Government and the rest. We simply suggest that where a beneficial and desirable scheme for the prevention of flooding in relation to non-agricultural land is required, all that should be legislatively needed is consultation between the local authority and the appropriate authority—and, of course, that "appropriate authority" is defined later in the Clause. When what is desired is something that is to be for the benefit 'of everyone within the area, all this reference to estate, right, power, privilege, exemption of the Crown and the like is quite anachronistic, and we should face that fact.
  The Lord Advocate: We had some discussion of this point in the Standing Committee, and if I did not undertake to look at it I certainly have done, because these Crown exemption Clauses are rather a headache. We have to decide when they should go in and when they should not go in.
  The effect of these Amendments, if they were accepted, would be that a local authority would have to consult the Government Department—because that is what it comes to—before carrying out flood prevention work, but would not need to obtain the Department's consent. That could cause difficulties, not only in regard, for example, to security matters, but, as was mentioned in the Standing Committee, there might be Post Office cable works underneath the land that was to be dammed—
  Mr. Willis: That is covered in the Schedule.
  The Lord Advocate: At any rate, there are these cases of difficulty in regard to Government Departments whose land might be affected, although it is quite true, as was suggested during the Committee stage, that the Secretary of State could refuse his approval of a flood prevention scheme if he thought that it was prejudicial to a particular Government Department.
  Quite apart from that, there are these cases where a local authority can do its, as it were, non-subsidised work—
  Mr. Willis: Maintenance.
  The Lord Advocate: Maintenance, yes. By another Clause, local authorities are empowered to enter on land to carry out maintenance work and if these Amendments were accepted they would be entitled, apart from consulting the Department concerned, to go on to War Department land, for example, or places where there are atomic stations, and so on, when doing anything of that nature. If the authority said no, it could still go on, with the obvious prejudice which might then arise. Although the Secretary of State would have to approve flood prevention schemes, he would be powerless to intervene in that case and the local authority could exercise powers of entry and the like. For that reason, I suggest the Amendment should not be accepted.
  Mr. Willis: I am very disappointed with the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. A characteristic of all the speeches we get from the Government is a general distrust of the integrity, honesty and desire to serve their country of local authorities. In a democracy such as ours, the Government ought to treat responsible elected authorities of the people in a rather more dignified manner. All this authoritarian control of these men does not produce the best type of representative on local authorities. We are constantly being told that we cannot get people of the right type to serve on them. One of the reasons is that the Government insist on treating them like schoolchildren and not like adult men and women when probably they have spent many years in local authority work developing a great sense of responsibility and are as conscious of the needs of the community as anyone.
  We must also remember that Government Departments do not always act very reasonably. They can be exceedingly awkward. They dig in their toes over all sorts of things. The tuppenny ha'penny empire built up by some wee person is challenged by what a local authority wants to do. Clad in a brief authority, the individual stops the local authority doing it. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan) sits mumbling on his seat. When he made a contribution to the debate it was to tell us how selfish he was. We all have examples of Government Departments doing absurd things. We know how difficult it is at times to get them to undo those things or to persuade the Minister to overturn what the department is doing. That is particularly true of the Service Departments, which are exceedingly difficult to deal with on questions of land.
  In view of the growth of Government Departments and of the passage of control of land into their hands, it is time we struck a blow for democracy. We do not expect the Government to do that, but there is no reason why the House should not carry out its historic rights and strike an occasional blow for democracy. In view of the increasing growth of Crown land, we ought to bring this practice out of the seventeenth century into the twentieth century. Local

  1125
  authorities contain men with a large amount of skill who are dedicated to serving the public free of charge. These people have spent their lives in it, voluntarily.
  But the Government say that they cannot be trusted to consult Government Departments and to arrive at sensible decisions. The right hon. Gentleman said, "We cannot trust local authority representatives to approach a Government Department intelligently and to recognise the wider interests of the State if they are in conflict with the interests of the locality".
  Mr. Ross: He also said, "We cannot trust the sheriff", because application has to be made to the sheriff in relation to powers of entry, and surely he would pay attention to the wider interests.
  The Lord Advocate: Application to the sheriff arises only in the case of an emergency entry.
  Mr. Willis: In dealing with some of the Service Departments it is possible that there might have to be an emergency entry. I can visualise that happening, in which case the sheriff would be called in. We expect that from certain Government Departments. We object to the constant emphasis on the fact that local authority representatives are not to be trusted with any job. The right hon. Gentleman surely knows about the composition of local authorities and knows presumably many members of local authorities—or I wonder whether he does.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is in danger of repetition on a point considerably outside the Amendment. We understand that he is urging that members of local authorities are responsible and reputable persons. We have understood that point.
  Mr. Willis: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for stemming the flow of eloquence, and I apologise for coming back to where I started.
  This is a frightening Clause, and local authority representatives do not like to see it in the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman ought to do as he promised in Committee—to give more thought to it and to see what can be done to diminish the need for this type of Clause
  1126
  in Bills, if not on this occasion certainly in the future.
  Mr. Dempsey: I, too, ask the Minister to have another look at this Clause. I come from local authority service and I know that the words
  "right, power, privilege or exemption of the Crown"
  create almost a feeling of tyranny in the hearts and minds of those who are custodians of the rights of the local community. We talk about prejudicing these interests, but I ask the Minister to explain the Government's attitude if these interests prejudice the development of a local authority's efforts. That is a crucial challenge. It is obvious that these words must be very ancient, probably dating back to a time when there were very few Crown lands which interfered with the basic social services of this country. But I know from my own experience of cases in which the social services have been prejudiced because of the architects of this Clause and those who sought to enforce its provisions. Even today there are certain major social services which are most costly than they would be if these words were removed. I can give the right hon. Gentleman chapter and verse for that allegation.
  The very least we can do is not to give these interests absolute power over the development of community wellbeing. It is reasonable to suggest that the other partner in the development of a fuller life should be allowed the initiative in this case of consulting these interests and of endeavouring to resolve differences and to remove conflicts with a view to ensuring that all concerned work in a measure of sanity rather than in the tyranny which I have found from time to time under the application of these principles.
  10.30 p.m.
  On more than one occasion in my capacity as a member of a local authority, I have raised issues such as that of the erection of local schools only to meet the untouchable and unmentionable interests of Crown land and estates. One is almost prevented from even looking at them. That is the construction placed on a provision such as this. It inspires almost a tyrannical attitude in the preservation of these places in the United Kingdom.

  1127
  I appeal to the Secretary of State to look again at this matter. I am not endeavouring to be difficult or in any way obstreperous. All I wish to do is to convey the experience of one of the major local authorities in Scotland in trying to deal with the untouchables who represent Crown land and estates, who have vested powers to prevent the development of land which lies idle and is not even used for the grazing of sheep because of the power of words similar to those in this Clause.
  I ask the Secretary of State to realise that it is a serious business for legislators to interpret these words to mean that the full life of a community cannot be developed simply because it would mean using Crown land and estates. I am sure that it was not the Government's intention that a construction of that nature should be put on these words by those who have been chosen to enforce legislation.
  I believe that the words of the Amendment could have a beneficial effect on the Clause and that if they were accepted there would be no abuse by the local authorities who are responsible to the Secretary of State and to the electorate for their conduct. People of that kind are very jealous of the public purse, and in that respect they would not abuse any power or confidence vested in them by means of the Amendment.
  I ask that the near-intolerance which the existing words inspire should be removed. If the Amendment is accepted it will be a first step in the right direction and it will help to soften the wind of suspicion which has developed among local authorities against the Government, the Secretary of State and his colleagues because of the imposition of such words as are contained in the ante-deluvian phraseology of this part of the Bill.
  If this were done we could look forward to even greater co-operation and a better understanding between those who labour for nothing on local authorities and the legislators here responsible for the laws of the land. I often feel that the Secretary of State and Ministers generally are inclined to forget that there are men and women members of major local authorities who give the better part of their lives, without salary, in the
  1128
  service of their fellow-men. It is our duty to encourage them. We seek in the Amendment to show that not only have we confidence in the ability of local authorities but that we know that their members are men and women of integrity whose only ambition is to work with the Government If their ambition is to work with the Government for the betterment of the community, let the Government work with them, and they can do it by accepting the Amendment.
  Mr. T. Fraser: I agree with my hon. Friend that for the Government to accept the Amendment would be a step in the right direction, but if right hon. Gentlemen opposite wanted to take all the steps in the right direction that are desirable they would take the whole Clause out of the Bill.
  The Amendment seeks to delete the words:
  "nothing in this Act, or in any scheme made under this Act, shall (except so far as the appropriate authority consents) affect prejudicially any estate, right, power, privilege or exemption of the Crown."
  Do those words mean that the local authority cannot make byelaws for the prevention or mitigation of flooding in respect of a stream within Crown land except with the consent of the appropriate authority? Take the case of the deposit of sawdust—referred to by the Lord Advocate—by the Forestry Commission on Crown land into a stream, an action which the local authority concerned had recognised as being the cause of flooding of non-agricultural land, and suppose the Forestry Commissioners or the Crown Land Commissioners, as the case may be, regarded the application of the byelaws to their stream as prejudicial to them. Would it not be possible for the local authority to take desirable action with the object of the prevention or mitigation of flooding?
  I can imagine many other evil consequences that could flow from the inclusion of a Clause of this kind in the Bill, but I shall be content if I can have an answer to the question that I have just asked.
  The Lord Advocate: If I may, by leave of the House, speak again, I will deal straight away with that point. I think that the hon. Gentleman is right in suspecting that to take the earlier example, if byelaws were made to stop

  1129
  sawdust being put into a stream, the Forestry Commissioners could say "We are doing this on our own land. We have not agreed to be bound by the byelaws, and we can go on doing it." As I see it, the Clause would justify that. I will be frank about that.
  We have been asked to trust the local authorities. On the other hand, we have to trust Government Departments as well. After all, we cannot ask questions of local authorities, provosts or baillies in the House—or only every three years or so—but we can ask Questions of Ministers. That is an old answer but a true one. Here one can ask Questions and chivvy Departments. There is the point raised by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis), that if a case of security arises the local authority will discuss it with the Service Department. But in many cases it cannot be given all the information about the reasons why the Service Department does not wish certain operations carried out on its land: and no matter how intelligent and trustworthy the local authority may be, without the full facts at its disposal—it cannot in some cases get the full facts—it might be inclined to go on if the Clause were not in the Bill and do something which would, in fact, be prejudicial.
  1130
  I am not suggesting that the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) was out of order, for it would be wrong for me to do so because it would be a slight on the Chair, but I thought that he ranged rather wide at times in dealing with schools and so on. After all, all we are dealing with here is the question of operations on certain land for the purpose of preventing or mitigating flooding on certain other land. This is, as somebody put it, antidiluvian phraseology, but we have had it for many years under Governments of both political colours. I take refuge not in the emergency entrance offered me by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East but in an emergency exit. He asked me whether, if I would not consider accepting this Amendment, I would think carefully before putting in a Clause like this in a future Bill. I certainly will do that, and, in that sort of half-way house, I hope that we can leave the matter. I appreciate the position and will certainly consider it further.
  Mr. Ross: In view of the forthcoming nature of the Lord Advocate's closing words. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

  First Schedule.—(PROVISIONS WHICH MAY BE INCORPORATED IN FLOOD PRE- VENTION SCHEMES.)
  Mr. Manuel: I beg to move, in page 12, line 4, after "any", to insert "tree".
  This Amendment may appear to be a matter which occasions some merriment, but I am quite serious about it. First, I should like to clear the House's mind by saying that I am not the sort of person who would like to see a lot of trees felled. If I could preserve a tree then I would be the first person to do so. I do not like the felling of trees. My family was in the forestry trade, and, whether this has left its mark on me or not, I am all for the preservation of trees.
  In the First Schedule, however, we read, in paragraph 4,
  "The local authority may, for the purpose of carrying out the operations or of executing any temporary works, cut and lay aside or remove, or cut and use for the aforesaid purposes, any bush or scrub timber growing on land situated within the limits of lateral deviation shown on the plans referred to …"
  for a flood prevention scheme. The local authority is now having placed upon it the onus of dealing with emergency works when flooding takes place, with a village street and houses becoming involved, because of a river bank bursting. Such works usually mean sandbagging to get the river back into its course, and the authority has the right, in carrying out those works, to cut bush or scrub timber.
  Scrub timber and a tree are quite different things. Scrub timber has no value, but one can have a tree—perhaps only a small one but still of some value—which impedes sandbagging and the temporary execution of the work, and it is wrong that the Government should protect land-owning interests to the extent that such a tree may not be cut down.
  10.45 p.m.
  I also want to ask the Under-Secretary of State about Clause 3 (b), which is connected with the First Schedule, and deals with the specific
  "… power to remove any dam or other work situated, or any tree growing, in, on, over or under the watercourse."
  Local authorities would not want to cut down trees—or scrub timber or bush—unless they needed to do so. Such power as I propose would enable them to
  1132
  take quick remedial action when flooding occurred. For instance, a tree might fall or be blown against another tree and, in the disturbance of the roots, the banks of the stream might be fractured, allowing the water to get through, possibly flooding into dwellings or on to roads. Is a local authority to be debarred from removing that tree so that it can repair the fractured embankment? Many trees grow near streams and their roots intertwine and form part of the bank. The example I have cited is not unlikely. Without flogging the matter, I hope that the Government will accept the Amendment so that local authorities can undertake temporary repair or remedial work as quickly as possible.
  Mr. Willis: I support the modest request of my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel). I had hoped that we should hear the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) speaking on this Amendment, because I understand that he is interested in trees and their removal and their value, I have no doubt that he has a great deal of practical experience which he could offer to the House, and I hope that we shall hear from him.
  My hon. Friend's request is that a local authority shall have power to take down a tree where it is necessary to do so to safeguard urban property—houses and so on. I understand that the Government have not included such power, because a tree has some value to the landowner and the power would mean that a landowner might lose the few pounds which the tree is worth. It is intolerable that people should have their houses flooded because the Government think it wrong for a local authority to get the value of a tree.
  Mr. Manuel: It does not get its value; it takes it down.
  Mr. Willis: I said earlier that the Government do not trust the local authorities. The Government are displaying a shocking attitude of mind. I do not think that they know anything about councils, or councillors, or the type of people with whom they will have to deal. If they did, they would not treat them in this way.
  I hope that the hon. Gentleman will give a favourable reply to this humble Amendment. It is a minor one on

  1133
  which the Government could easily yield and do themselves credit and earn the gratitude of the Opposition.
  I am not certain about these definitions of bush and scrub timber. I am not certain when a tree ceases to be a tree and becomes scrub timber. I know what scrub timber is. So does anyone who is familiar with the Highlands. But when does a tree become scrub timber? When does a tree cease to be a tree?
  Mr. Arthur Tiley: The hon. Gentleman ought to send for George Washington. We could all then go home.
  Mr. Willis: That may seem funny, but this is a point of substance. Local authorities will have to administer the Bill. When a local authority sees something, it will have to make up its mind whether it can take it down. One person might say, "This is a tree. We cannot touch this". Somebody else might say, "We will regard it as scrub timber and pull it down and say nothing about it ". When does something cease to be what it is and become something else?
  I hope that the Government will be kindly disposed towards the Amendment in view of the earnest and cogent arguments advanced by my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Galbraith: The Opposition are always accusing the Government of not knowing about local authorities. All I can say is that they do not seem to know much about the characters of their Parliamentary colleagues on this side of the House. They regard with suspicion every Amendment resisted by the Government, as though the reason for doing so was the value of the trees to the owners. This, of course, is just not the case.
  I argued this matter with the hon. Gentleman at some length in Committee upstairs, and it is extremely difficult for me to say anything more tonight than I said on that occasion. I will try once more, however, to convince him on this point.
  Mr. Manuel rose—
  Mr. Galbraith: The Amendment follows a point made by the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) during the discussion in Committee upstairs on the First Schedule. Its effect
  1134
  is to make it possible for a local authority to cut down trees as well as bushes and scrub to enable it to carry out a flood prevention scheme or execute temporary works authorised by paragraph 2 of the First Schedule. The hon. Gentleman seems to have forgotten that aspect of it.
  Local authorities carrying out a scheme must have reasonable discretion to remove bushes and other minor obstructions in the way of their legitimate operations without having to specify them individually in the scheme.
  The Schedule in its present form gives them this discretion. The hon. Gentleman will be glad to know that to that extent we trust local authorities. But the cutting down of trees, as I indicated during our previous discussions on the subject, is a matter of a major and permanent kind. That is the point. It is not the value of the trees; it is the fact that the operation of felling them is major and permanent, and not temporary. Once a tree is cut down it is cut down.
  Mr. Manuel: What if it is in the nature of temporary work?
  Mr. Galbraith: The work may be temporary, but the cutting down of the tree is not. That is what the hon. Member does not seem to understand. It can take twenty or thirty years for a tree to grow. Because of that we feel that the operation should be included in the flood prevention scheme.
  Mr. Manuel: Is cutting the scrub timber temporary?
  Mr. Galbraith: That is quite different. Scrub timber, unlike a tree, grows up quickly again.
  I say again what I have said during our previous discussion on this matter; the cutting down of trees is an operation of a major and permanent kind. But if trees require to be cut down—and there are cases where they do as part of the job of preventing flooding, it is right that the operation should be brought under control by including it in a flood prevention scheme, as indeed is provided for in Clause 3 (2, b).
  Another difficulty that the hon. Member and his hon. Friends seem to have failed to appreciate is the fact that not merely one tree may be involved but a whole host of trees.
  Mr. Manuel: Do not get frightened.
  Mr. Galbraith: There is nothing in the Amendment to prevent a local authority cutting down any number of trees. If it were accepted, it would have the effect of giving a local authority unfettered discretion permanently to remove trees for what might be purely temporary purposes. That would be going very much further than is necessary to enable them to get on with the job, and although I understand what the the hon. Member is getting at, I cannot accept the Amendment.
  Mr. Steele: That was an amazing speech. The hon. Member started off by saying that he trusted the local authorities, and accused us of being critical and saying that the Government knew nothing about local authorities. Then, having said that the Government trusted local authorities—that they were made up of men of great virtues, who would not do unreasonable things—he went on to suggest that if the Amendment were carried they would get out their hatchets and go round cutting down trees all over the place. He said that we were concerned not merely with one tree but perhaps with a whole host of them. He created a picture of members of local authorities cutting down any number of trees. What could be more ridiculous?
  The Minister also said that he had already given my hon. Friend all the answers to the points he had raised, but the question of the tree to which my hon. Friend referred arose in connection with another portion of the Bill; it was not in the Schedule at all. It was the tree in the burn. The hon. Member is now referring to the tree which is not yet in the burn. He is confusing two separate issues. He said that it is not one tree. If we get a dozen trees it becomes a bush, and we know all about going into the bush. According to this, local authorities will have power to cut down a bush. Frankly, I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can see the wood for the trees.
  11.0 p.m.
  The arguments of the hon. Gentleman are not only ridiculous but completely contradictory. He cannot, on the one hand, say that he trusts the local authorities and, on the other hand, not agree to put into the Bill a provision
  1136
  which would show that he trusts them. He rejects my hon. Friend's Amendment because he fears that local authorities would do something which we all know would be completely silly. This is the last Amendment on the Notice Paper. It is only a matter of adding a small word. We should all be very happy and we should be able to part with the Bill very quickly if the hon. Gentleman were to accept my hon. Friend's "tree."
  Mr. Willis: It is a four-letter word.
  Mr. Steele: Will not the Under-Secretary give further consideration to the proposed Amendment and agree to the word "tree" going into the Bill?
  Mr. Ross: I hesitated to rise because I thought the Under-Secretary was going to respond to the invitation of my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Steele). Like him, I have found it very difficult to follow the Under-Secretary's speech, particularly his opening words. I do not think he did justice to himself. I heard the recurring theme that trees might have to be cut down, but, if so, they would go into a scheme. But we are dealing with the First Schedule, and it starts by saying:
  "Provisions which may be Incorporated in Flood Prevention Schemes".
  I therefore ask the Under-Secretary what he was talking about. In other words, my hon. Friend's Amendment seeks to do what the Under-Secretary says should be done.
  What is his answer to that? Is it just sheer prejudice? Does he think that trees should not be cut down? He tells us that Lit might well be that a tree should be cut down. If he believes that, he ought to accept this Amendment. If he believes that the cutting down of a tree should be covered by a scheme, he had better accept the Amendment, because that is the purpose of this Schedule, and paragraph 4 is the only place where it can go in.
  I ask the Under-Secretary to look at paragraph 4.:
  "The local authorities may, for the purpose of carrying out the operations … remove any obstructions therefrom."
  A tree is an obstruction. Yet, according to the Under-Secretary, it cannot be removed. I would 'have understood the hon. Gentleman if he had said that the

  1137
  Amendment was unnecessary because of these words. All that my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) is asking is that a flood prevention scheme should not be held up or spoiled because of the impossibility of cutting clown a tree. That is all.
  I really think that the hon. Gentleman is still living in the kind of unreal atmosphere of the speeches that he made in Committee, when he visualised local authorities cutting down tree after tree, and emulating the Forestry Commission—with the difference that the Commission was probably replanting but that the local authority was not. I ask him to look at this matter from a cold, logical point of view, and answer this question. If the tree is an obstruction, can it be cut down?
  If he insists that in a scheme the tree must be shown as cut down, where else can that be shown other than in paragraph 4 of the Schedule? I would ask him to appreciate that although there has been a certain amount of humour in this debate—and quite good humour—this is a very serious Amendment, and I sincerely hope that he will see his way, if not to accept it at least to say that he will look at it again.
  Mr. Galbraith: By leave of the House, may I just say that I am very sorry that, in spite of the serious approach of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) and the humorous and delightful approach of the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Steele), I cannot accept this Amendment. Whatever the hon. Member for Kilmarnock may think, it would have the effect of giving the authority unfettered discretion permanently to remove trees for what might be purely temporary purposes. As the removal of a tree is a permanent thing, I am afraid that I cannot accept the Amendment.
  Mr. Ross: May I ask the hon. Gentleman to answer this question? Since this Schedule deals with provisions within a scheme, which can either be passed or amended by the Secretary of State, what has he to lose by the acceptance of the Amendment? To my mind, everything that the hon. Gentleman says is wrong—quite wrong.
  Mr. T. Fraser: The Under-Secretary was misled earlier into thinking that we
  1138
  are here considering only works of a temporary nature. He based his whole speech on the proposition that my hon. Friend was asking for power to remove a tree for purely temporary works. He said that we could not put the tree back again. He has not listened to the serious speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross). The first word in the second line of paragraph 4 is "operations"—and that means flood prevention operations; they are all the operations that the local authority might carry out under the terms of the scheme.
  These are the operations. It is for the purpose of carrying out the operations that the local authority may
  "… cut and lay aside or remove, or cut and use for the aforesaid purposes, any bush or scrub timber growing on land situated within the limits of lateral deviation …"
  Does that include a tree, or does it not? If these operations are part of the operations included in the scheme, they are not of a temporary but of a very permanent nature. I suggest that in many cases these schemes must include the removal of the trees. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that they must never include trees? If he will not have "tree" linked with "bush or scrub timber" then, of course, trees could not he included.
  We are not dealing with temporary works at all; we are dealing with operations. My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and I thought that the answer of the hon. Gentleman would be that the word "tree" is unnecessary, because at the end of the paragraph power is given to remove "any obstructions". That would surely include trees, but the Under-Secretary does not admit that. Any local authority would be convinced that there was no power in any circumstances as part of the operations listed in the First Schedule to cut down a tree—not a whole forest, but trees, the removal of which is necessary for carrying out the operations set out in a flood prevention scheme approved by the Secretary of State.
  I should have thought that there was no harm in putting in the word "tree" before "bush". If "any obstructions" include trees, those obstructions are equally related to temporary works as to operations under a scheme. It may be that the whole paragraph will have to be looked at again. We should not

  1139
  mind that. All we were concerned about was that the Under-Secretary, for some reason which was obscure. was quite determined that a local authority in seeking to prevent flooding of people's homes would not be willing to cut down someone's trees.
  I wonder if the Secretary of State will undertake to have another look at this matter and consider whether "any obstruction" could conceivably include trees. Surely "any obstruction" could conceivably include trees and operations under a scheme could include removal of trees. Surely, the words "any obstruction" relate to temporary works as they relate to operations under a scheme. Any lawyer could easily convince himself and any local authority—and, I hope, at the end of the day, a court—that a tree was included in the more general phrase "any obstructions". If it is the desire of the Under-Secretary that a tree might be removed as part of the operations of a scheme but must not be removed as part of the temporary works, paragraph 4 must be looked at again.
  The Under-Secretary must agree that there is some ambiguity in paragraph 4 if his intention is that a tree may be included in permanent works and operations, but not in temporary works. If so, I hope that he will at least undertake to have another look at the matter.
  Mr. Galbraith: If I may speak again by leave of the House, for the third time, it may be "third time lucky". I think that the difference between us comes from whether or not a tree is to be specified in the scheme. I say that it has to be specified, because it is permanent. The hon. Member wishes it to be treated like a bush or scrub and, therefore, not specified. I am afraid that I cannot resile from my position.
  The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) asked an interesting question about obstruction. He wanted to know if it could include a tree. I am advised that this is a matter of legal interpretation which could be finally decided only by the courts—
  Mr. Willis: The courts might settle it against the Government.
  Mr. Galbraith: I prefer to leave the interpretation of the word "obstruction" to the court.
  Mr. Steele: The Government must put into the Bill words which mean something.
  Mr. Galbraith: It would be better, I think, to leave this matter as it is. The real difference between us is whether a tree should be treated as scrub and whether it can be removed without being specified in a scheme. The view to which I incline is that, because there is something more permanent about dealing with a tree than there is about dealing with a bush, it should be specified. For that reason, I very much regret that I cannot accept the Amendment.
  Mr. Willis: The hon. Gentleman must appreciate that we are trying to help the Government and stop them from getting into a difficulty. My hon. Friend has simply asked the Government to look at this again, because the phraseology is ambiguous. We ask the Government to do this in their own interests. The hon. Gentleman should at least say that he will look at it.
  Amendment negatived.
  Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's consent, on behalf of the Crown. signified.]
  11.17 p.m.
  Mr. Maclay: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  I am inclined to comment that another Scottish Bill moves relentlessly on its way to the Statute Book. It is extremely difficult to find anything new to say about any part of what is in the Bill now. I was not privileged to be present at all the discussions in Committee, but I kept a watchful and interested eye on what went on there.
  It would be a grave mistake on my part if I risked spoiling the flow of eloquence and repeating the many other things which have been said about the Bill. I should like to confine myself to the classic formula for Third Reading. The Bill was a good Bill when it started. It has undoubtedly been improved in the process of going through its various stages in the House. Now on its Third Reading I can only commend it to the House.
  11.18 p.m.
  Mr. Ross: Inevitably I find myself in disagreement with the Secretary of State. He said that it was a good Bill to start

  1141
  with and it is better now. I say that it was not such a good Bill to start with, but it is a little better now.
  Mr. Willis: But it is still not good enough.
  Mr. Ross: It is still not good enough. It certainly does not measure up to the needs of flood prevention or the expectations of those concerned with it. There may be some hon. Gentlemen opposite just waiting to make their contribution today on Third Reading.
  We must appreciate that the Bill does not of itself do anything directly in relation to flood prevention. It merely enables somebody else to do it. That somebody else is the local authority. Whether the local authority will accept this responsibility depends upon the provisions of the Bill. That is one limitation. There is the further limitation that the Bill limits the operations in relation to flood prevention to non-agricultural land. We on this side think that those two limitations mar the Bill.
  We must appreciate that hitherto the responsibility for flood prevention has not lain upon local authorities or any other body. Therefore, we are asking local authorities to assume a burden which will cost them some money.
  If we really want flood prevention schemes carried out, the financial arrangements are very much in the nature of an inducement to local authorities. But there is no guarantee that the local authority will get anything. The position is now a little better than it was at the start of our proceedings on the Bill. It was possible then for a local authority, if it could persuade the Secretary of State, to receive up to 50 per cent. We have now managed to get the Secretary of State to make it up to 100 per cent., but the thing to notice is that there is no guarantee of anything at all.
  The second point is that there are certain aspects of this assumed responsibility for which local authorities will receive no grant. They will get a grant only for particular capital works; but, once they assume the responsibility and continue to maintain, there is no grant for maintenance or for anything that happens in the course of that maintenance which makes them liable to pay compensation. They must face that new
  1142
  liability on their own. Obviously, a local authority will balance the interest of what benefit it is likely to obtain from the Bill against the new financial responsibilities and the unknown liabilities for compensation. Therefore, we should not delude the people of Scotland about what the Bill means. We must make it absolutely clear that widespread flood prevention is not to be expected from this legislation.
  While my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel), for example, may hope that the Bill will apply to the Glengarnoch valley, we must keep in mind that the Secretary of State has told us that all that is proposed to be spent in the first year for the whole of Scotland on flood prevention is £20,000. When, under a previous Act, the right hon. Gentleman proposed to spend that amount in two years, what he actually achieved was the spending of only £6,000. Let us, therefore, not be deceived about what is likely to happen or what can happen, for we have the long-stop of the Secretary of State which obviously will prevent the widespread assumption of these powers that will attract grant.
  The difficulties of flood prevention in Scotland are likely to be more serious in the coming years by virtue of the fact that what progress was being made under the 1958 Act was more or less killed off with the coming of this Bill. In other words, we were doing more under existing legislation than we are now likely to do under the Bill.
  I ask the Secretary of State what Departmental arrangements he proposes to make to deal with the circumstances that now arise. This is one problem of flood prevention which in essence has only one solution—flood prevention operations. But we shall now have a second department within one Department dealing with the same problem. If the flood prevention relates to one kind of land there is one department. If it relates to another kind—urban land—there is another department. The thing is rather silly.
  Of course, this is the central weakness of the Bill. It is a weakness which we have tried to bring out during the passage of the Bill. To a certain extent we have failed, I think because the Government were committed to the limitations of which I have spoken. But

  1143
  I do not think that it will be the last we hear of flood prevention if we are ever to tackle it properly. As to the points that we have raised during today's discussions which are still unanswered—and I am sure that even some points which the Government resisted will have gone home—there is still time for repentance in another place, and we sincerely hope that the Government will take that chance.
  In so far as the Bill will help small local authorities where a small amount of expenditure will prevent flooding, it is a useful Measure, but do not let us deceive either ourselves or the public that this is the answer to the flooding problem in Scotland, because it is not.
  11.26 p.m.
  Mr. Manuel: What the Secretary of State for Scotland said in his opening remarks is true, that the Bill has been improved during its passage. Although it is a smaller Measure than many of us had hoped for, I hope that in my own constituency we shall get some real results from it.
  It is recognised that for the first time the local authorities are being brought in under the Bill. Previous legislation has been completely ineffective. Under Clause 6, as amended, local authorities will be asked to take on very heavy responsibilities. They can be asked to clear any watercourse. Paragraph 2 of the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum to the Bill makes that abundantly clear, for it says:
  "Councils are empowered to cleanse and maintain watercourses and to carry out works designed to remove the risk of flooding in their areas."
  That is a wide range. Previously local authorities have had no obligation to undertake' the powers now delegated to them.
  The sum of £20,000 is laid down for the first year. Those who have studied the problem recognise that this is a very small amount. The Secretary of State may have ideas about this. Has he any ideas about how this sum could be increased as schemes come in? Has he an upper limit in his mind? How much increase can we expect as schemes come in? It would be a very bad thing if the hopes of local authorities and householders in areas subjected to flooding were built up that there would be some
  1144
  relief for them but schemes coming in to the Secretary of State for approval were held up because of lack of money.
  I welcome the Bill, but I am sorry that it will not give a lead to local authorities, as would have been the case had our last Amendment been accepted, where there is a doubt and lawyers will have to be consulted before the local authorities know what their duties are in relation to the operations that they may undertake.
  11.29 p.m.
  Mr. Galbraith: I am grateful for the qualified welcome that hon. Gentlemen opposite have given to the Bill. There is, of course, another place where, as the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) pointed out, anything which is not quite clear can be considered.
  I think, however, that I can allay the doubts and fears of the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel). I do not think there is any likelihood of an upper limit being placed on the money available for flood prevention schemes.
  It might interest the House to know that, in anticipation of the Bill becoming law, we have had inquiries from three councils which propose to carry out flood prevention schemes, the costs of which range from £9,000 to £36,000.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH ETC. (PENSIONS) [MONEY]
Resolution reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for contributory pension schemes in respect of persons employed at certain agricultural institutions and colleges financed wholly or partly out of public funds, it is expedient to authorize—

(1) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any sums required by the Secretary of State or the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for making payments under such a scheme; and

(2) the payment into the Exchequer of any sums received by the Secretary of State or the said Minister under such a scheme.

Resolution agreed to.

AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH ETC. (PENSIONS) BILL
Considered in Committee; reported without Amendment; read the Third time and passed.

NEW INDUSTRIES, FALMOUTH AND CAMBORNE
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now Adjourn.—[Colonel J. H. Harrison.]
11.32 p.m.
Mr. F. H. Hayman: The industrial history of my constituency goes back at least 2,000 years. Tin and copper were exported then to Europe and the Middle East. In the Civil War in the 17th Century, King Charles I relied on revenues from the export of Cornish tin to keep his armies in the field. A century later, Cornwall was the copperbelt of Europe.
In the latter part of the 18th Century and the beginning of the 19th Century, Cornwall was the cradle of Britain's great mechanical engineering industry which was to make us the workshop of the world before the century was out. Richard Trevithick, one of our greatest engineers, was born close to where the Camborne-Redruth industrial site is now being developed.
Sir Humphrey Davy, the great chemist and inventor of the miners' safety lamp, was born just beyond the edge of my constituency. The first house ever lit by gas is in the centre of Redruth, where I live. The safety fuse, which increased safety in mining and quarrying, was invented by William Bickford 125 years ago, and the factory at Tuckingmill, where it was first produced, is about to be abandoned by I.C.I.
For centuries the mining of tin and copper was our principal industry. Copper mining collapsed a century ago. For 70 years after that, tin mining was our staple industry, but in 1920 that collapsed and reduced Camborne-Redruth to a depressed area for 20 years—a bitter object lesson of an area dependent upon a single industry.
Falmouth was an important port of call for the packet ships of the first half of the 19th century, but the industry suffered a severe reverse at about the same time as copper mining collapsed. Through the foresight of Falmouth's leaders at that time, a small dockyard was established, which has developed into the great ship repairing yards of Messrs. Silley Cox today.
Penryn has been a borough for seven centuries and a small coastwise port of
1146
some consequence. Cornish mining pumps built at Hayle more than a century ago were used in Holland until quite recently as part of that country's sea defences. All this story testifies to the virility and capacity of generations of Cornishmen and the enormous industrial and technical experience which they have acquired through the centuries.
In the 1930s, my constituency was devastated by unemployment, with an average of 24·3 per cent. over the ten years. In Falmouth it was 14·1 per cent.; in Camborne, 22·1 per cent.; in Hayle, 28·4 per cent.; in Redruth, 32·9 per cent. Until the world trade recession, following the Wall Street collapse of 1929, Cornwall's principal export for a century 'had been its young men to mining camps all over the world. Between the two world wars, work in Cornwall had been fiftful and intermittent and wages deplorably law. The increase in trade union strength in the last 20 years has at least ensured better wage standards, better hours of work and better working conditions.
I am sorry to inflict a set of statistics on the House, but I fear that it is necessary if I am to give a proper illustration of the position of my constituency in relation to the country, to Plymouth and to Cornwall as a whole. The figures are taken from Answers given to me by the Minister of Labour on 25th and 27th January, 1961. For 1958, the percentage unemployment figure for England and Wales was 1·9. It was 1·9 in 1959 and 1·4 in 1960. For the same years the corresponding figures are South-Western Region 2·2, 2·1 and 1·7; Plymouth, with Devonport and Saltash and Torpoint, 3·9, 3·9, 3v0; for Cornwall, excluding Saltash and Torpoint, 5·2, 4·8, 4·2; Falmouth, 6·9, 6·1, 6·5; the Camborne—Redruth area, 6·0, 5·8, 4·7. Those figures show conclusively how much my constituency is in need of new industries and B.O.T.A.C. aid.
There were 1,761 persons registered as unemployed in my constituency last November and 1,583 in December. Everyone knows that unemployment in the ship-repairing docks at Falmouth can fluctuate rapidly and violently. How many individuals have been unemployed at some time or other each year is impossible to say, but the figures would be very high.

1147
Then there is the question of short-time working. This has been considerable among engineering workers in Camborne-Redruth and my latest information is that 400 men were then affected. Obviously, both unemployment and short-time working depress wages and living standards. Many workers have been selected for redundancy, either because they are married women, or because they have become entitled to retirement pensions. No one knows how many there are, because they are not registered as unemployed. All of them are really victims of trade recessions, additional to the numbers registered as unemployed.
On 26th June, 1959, I.C.I. gave notice of the closure of its factories at Tucking-mill and Ponsanooth; then employing 364 people, of whom 200 were women. The process was to be gradual and not completed until the latter half of 1961, now but a few months ahead. Three or four years ago, probably 500 people were employed at those factories.
I will not comment now on the political implications of the decision of I.C.I., nor on the references to them by the President of the Board of Trade in his speeches on 12th July and 21st November, 1960. However, I will venture to quote my Parliamentary Question to him on 27th October, 1960, and his reply: I asked:
"What steps have been taken to persuade I.C.I. to divert its factory at Tuckingmill. Camborne, one of its many industries, to replace the safety fuse industry which is to be transferred to Scotland, in view of the hundreds of redundancies which will be involved under the present plans?".
The President of the Board of Trade replied:
"We are in close touch with the company, which is well aware of the situation. We have also tried to interest other suitable firms in the premises."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th October, 1960, Vol. 627, c. 294.]
I should like to know the results of the right hon. Gentleman's negotiations with I.C.I.
It seems to me cruel and heartless for a large industrial concern like I.C.I., with its wide ramifications, not to use its redundant factories in my constituency for some of its other manufactures. I trust that even now it will do so.
The firm has issued a book entitled "This Is Our Concern". In a foreword Sir Alexander Fleck said:
1148
"The … title is a happy one, because I.C.I. certainly is the concern of each one of us, whether we are stockholders or employees."
Employees thrown on to the scrap-heap in my constituency by I.C.I. may be forgiven some cynicism at these high-sounding phrases, however generous the redundancy grants may be. For these I am grateful to the firm, but we want busy, active factories, not derelict tombs.
The dominant industry in Falmouth is ship repairing, an industry noted for its casual employment. At times it reaches staggering proportions here. Ship repairing is subject to the vagaries of international trade and of national and international competition. Its needs were ably put to the Parliamentary Secretary's predecessor, and to the then Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour, by the Falmouth member of a delegation from the Cornish Group of Trades Councils when a conference took place here on 7th July, 1959. Doubtless the files at the Board of Trade contain records of that conference and are available to the Parliamentary Secretary for reference at any time. I hope that he will study them carefully. What was said then about Falmouth is apt still.
That Falmouth is a famous health and pleasure resort, with some of the finest yachting and sailing in Britain, is well known. I trust that the Parliamentary Secretary will see that the tourist and resorts industry is treated fairly in every aspect.
Falmouth Technical College needs immediate expansion. I referred to the College in an Adjournment debate on 30th November, and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will impress on his colleague at the Ministry of Education its importance from the point of view of the industries of Falmouth and the neighbourhood.
I have already referred to the fact that Penryn has been, and is, a small port for coastwise shipping. The corporation's accounts show that in six of the last twelve years the harbour dues have shown a profit, and in six a loss. The net loss has been £1,443. Because of falling revenue it is difficult for the borough to carry out the necessary dredging to keep the harbour open. The Parliamentary Secretary will be aware of the parlous state of coastwise shipping, and of its importance both

1149
in peace and war. I trust, therefore, that he will keep Penryn in mind when dealing with the problem nationally.
I understand that five new firms have come, or want to come, to Penryn, though none is large compared with some of those at Falmouth and at Camborne-Redruth. Some may have applied for B.O.T.A.C. aid. If they have, I plead with the Parliamentary Secretary to see that their applications are given the utmost consideration. All firms, of whatever reasonable size, are welcome here, particularly if they offer a diversification of industry. I will send the Parliamentary Secretary such information as I have in my possession about them. He can assure prospective industrialists that they will get a welcome from, and can depend on, the co-operation of the corporation and the people of Penryn.
I have already said that over the decade of the 1930s. the rate of unemployment in Camborne was 22·1 per cent. and in Redruth 32·9 per cent. Before the war ended Camborne-Redruth Urban District Council was foresighted enough to plan for new industries when peace came. I am proud of the work they did. An area near Cant Brea Station, devastated by mining operations, was bought and cleared, and on that site today stands the magnificent textile factory of Heathcoats. It has the most up-to-date machinery, exports widely, and employs hundreds of men and women. It meant a completely new type of industry for Cornwall.
Other new industries have come and are now well-established; some of them quite new to the district. The Ministry of Aviation factory at Nancekuke is another. All of them have proved the suitability of the workers, who have shown themselves to be intelligent, skilful and reliable. Despite all these efforts, however, the average rate of unemployment over the last three years is 5·5 per cent., compared with the national average of 1·7 per cent.
Camborne-Redruth Urban District Council is anxious to extend the area of its industrial estate. On 30th April last a public inquiry was held into the designation of land in the Carn Brea Station area. Up to last weekend, when I inquired, no decision had been given by the Minister of Housing and Local
1150
Government. Can the Parliamentary Secretary do something to get his right hon. Friend to give a decision soon? The land in question is vital to the planning authority, the council, and prospective new industrialists. Considerable expense in levelling and clearing some of the land would be involved. I believe that substantial Government grants are available for such work. I hope I have shown that the council is worthy of such help, and I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to support whole-heartedly any application for grants that the council may put forward.
On 26th January I asked the President of the Board of Trade whether a firm which would eventually employ 400 people in an entirely new industry had been refused B.O.T.A.C. aid. He asked me for details, and I sent them to him that evening. Briefly, a pottery firm, of excellent record and reputation, was prepared to establish a completely new pottery industry in Camborne-Redruth, using china clay as its basic material. The finished product would be exported to a considerable degree and be competitive in the European market. Surely this is an ideal industry for Britain, Cornwall, and my constituency in particular. I beg the President of the Board of Trade not to allow this great venture to be strangled at birth with Treasury red tape. Negotiations have gone on for a considerable time between the planning authority, the council and the firm, so that it is plain that this is not an ill-considered scheme.
A fortnight ago Tecalemit Ltd., the great engineering undertaking at Plymouth, announced its desire to build a subsidiary factory at Camborne-Redruth. The firm said:
"At this stage we are discussing with the Board of Trade a factory of 25,000 square feet in which we could hope to build up an eventual mixed labour force of 250, with provision for further extension if this became possible or desirable."
Again, I ask that the birth of this new industry be assisted and not hindered.
Other and smaller ventures are welcome. We want a diversified industry. As the nearest alternative engineering towns are up to 200 miles away a new engineering firm would be a godsend. Horticulture and agriculture are vital industries in my constituency. We have

1151
the important Ministry of Agriculture Horticulture Experimental Station at Camborne, established a few years ago. The National Farmers' Union would like an experimental farm established nearby. Will the Parliamentary Secretary look into this proposal and give it his support? I am sure that he will find the project acceptable.
An attraction to industrialists is the excellent Cornwall Technical College in Camborne-Redruth. The Cornwall Education Committee has been very generous in its provision for the College, and it is used extensively by all the important industries of the county.
The present system of mining taxation hampers the development of new mines, and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will try to induce his right hon. Friend to change his previous attitude to this taxation reform.
In conclusion, I would point out that one-third of the ex-students of our Technical College leave the county for jobs—a wastage of human material which ought to be averted.
11.50 p.m.
Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: I do not wish to delay the reply of the Parliamentary Secretary for more than a moment, especially as the Truro division which I represent does not suffer from unemployment to the same degree as does that of the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Hayman). We are indeed fortunate in having a much better record.
However, it is true that there are a number of places in Cornwall which are dependent upon one industry, and that when there is a recession in any of these industries the effect is felt throughout Cornwall. Cornishmen have for many years been used to travelling long distances to their jobs, and many of my constituents work in Camborne and Falmouth and in the docks in the Cam-borne area. After all, the motto of Cornwall is "One and all." I hope that the Minister will do his best to introduce new industries to Cornwall, because it is a matter which merits special attention.
11.51 p.m.
Mr. James Scott-Hopkins: I wish to mention only two brief points. First, while I understand the unemployment problem to which the
1152
hon. Member for Falmouth and Cam-borne (Mr. Hayman) has referred, I should like to tell my hon. Friend the Member for Truro (Mr. G. Wilson) that it is not confined only to the Camborne-Redruth district. It is to be found throughout the whole of Cornwall and particularly in the northern part of Cornwall. We suffer from exactly the same difficulties, including the problem of the drift from the land which causes great dissatisfaction in the area.
I should like my hon. Friend to consider giving fresh instructions to the committee which sits under his direction at the Board of Trade, when considering applications for B.O.T.A.C. aid for new industries coming into Cornwall. Will he consider giving instructions to the committee to give greater weight to the fact that Cornwall is unique, in that, while there are few people unemployed, the percentage is high, and the need for small industries is very great. I should like more emphasis to be given to that fact than is given when the committee considers other cases in the rest of the country.
11.52 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Niall Macpherson)I am glad that this has been an all-Cornwall occasion. It is true that what happens in one area very much affects neighbouring areas. I congratulate the hon. Member for Falmouth and Cam-borne (Mr. Hayman) on succeeding in getting such a great deal of matter into such a short time, and I thank him for the very interesting survey that he has made of Cornish industrial history.
I say straight away that, so far as the employment situation is concerned, perhaps he rather underestimated the progress that is being made at present, when one considers that in the January count in 1961, the Camborne-Redruth area showed a wholly unemployed proportion of 4·8 per cent. and Falmouth 4·2 per cent., and compares that with January, 1960. I agree with what he says about the great variation one gets, depending on what work is available in the shipyards. In January, 1960, the figures were, for Camborne and Redruth, 6·2 per cent., and for Falmouth, 13·2 per cent. But, even excluding January, 1960, the annual rate of unemployment from February, 1960, to

1153
January, 1961, was 5·7 per cent. in Falmouth as compared with 6·1 per cent. from January to December, 1959, leaving out the bad period, and for Camborne it was 4·1 per cent. compared with 5·8 per cent. I may say that these figures refer to wholly unemployed persons, whereas the figures given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour to the hon. Gentleman last Friday included the temporarily stopped, but there is only a small difference.
The hon. Gentleman referred to one or two difficulties. I hope that he will join in persuading I.C.I. to go back to his constituency. I had the same experience in my own constituency and I.C.I. has now gone back to it. The decline has not been so marked, and I am not in a position yet to say whether I.C.I. will close altogether at Falmouth and Camborne.
Mr. Hayman: I understood that it had been transferred to Scotland.
Mr. Macpherson: Scotland is a big place, and the factory was transferred out of my constituency to the same place. I know that some have already been paid off. I also know that if Tuckingmill closed down some buildings would be available for other industrial users—and have, indeed, already been offered to other industrial users.
One sigificant and cheering feature is the position of school leavers. Of the 81 boys and 72 girls who left school at Christmas, only five boys and six girls were still unemployed in January, 1961. Another cheering feature is jobs in prospect, which are related, of course, either to expansions of factories—successful applications for B.O.T.A.C. loans and that sort of thing—or to additional building. My information, therefore, does not cover the whole field of the extension of jobs that may arise, but there are 75 jobs in sight in Falmouth and 140 in prospect in Camborne.
There are possibilities of more jobs, some of which depend on the outcome of applications to B.O.T.A.C. for financial assistance. Nine such applications are at present under consideration, three of which relate to Penryn, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, and I can assure him that the applications will be given the utmost consideration. One company has
1154
accepted a Board of Trade offer to build it a factory, and another firm has made a similar application, together with an application for a loan, and both are under consideration. The hon. Gentleman referred to Tecalemit. Once again, I can assure him that the firm's application—which has been announced, although I am not certain that it has yet been made—will receive the closest consideration.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to a prospect that did not materialise—not all of them do. Sometimes an application is rejected by B.O.T.A.C. and, as he knows, it is not the practice for B.O.T.A.C. to reveal its reasons for rejection; but that was not the case in this instance. A counter-offer was made by the Board of Trade and it was the firm that rejected that counter-offer as not being up to what it wanted. These are matters of commercial judgment, and I am afraid that we cannot 20 past that—
Mr. Hayman: If the application were renewed, would it, in the light of tonight's debate, be given favourable consideration?
Mr. Macpherson: If it were renewed in exactly the terms that B.O.T.A.C. previously offered, I am quite certain that it would receive consideration. As a general observation, I would say that applicants ought not to expect the Government to put up an undue proportion of the capital needed. They should themselves be able and willing to invest a reasonable proportion as risk capital, whether the money is their own or that of their backers.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the Camborne industrial site. I am authorised by the Minister of Housing and Local Government to say that last week he made it known that he intended to amend the county development plan by allocating about 65 acres for industrial development, and designating it as subject to compulsory acquisition by the Camborne-Redruth Urban District Council. That is not as much as that authority asked for, but it goes a long way towards it. An additional source of temporary employment will be the Kerrier Rural District Council's dam and pumping station in the parishes of Stithians and Wendron.

1155
In the few minutes left to me, I would say that unemployment in the hon. Member's constituency has decreased, and that despite some closures, which are always bound to take place, and some reductions in employment—which, again, are unavoidable—prospects are by no means unfavourable.
One has always to bear in mind that there are firms which are increasing their employment all the time, just as other firms are reducing employment. We know of some firms, one of which was established only this year, which are aiming to increase employment by quite a great deal. I expect that the hon. Member knows the firm to which I refer. As to Government assistance, as my right hon. Friend told my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) last Thursday, since 1958 three firms new to Cornwall have received financial assistance and nine firms already in Cornwall have been offered financial help in expanding their activities through B.O.T.A.C. In addition, we are building a factory for another firm.
I ask hon. Members to realise that loans which are made to firms, or grants
1156
towards the building of factories, seldom get publicity. They are very much more likely to hear of loans not made or applications which are refused, but I assure the hon. Member and my hon. Friends that the Board of Trade will continue to do its best to steer industry to the development districts. The very fact that the constituency of the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne has been recognised as a development district is itself a recognition of the high unemployment and the unfavourable comparison he made with neighbouring districts. It is, of course, to the development districts that the Board of Trade seeks to steer such industry as is available, but it is for industry itself to choose between development districts and between various places in development districts—all of which clamour among themselves for industry—and for each local authority to do its best to persuade industrialists who come its way to choose it.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at two minutes past Twelve o'clock.

ROADS
  Inner Relief Road, Newbury
  Inner Relief Road, Newbury
  Motorways
  Motorways
  Inner Circuit Road, Bristol
  Inner Circuit Road, Bristol
  Road Junction, Dagenham
  Road Junction, Dagenham
  Epping New Road, Buckhurst Hill (Lay-bys)
  Epping New Road, Buckhurst Hill (Lay-bys)
  Eastern Avenue Extension (Leyton)
  Eastern Avenue Extension (Leyton)
  M.5 (Rubery)
  M.5 (Rubery)
  Road Junction, Victoria
  Road Junction, Victoria
TRANSPORT
  British Transport Commission (Advertising)
  British Transport Commission (Advertising)
  Drunkenness (Blood Tests)
  Drunkenness (Blood Tests)
  Night Driving (Accidents)
  Night Driving (Accidents)
  Vehicles (Noise)
  Vehicles (Noise)
  London Busmen (Petition)
  London Busmen (Petition)
  Bicycle Tests
  Bicycle Tests
  Headlights (Anti-dazzle Rims)
  Headlights (Anti-dazzle Rims)
  British Transport Commission (Research Laboratories)
  British Transport Commission (Research Laboratories)
  Driving Licences
  Driving Licences
RAILWAYS
  Uneconomic Services
  Uneconomic Services
  British Railways Board
  British Railways Board
  Airdrie-Bathgate Line
  Airdrie-Bathgate Line
SHIPPING
  Oil Pollution
  Oil Pollution
  Small Boat Owners (Seamanship Tests)
  Small Boat Owners (Seamanship Tests)
  Flag Discrimination
  Flag Discrimination
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Select Committee on Estimates Report)
  Select Committee on Estimates Report)
  Expenditure
  Expenditure
  Bases, Kenya
  Bases, Kenya
  White Paper
  White Paper
  Allied Forces (Unified Control)
  Allied Forces (Unified Control)
  West German Troops (Training Areas)
  West German Troops (Training Areas)
TELEPHONE SERVICE
  Shared Lines
  Shared Lines
  Lichfield
  Lichfield
  Waiting List
  Waiting List
  Delays
  Delays
  Local Calls (Timing System)
  Local Calls (Timing System)
POST OFFICE
  Mail Bags
  Mail Bags
  Radio Services Tower, London
  Radio Services Tower, London
  Deliveries, Whitefield
  Deliveries, Whitefield
WIRELESS AND TELEVISION
  Reception, Stewartry of Kirkcudbright
  Reception, Stewartry of Kirkcudbright
EMPLOYMENT
  Industrial Training Council
  Industrial Training Council
ROYAL NAVY
  Monitoring Team, Holy Loch
  Monitoring Team, Holy Loch
  H.M.S. "Victorious" (Visit to South Africa)
  H.M.S. "Victorious" (Visit to South Africa)
BRITISH ARMY
  National Service Men
  National Service Men
  B.A.O.R. (Weapons and Equipment)
  B.A.O.R. (Weapons and Equipment)
ROYAL AIR FORCE
  Electric Motors, Reading (Sale)
  Electric Motors, Reading (Sale)
  Aerological Commission (Rome Meeting)
  Aerological Commission (Rome Meeting)
  Meteorological Records and Observations
  Meteorological Records and Observations
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Schedule A
  Schedule A
  Surtax
  Surtax
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  World Seed Campaign
  World Seed Campaign
HONG KONG
  Bribery and Corruption (Committee)
  Bribery and Corruption (Committee)
  Seamen (Recruitment)
  Seamen (Recruitment)
COLONIAL TERRITORIES
  Civil Service Pensioners
  Civil Service Pensioners
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Corporal Punishment (Report)
  Corporal Punishment (Report)
  Approved Schools
  Approved Schools
EDUCATION
  "Schools and the Commonwealth" (Publication)
  "Schools and the Commonwealth" (Publication)
HOSPITALS
  Maternity Units, Leicestershire
  Maternity Units, Leicestershire
SCOTLAND
  "Schools and the Commonwealth" (Publication)
  "Schools and the Commonwealth" (Publication)
  Hospital Building Programme
  Hospital Building Programme

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD MERTHYR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of St. Edmundsbury and Ipswich
The Marquess of Reading—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I beg to inform your Lordships that at some time after half past three o'clock a statement will be made on the National Health Service.

THE POST OFFICE TELEPHONE SERVICE
LORD CROOK LORD CROOK rose to call attention to the White Paper (Cmnd. 973) on Post Office Capital Expenditure, 1960–61, with particular reference to the telephone service; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, every year when I go to New York on the United Nations assignment I know that I shall have one experience that repeats itself: I shall be reminded of the efficiency of the British Postal service. One recent Monday evening when I was in New York I talked on the telephone to a friend, and he promised that he would post that evening to me at my hotel in Manhattan, three miles away, documents which I wanted on Wednesday morning. I was not a bit surprised when I did not get them on Wednesday morning, though he posted them on Monday; nor would any American have been surprised, because they know how bad their Post Office service is. One knows why they have sent so many people over here to find out why we do things so much better. Incidentally, I did receive at the breakfast table that Wednesday morning a letter posted by one of your Lordships here in Westminster at 7.15 on Monday night. And that is a common experience, except when the weather is very bad.
But Americans, who know that their postal service is bad, never hesitate to rub into Englishmen, when they have been across here, how much our telephone service lags behind theirs. They believe that, however bad their postal service may be, theirs is the best telephone service in the world. They compare their telephone service with ours, to the detriment, they think, of a nationalised service as against private enterprise. But the truth, known to any Britisher, is that that has nothing to do with it at all. It is for that reason that I have put this Motion on the Order Paper to-day. The average Englishman who knows anything of our telephone service knows very well that it is making great profits; profits which in fact pay for the losses incurred in other spheres of the Post Office service, profits which could be greater and greater every year if it were not for the deadly hand of Treasury control, which over the years has limited the ability to expand.
I put this Motion on the Order Paper many months ago. I refer to that period of time deliberately, to make clear to your Lordships that the Motion was on the Order Paper prior to any Memorandum about the organisation of the Post Office services, so far as their general financing is concerned, and to any legislation which has resulted. I do not desire to get the lines crossed. I do not propose, merely because time has passed, to seek to introduce into the more limited field on which this debate was originally intended should take place anything that would take the place of the debate which ought properly to be held when the Bill comes from another place for consideration by your Lordships' House. But the existence of the Bill and its implications perhaps make it the more important that some of the things I wanted to say should be said before the Bill reaches your Lordships' House.
It will be useless for the Post Office to be given a new status in this country if the big profit-making telephone service is to continue to be one of those things affected by the constantly changing minds of successive Chancellors of the Exchequer. Because we have in the British telephone service a magnificent staff capable of doing not only the many fine things they have done but also very

183
much more in the interests of this country, always provided they are given the opportunity. Moreover, in some of the great productive organisations we have firms who are capable of producing everything that is wanted for the British telephone service, and of exporting many instruments to other countries, to the great benefit of our balance of payments, provided that they receive from the Government of this country enough encouragement to stable production.
I am satisfied that in men, materials and methods this country has nothing to fear from competition anywhere in the world. The only trouble that the British telephone service has is in the top control flowing from the Treasury. I cannot understand why some Americans try to compare a system of control which comes from private enterprise and one which comes from the heavy hand of the Treasury. Had this great profit-making, valuable and efficient telephone service been in the possession of private capital, private capital would have seen itself making £22 million profit a year. Let us ask ourselves what they would have done with it. They would have gone out for more and more business: they would have invested more and more money; and if they felt at any time that they should have more money immediately available in order to expand, they would have gone out and obtained on the open market, on the evidence of their efficiency, existing profits and their great and obvious potentialities, all the capital they wanted.
What is more, they would have used their public relations staff to go out and explain to the public the benefits of the telephone service, to encourage those who had telephones to use them more and those who had no telephones to come in and have this new service available to them. But, of course, the only use which the Post Office telephone service has been able to find for their effective public relations staff is to send them out to members of the public to explain why they cannot have a telephone, why they must put up with joint telephone use, why this efficiency does not exist and how that inefficiency can be explained by something beyond their control. They have to go and express regret to people like
184
that, at any given period of time in the future, the dials they have promised will in fact appear on my telephone, after all these years. They are always apologising, not for their inability to do something, but for the inability imposed upon them by the nature of the control to which the Post Office has had to become accustomed over recent years.
You may say that that is merely making general statements, and what in fact am I able to say has really happened? Let me take the provision of new telephones. Let us look at the year 1947, a year only 18 months removed from the end of hostilities. In 1947 it was necessary to get back into civilian employment people capable of doing important jobs that were needed in bringing the telephone service up to date; it was a period of time in which industry, which had tooled itself and planned all its production in respect of war, had to turn round and change its tooling and often to change the place in which it was producing, because strategically they had to move trained people coming out of the Forces to try to get back into the way of doing their civilian job. In 1947 my noble friends who sit in front of me on these Benches were able to secure that no fewer than 381,821 new telephones were installed in this country. By 1953 the annual figure was down to 210,745, and by 1958 it had reached the new all-time low of 135,272. These figures are not mine, but are taken from Post Office publications. So they were down in 1958 to one-third of the figure for 1947.
Meanwhile, what have the Post Office done to explain this state of affairs. I invite your Lordships again to look at the documents that they have issued up to quite recent months. What they have done is to try to issue statements which do not disclose the facts. I could hardly believe my eyes when I opened the Annual Report of the Postmaster General in November last, when it was in the Printed Paper Office. I quote from Cmnd. 1206, paragraph 31, where, referring to the figure of telephones put in during the preceding months, it says:
"This is more than 50 per cent, higher than in the preceding year."
It was, my Lords, because, 324,000 in the year of course, is 50 per cent, more than 206,000. But perhaps the Postmaster General was being rather mild

185
and modest in his phrasing, for he could have written it another way and claimed that the figure was more than twice that of 1958. He would still have been right, because the 1958 figure was only 135,000. Or he could have phrased it yet another way: he could have expressed the regret of the Government that the figure of 324,000 last year was still so much less than the immediate post-war 1947 figure of 381,821. There is no need for a speaker to comment on a set of figures like that; the deplorable facts speak for themselves. If you like to take them and turn them into averages, you can say that in the past three years the average number of new telephones has been running at 220,961. Yet in the first three difficult years immediately following the end of hostilities the figure could be so high as 327,402.
I do not want to confine myself to a reliance upon one set of facts or statistics. I have referred to new telephones given to members of the public. Let us look at them the other way round, at the number of exchange connections—and again these are official figures of the Postmaster General. In 1947 it was found possible to provide 304,552. Never in the years that have passed since has it been possible to equal that figure. In 1958 it was as low as 25,884—that is a drop from 304,000 to 25,000. Again, if you go on averages for three years the same deplorable position is shown. Why do I suggest a three-year period? Because the Postmaster General, speaking in the other place, said that a three-year average is the essential one on which to base consideration, and the White Paper of 1955 says that a three-year averaging is indispensable for the economic development of the telephone service. In the last three years the telephone service has, on the average, put in 103,417 new exchange connections, which is very much below the 304,000 achieved in the first twelve months completed after the war.
The truth is that the economic development referred to in the White Paper, planned over the three-year period, has been made impossible by the actions of the Treasury. There must have been, one would think, some heartburning and troubles and discussions
186
between Postmasters General and other members of the Cabinet, because the Postmaster General has never hesitated to let the other place know that he never knows himself what he is getting for the current year (much less three years ahead) until that year is either on top of him or some months of it have passed. The final allocation of capital investment for 1960–61 was not settled until October, 1960, one month before the Postmaster General was due to present his Annual Report to Parliament. That is no way to run any service, and certainly not a great telephone service that should be expanded.
I want to say that my criticism is mild compared with anything that can be culled from authoritative statements from people whose views count. I will quote one, in particular:
" I am quite certain…that one cannot run a business like the Post Office, or any big business, on a year to year basis. It is physically impossible to do so. There must be a set programme, and one cannot turn that programme on and off as though it were a tap. The business will not be efficient if one does."
That statement was made by the present Minister of Transport, Mr. Marples, when he was the Postmaster General of this country on May 15, 1959, when he complained to the House that, even at that date, he did not firmly know the amount either for his current year or for the next. A steady figure, and if possible an increasing figure each year, is highly essential in the interests of the telephone service.
I would say that there are visible to me at least six main grounds for that. There is, first of all, the necessity of giving a guarantee to the electrical telephonic and electronic production firms as to the production that they can plan in the three years ahead. That, in turn, leads to the second point; that is to say, the knowledge of what employment or unemployment there will be in the country in that industry. It also enables them to know what their staple home market is, which gives them the opportunity of planning their production for the important export market in the knowledge of how much of their overheads they can rely upon from the home programme. I would call the fourth a steady research programme. The fifth is a planned

187
staffing policy for the Post Office, and I would call the sixth steady and increasing progress with mechanisation (the first stage of which, at least, is dialling).
I should like to dwell for a minute or two on those points and ask your Lordships' kindly attention to them. As to the first three points, the firms within the Telecommunications Engineering and Manufacturing Association must be able to have this steady planned production. At its best the home market is a small basis for the exporter. The firms manage to send 40 per cent. of their production abroad, and exports are now running at £25 million per annum. The telecommunications industry, in other words, has an excellent contribution to make to the balance of payments and to the employment position in this country.
The research programme is closely related to that and to the growth of electronics in the world of the telephone. Electronics are beginning to be the threat or promise of most industries. They are the coming thing in telephones. Unless we speed up, we are going to lose this great market for Britain. The Dollis Hill Experimental Establishment of the Post Office—which I know some of your Lordships and some Members of another place have visited and admired from time to time, with its excellent staff doing a fine job of work—have been working on this problem. But have they been allowed to get ahead fast enough, and have they been given enough opportunity and money to get on with the research? I understand they are disappointed that the new electronic exchange at Highgate Wood, as to which work has been in hand, I believe, since as long ago as 1956, is still in a working model stage at Dollis Hill.
I was shocked to see in what I am told is the leading journal, British Communications and Electronics, an article describing the exchange as it now is as merely a "hotch-potch of ideas" with something being done by each of the big five manufacturers making equipment for the Post Office, and by the Post Office itself. This article, which was written long before Christmas', said that
"it was likely to be uneconomical in its present form, and is unlikely even to become a standard system."
I refer to the fact that the article was written long before Christmas, because I imagine that those who wrote it, and the engineers at Dollis Hill, must have been as surprised as I believe the rest of the world was when, early this year, the Bell Telephone Company announced, not that they had completed electronic telephones as an experiment but that they had put into exchange customer service, at Morris, Illinois, the first electronic exchange in the world. They claim that they will be able to offer the world a production model by the middle of 1964; and unless we can do the same, our hopes of getting into the expanding telephone market and the creation of new telephones in the world will be absolutely nil, because the electronic telephone has advantages completely beyond anything of those we know at the moment. New services can be added; frequently used numbers can be obtained by dialling two digits only on this new installation; incoming calls can be automatically transferred to other people's numbers elsewhere; talks between three parties become ordinary, and the machines will even automatically correct their own faults.
This situation would not matter a bit if we had not in this country people capable of doing these things: but in the engineers in the postal telephone service at Dollis Hill, and throughout the country, and in the production experts of the five great firms in T.E.M.A., we have people who can compete, and in my view do better than anyone else in the world, on these matters. That is one of the reasons why I want to press that we must get on with some of the improvements that other people have and we have not. In large American and Canadian installations, for instance, in firms or hotels, it is not necessary to wait for the internal switchboard operator to get you a number. You can dial an additional figure and obtain outside calls, with automatic notation. I wonder how many offices have that system in this country.
More important still, perhaps, is the new development, just introduced (I believe at the moment in only one organisation in New York), by which a distant caller can dial right through to a person or department on the extension inside any big organisation. To any of your Lordships who has been interested

189
in the new system of charging by time, which is to become general in this country, with the difficulty that it must cause to great business organisations, the importance of the ability to dial the number of a firm and, by following that number with one letter and one figure, to obtain the exact extension that we want, cutting out that time lag for which one would otherwise be charged, must be seen to be very important. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us that the research which is going on covers this field, so that when we get on to timed-unit basis of charging we may at least have this method to help us appreciate the new system.
My fifth point concerns the need for planned staffing. I do not want to occupy your Lordships' time going over every one of these matters in detail. I hope that other noble Lords who follow may have something to say about the difficulty the Post Office must have in planned staffing, because it does not know for three years ahead what its own commitments are. The only thing I would say, in passing, is to pay a tribute to the Post Office for its excellent relationships with its telephone engineering service, the way it carries out its obligations to industrial relations, and the way it has operated the Whitley system efficiently inside Her Majesty's Civil Service.
My sixth point is the need for a speedup in the installation of items like dial telephones. Here the admission in the Annual Report of the Postmaster General, published in November last, is quite astonishing in its candour. I cannot resist reading to your Lordships from it. Referring to mechanisation he says:
" Although it has proceeded steadily since the end of the First World War "—
the First World War, mark you!—it
" has barely kept pace with the growth of the telephone system. Indeed the number of telephonists now in post is almost as great as it has ever been."
That is a marvellous admission for a Postmaster General in charge of a telephone service, who has been busy telling gatherings of businessmen and another place that it is fast becoming the best.
Here, I suppose, I ought to declare my own interest, because I have had a telephone on the Wallington Exchange in Surrey for no less than 33 years. It has been getting progressively worse over
190
the years. It became so grossly overloaded that everybody in the district went to the very charming young Member of Parliament who, until recently, held a post in the present Government, and made representations which were successful—so successful that they came down to Wallington and pushed the exchange over a bit and put in another new manual exchange called "Franklyn". They told us that was "our lot", and that they would see whether, in five or six years time, we might be mechanised. Wallington is exactly 12½ miles from this House; I have lived there all that time, and if that is the best service I can get what are they getting in the Highlands of Scotland?
The truth is, of course, that we are behind nearly every country in the world in this matter and on telephone development. We have 14·5 telephones per 100 of the population in this country, compared to 38 in the U.S.A. and 34 in Sweden. We have never ranked better than ninth in this international table, and we have been kept from being tenth only because the Argentine was there. In this country, as The Times pointed out in one of its principal articles recently, the percentage growth is "lower than in fifteen of the world's most highly industrial countries". The world average to expansion is at the rate of 8 per cent. The Times pointed out that our growth, taken at its best, on a two-year average was never more than 2·3 per cent., whereas it exceeded 10 per cent. even in Italy, Spain, Japan and Germany.
All those other countries lead, too in Subscriber Trunk Dialling. We did not inaugurate it in this country until we had it at Bristol, in December, 1958. And what an instant success it was! I believe the calls that took place, calls that could be dialled on "Trunks", rose by no less than 45 per cent. in the first nine months. I should be glad to know from the Minister, if possible, when he replies whether that is true and whether that kind of improvement has been kept up in respect of the others opened. I do not know how many other S.T.D. exchanges have been opened. We were promised by the Minister that 45 would be opened by last December and that another 45 were in hand ready to be opened this year. I have seen a limited list of about eleven towns that

191
have gone on to Subscriber Trunk Dialling, but I have not seen any more.
So far as the White Paper which I am bringing to your Lordships' attention is concerned, it appears to suggest that Subscriber Trunk Dialling will be held by 25 per cent. of subscribers by March, 1962, and probably 50 per cent. by March, 1964. The Minister may be able to tell us that. I have no doubt, of course, that ours will be the best system in the world, I have that trust and faith in all that I have seen and known in the telephone service. But I want to know when the whole of this country's phones will be on dial and when they will be on Subscriber Trunk Dialling.
So far as I know from what the Minister has said, I should theoretically be capable of dialling any one of my friends anywhere in Europe by the end of this year. The only thing wrong is that I shall not have a dial. The White Paper, Cmnd. 463, says that the progress on Subscriber Trunk Dialling
" will depend on the amount of capital investment that can be released."
It is on that question of the amount of release that I hope some other noble Lords will have something to say. I would only comment that the telephone service has suffered more than any other organisation from restriction. That that is so is clear, not from any wild statement of any one person or myself, but from the 1960 Economic Survey, which any of your Lordships can see in the Library.
May I begin to sum up what I have been trying to say? We must get out of the complex of thinking that the telephone service is a spender and understand that it is an earner. It earns money in industry internally in the country, and earns money in respect of exports. It provides stability of employment for people, and expands employment in the way the present Government have told us they intend. But the huge service which the telephone service already gives could be expanded, and if the public were enabled to use the telephone more that could bring about a better life for them and a life that would give more opportunities of employment. The telephone service in this country has not been given its chance. And in my submission to your Lordships, it must
192
be given its chance. The million people who are now on shared lines must be given an opportunity of going on to individual lines if they wish. Steps must be taken to see that there is an increase in the number of calls per instrument. In that connection, too, we are the lowest country. Sales push can only follow, however, on a clearer position on the release of capital investment.
We are capable of creating the greatest telephone service in the world, both on the manufacturing side and in the Post Office engineering field. With others of your Lordships, I have seen and experienced something of the great jobs of work that have been done. Some of us saw the Atlantic cables, the first telephonic cable to be laid in the Atlantic, made here by a great engineering firm, Dollis Hill Engineers, put across the Atlantic and staggering the whole of the telephonic world over there. I have talked over it, and I only wish that the calls I receive locally were as clear as I can get over that cable.
I have talked in Canada to my friends in Parliament in Ottawa about the forthcoming great link across the world, the imaginative link on which the Commonwealth Conference decided. I understand from my friends in Montreal—and the Minister knows better than I, and can tell us—that in the past week British firms have been successful in getting an £18 million contract for the Pacific cable to run from Canada to Australia and New Zealand. I think we should congratulate everybody concerned. I should like to know what is the date for completion. Is it 1963? I understand that the transatlantic aeronautic control cable is under way and the first link of 24 channels to Iceland is likely to be completed this year. The Minister may be able to tell us something about that. I gave the Minister, knowing his preoccupation with things like the size of bottles of milk and bottles of beer, some long notice to enable him to inform the House on this and other points.
Perhaps he could say something of the experiments on using motor car radiotelephone exchanges for communication with trains, which was of some small academic interest originally to people like myself. I think it gets a new interest this week from the statement once again

193
that America is going to beat us on aircraft. I understand that the first aircraft carrying telephonic communication with the ground will be available to people in America in July this year. If it is true that we are going to be beaten in that field, it may be a very serious reflection on B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. and others. The same is true of ships, although I believe that the Post Office is going to some trouble to improve the position. Then there is the new V.H.F. radio-telephone apparatus at Land's End, and I understand that it was to be installed at North Foreland and Anglesey radio stations. I do not know whether the Minister can tell us anything about that.
I may have drawn too many facts to your Lordships' attention in too short a period of time. I know that your Lordships do not like anyone's voice to continue unduly, and I share that general view when I am sitting down instead of standing. I have said some of these things because over a long period of time many of my friends connected with the telephonic communications industry, and my friends in the Post Office engineering service, have felt that it was time something was done to make it clear that this is not just a question of people occasionally grumbling that they could not get a right number, or that they were waiting for a telephone, but that there was a very real story to be told. I conclude therefore, in moving this Motion, by saying to your Lordships that if everything I have said appears to be critical, you will see, I hope, that it has been criticism, not of fine people doing a good job of work but only of the pace at which they have been allowed to progress. Because I am conscious that we have the people to do the job; we have the means to hand, and if only we will produce the money and the policy for progress, that progress we can have. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.10 p.m.
THE EARL OF GAINSBOROUGH: My Lords, the House will be indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Crook, for giving us this opportunity of discussing the telephone service, which I suppose most of us, despite the noble Lord's depressing statistics, use almost daily. Sometimes we feel somewhat frustrated when we get the wrong number twice running, as hap-
194
pened to me recently, and are told afterwards in an accusing voice that we have twice wrongly asked for the number that we have given. But, by and large, the operators are always courteous and polite. With very few exceptions that has been my experience. The noble Lord has told us some most depressing facts, and I hope that the noble Lord who is to reply will be able to reassure us that some of his gloomy forecasts are, perhaps, over-pessimistic.
I intervene in this debate purely as a subscriber and user of the telephone, and not as one who knows much about the technical side of it. I do know, however, that great achievements have been made in the technical development of telephone equipment. I have seen some of the new exchanges. I am sure they are extremely intricate. They illustrate that, as has been pointed out by the noble Lord, the equipment can be made in this country. I think, however, that the private trunk dialling and all these other dialling systems can be over-complicated, and I hope that there will always be available an operator to assist elderly people and those who have not very good eyesight and who may make mistakes when they have to dial about eight or nine different numbers, as I understand it may be necessary to do when the S.T.D. is generally in operation. I hope that these operators will be of a high calibre, because they will usually have to function only when some difficulty has been experienced by the user of the telephone.
Those of us who live further into the country than the noble Lord—he is really, if I may say so, almost a suburbanite, although he still has no dial—often find that it takes a long time to get the operator; we dial "O" or "100", as the case may be, and sometimes have to wait four or five minutes before the operator answers. 'This is most frustrating, especially if there is an emergency or any other difficulty of that kind. I know that this is not the fault of anybody in particular; it is just that the exchanges are overloaded. I suppose this is because people are being connected to exchanges which have not the positions for the requisite number of operators; thus more people are trying to get the operator than there are operators to handle the incoming calls.

195
The only other question I should like to mention is that of rural telephone call boxes, which have increased in numbers in recent years, but unfortunately only rather slowly. In fact, in the last twelve months or so there has, I would suggest, been a step backwards in this field, in that the Post Office have abandoned the scheme they had in conjunction with the local authority associations for the allocation of telephone boxes in sparsely populated rural areas, and it is now most difficult to get a telephone box installed in some of the smaller villages. I understand that part of the reason for this is that these boxes are uneconomic—they do not pay. That may be so. But the people who live in these remote areas need to use the telephone sometimes just as urgently as those of us who live in less remote areas and who are fortunate enough to have a telephone. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will be able to help in the installation of telephone boxes in areas where their use is likely to be uneconomic for the simple reason that the number of people using them will possibly not be great at any one period.
I have wondered whether there is not some possibility of putting in call boxes of a less expensive type than we seem to have in this country and which seem quite often to get broken, being damaged by people who, I suppose, may have had a little too much conviviality during the evening or, on occasion, through hooliganism. I wonder if the noble Lord could say whether there is any possibility of introducing boxes of the type now being installed by the motoring organisations, smaller boxes with a less intricate mechanism, so that they may be installed more cheaply on the sides of buildings and such places and used by the public where larger and more expensive installations are not needed. My Lords, I think I have covered the points I wanted to make. I am grateful for the opportunity of bringing to your Lordships' notice the subscribers' complaints.
3.18 p.m.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I do not want to detain your Lordships long, but I think that anybody who has ever been involved in the Post Office never quite feels that he has completely
196
left it. I know that the noble Earls, Lord Listowel and Lord Attlee, will agree with me there. Certainly I was pleased to hear the noble Lord, Lord Crook, at least have a good word for our postal system. It is a system of which we ought to be extremely proud, and the more we hear about it the prouder we must be of the men who work throughout the country, day by day, every day of the year, no matter what the weather. We take far too little notice of them, and pay to them far too little of the thanks that is their due.
I only wish that, instead of giving half a minute to something of which this country should be proud, the noble Lord had not spent the other thirty-five minutes of his speech in digging into every possible deficiency in our telephone system. It is extremely easy to criticise. But to my mind the story of the telephone service over the last ten years or so is one of steady, sound development. I stress the word "steady" because, as the noble Lord, Lord Crook, said, it is no use trying with a great organisation like this to go ahead in leaps and bounds and then to stop. There must be a steady planning of the labour system and of the factories.
The noble Lord complained that our system is not so good as is the system in America. I think all of us must agree that there is a great deal of truth in that. But let us consider the circumstances. Most of us who have been to America on the whole tend to telephone from one large city to another. We do not often test the system by telephoning from a small village community where it does not pay to have a telephone system, but where the system is run as a social service, to another community of the same character. When the comparison is made on that basis I do not think the American system will be found to be startlingly better than ours.
Then again, there is no doubt that if our exchanges were staffed more generously than they are, the service would be better. There would be less of this waiting while one dials "O"—I believe now it is "100". I wonder whether in making these comparisons we compare other factors. There is a great difference in the cost of our service as compared with that in America. I have not the figures in my head, although I kept

197
in close touch some years ago when I was connected with the Post Office; but there is a fantastic difference between the rental charges paid in this country and what is paid in America. In fact, in this country the highest charge that can be made for a telephone call from Penzance to John o'Groats or the Shetlands is 3s. 9d., whereas across the Atlantic the cost can go up to 25s., 30s., and even more, per three minutes.
We have also to face the fact that we in this country are not as telephone-minded as are the Americans. It may be said that we should send salesmen round to encourage people to use the telephone, and a great deal of that is being done now. But there may be a dear old lady who wants, and rightly wants, a telephone in her house, either to make one or two calls a week for shopping or possibly for emergency use, to get hold of a doctor. She just does not make great use of the telephone. We have a great number of such subscribers, and that is a very important factor in the economics of our telephone system, because no telephone installation will itself pay for the capital charges it represents. That happens only when a telephone is widely used.
The noble Lord complained of the rate at which telephones have lately been installed. He took interesting dates, starting from 1947 and coming up to date; and he complained of the fact that during the first two or three years—say between 1947 and 1950—installations where made much more quickly than from 1950 onwards. But there is a very easy and obvious explanation for that. Putting a telephone into a house is not only a question of putting the instrument there and connecting it up to something already existing. There is the question of the exchange equipment and the underground cable from the subscriber to the exchange. After the war, when hundreds of thousands of military and defence lines were being abandoned, there was an immense reserve of both exchange equipment and cable for use, and connecting up was perfectly easy.
The time came, however, when all that was used up. It was a decision with which I myself was very often faced. I was told I could get an extra 100,000 or 200,000 lines connected if I would refrain from attending to the basic equip-
198
ment of the telephone system—the laying of new cables, possibly taking a year or two, or building new exchanges, possibly taking three or four years. Any responsible Postmaster General had to take the decision that he must keep the basic equipment going, because once an exchange is full up it is a matter of years before it can properly be replaced. I wanted to mention these points only because I think the noble Lord has been a little unfair to the system that is worked with immense devotion by a magnificent body of men—magnificent from top to bottom.
I am particularly pleased to read in this White Paper that we have before us of the progress of mechanisation, doing away with manual exchanges. One would wish that those could all go rather more quickly than within ten years, although I myself must confess I rather regretted having the manual exchange removed in our village. It was so convenient that it did not matter if one did not know the numbers of one's neighbours; and if you rang when a friend was out to dinner the exchange would tell you where he was dining. One has really personal service. But we all realise that those exchanges must go. I do not, however, think they are entitled to first priority, because it is in the towns that we are suffering from shortage of staff, and manual exchanges are, on the whole, in rural areas where there is not so much of a staff problem.
Trunk dialling is coming in at a rapid pace now. We were right to say at the beginning that we should go for operator trunk dialling, which meant that the subscriber asked his operator for his number, and the operator dialled straight into the house at the other end, but clearly the next stage is for the subscriber to do the dialling. I was glad that the noble Lord mentioned the question of electronic exchanges—a matter which was of great interest to me at one time. Quite a bit of research work was started a few years ago, and I rather gather it has now reached the point where there is an electronic exchange working, I think at Skyport, London Airport, in addition to the Highgate Wood exchange. I gather that the Highgate Wood experimental exchange was made of a size suitable for from 500 to 600 subscribers, which is almost precisely the size of the

199
electronic exchange that the Americans are themselves operating in the United States. So if I am right in what I am saying, the noble Lord will be glad to hear that we are not behind them in our development of the electronic exchanges.
Finally, perhaps I could ask the noble Lord who is to reply for Her Majesty's Government whether he could tell us a little more of the story of what Transatlantic developments are taking place. I know we have the one cable going, and I believe another is in process of being laid, but I think there are quite a number of new developments there, and I am sure it would interest us all if the noble Lord could tell us about them. But, in the main, if I may, I would very humbly give a word of congratulation to Her Majesty's Government for the steady progress that they are making. I do not in the least deny some of the deficiencies of which the noble Lord, Lord Crook, spoke, but I believe the Post Office have gone far further to correct those deficiencies and to make progress on the development of the telephone service than perhaps the noble Lord thinks.
3.28 p.m.
EARL ATTLEE: My Lords, I believe we are indebted to my noble friend Lord Crook for the full statement he has made. I was, at first, a little hesitant at taking part in this debate because I was Postmaster General 30 years ago and I felt I might be rather out of date. However, I took up the Hansard Report of the debate of last Wednesday in another place and I found that every single point that came up I could parallel in my own experience. Nothing seemed in the least changed. The complaints and everything else were just the same, and so I felt emboldened to make a few remarks.
I recall very well the time when I was at the Post Office. It was a time of very serious unemployment, and one of the problems was to develop the telephone service. I was given that job and I got an outside business expert to look into the whole subject. He made an extremely valuable report which came to my desk the day I left office. That report was faithfully implemented by the late Sir Kingsley Wood, but the com-
200
plaints which we had then were just the same as we have had today. The Treasury always regarded the Post Office as a milch cow and milked it with very great regularity; and they did not feed the cow very much. The cow could have produced much more had it been properly fed.
There, we had always the old controversy about whether the Post Office was a business or a service. It is part of both. But some people said it was a business and we ought to have treated it as a business. I remember very well a friend of mine, then Sir Archibald Sinclair, who complained to me that we did not run it as a business. I said. "My dear Archie, if we ran telephones as a business I would cut off all the telephones north of the Highlands line because none of them pays". That brought him up with rather a start. The fact is, of course, that the service in all the remoter areas of the country is really paid for by great conurbations: the London area, the Midlands area, Manchester and so forth. From that point of view we cannot treat it just as a business. On the other hand, the Treasury always have a curious attitude—one probably inherited from Mr. Gladstone—that all expenditure is ipso facto bad, and while a private company can rejoice in having a capital of £10 million, which means that it owes £10 million to individuals, in the case of the Post Office it is not capital; it is a debt, a deadly burden. Therefore you could never get the Treasury to realise that it was worth while putting capital expenditure into the Post Office. I notice that there is to be some rebuilding and I hope that with that rebuilding some of the Gladstonian ghosts will be exorcised—got rid of, anyway. But I do think that that attitude hangs on, and I must say that I rather regret it.
Some figures I saw in connection with this debate referred to telephone progress. I recall that at that time, 30 years ago, we actually started advertising, which was regarded as a very dangerous and wrong thing to do. It was one of my few achievements that I managed to extract a sum for advertising from Mr. Philip Snowden in the summer of 1931. It had a most admirable result. As was pointed out by a Press magnate, there is a dose link between advertising and editorial colleagues, and whereas he had

201
heard of faults, we had wonderful stories of how someone was on a voyage at sea and was actually caught by the diligence of the Post Office. That is all to the good. We should advertise. I found when I first went into the Post Office that there was a great reluctance to "push" the telephone, perhaps due to the over-conscientiousness of the head of that Department. When I told him that he was selling a certain commodity, distant speech, and that he was in competition with a man who sold a Hoover, he said, "Perhaps it is better for a man to have a Hoover than distant speech". I said, "That is an admirable social sentiment but it is not exactly business". I added, "Your job is to 'push' the telephone".
It is quite clear, when one looks at these figures, that there has been a failure to catch up with the numbers of people who are waiting for a telephone, and that there has not been enough capital put into the business. I entirely agree with my noble friend Lord Crook and the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, that it is a splendid service, extremely efficient; but it cannot make bricks without straw, and it has not had enough straw. I hope there is a sign now of change. I am bound to say that I thought as long as 30 years ago that we had released the Post Office from the bondage of the Treasury. Certainly something of the sort was put; forward by the Bridgeman Committee which followed shortly after I left the Post Office, and I thought we had freed it. I am afraid that I have not followed it as closely as I might have during recent years. Although it was my first business as head of an administrative Department, the years that have passed between have taken away the "first fine careless rapture," owing to my being beset with many other troubles of one kind and another.
I think now that we ought to be able to find capital. If we had put some of the money that has gone into television into our telephones we should beat the Americans hands down. But there is a lack of discrimination in the allocation of our technical resources, and year by year the Minister has never known where he stood. I have seen that with successive Postmasters General. How can they plan, how can they deal with the future business of the telephone, when they
202
do not know how much they are going to get from year to year? I do not entirely agree with the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, that there has been steady progress. As I look at the figures I think that the progress has been very unsteady. With steady progress one would have seen certainly, if not a rising expenditure, at least a level one. You find that over the years it is up and down, up and down, and it is quite clear that there has not been long-term planning.
I should like to say one word with regard to the comparison with the United States of America. It is fair to say that it is the goodness of our mail services that prevents us from imitating the Americans. That is more polite than referring to the extreme badness of the American mail service. It is also true to say that while the services in all the great cities of America are good, I was always told—and I believe it is true today—that there is an uneconomic fringe. In our services we have the Post Office system, which does not depend solely on whether some part of the service is profit making but on giving an adequate service to all the people; and the method by which we pay the same for a letter to go to the next street as for one to go to Caithness is a very good example of that Post Office principle as against the principle of profit-making. I am sure it is time that these facts were ventilated, and I hope that they will be read, marked and learned by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

THE NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE
3.38 p.m.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, I hope that I shall be forgiven if I interrupt the debate at this stage, since it may be for the convenience of the House, and I hope it will be, if I read the material portions of a statement made this afternoon by my right honourable friend the Minister of Health. After referring to the net Estimates of the National Health Service and the Health Departments, which he estimated were likely to show a net increase of 11 per cent, during the coming financial year following increases of 8 per cent. in the

203
current and 6 per cent. in the past year, my right honourable friend went on as follows:
" The Government are determined to continue their policy of developing the Health Service and in particular to carry through a long-term programme of modernising our hospitals. These objects would be in danger if the cost of the Service to the Exchequer were allowed to go on increasing at so high a rate. The Government have therefore decided that certain steps to reduce the net Estimates are necessary.
" The cost of a number of items for which charges are made has increased substantially since the charges were last fixed, and it is proposed to adjust them.
" The charges for dentures will be increased by amounts ranging from 5s. to 15s. On the other hand, in order to put more emphasis on conservation, the charges for dental treatment will not be raised; and children and expectant and nursing mothers will be relieved in future of the present charges for dentures.
" The charges for spectacles will be increased by 5s. a pair, with a higher charge for bifocal and multifocal lenses. However, it is proposed that children aged 10 or over shall no longer be charged for spectacle lenses in any type of National Health Service frame.
" The maximum charge for amenity beds in hospitals in England and Wales will be doubled from 1st March. The cost of the Pharmaceutical Services this year will be about £92 million gross, £80 million net. Since the charge for prescriptions was fixed at 1s. an item in 1956, the average cost of an item has increased from 5s. 1½d. to 7s. 4d. The Government are proposing to raise the prescription charge to 2s. per item from 1st March. We believe that this measure is necessary, along with others already taken or in hand, to restrain the increase in the cost of the Pharmaceutical Services.
" The Government have decided that from 1st June, orange juice, cod liver oil and vitamin tablets under the Welfare Foods Scheme will be sold at
204
prices which cover the cost. The existing arrangements for refund of prescription and other charges will remain in force, and arrangements will be made through the National Assistance Board for the free issue of vitamin supplements.
" The Government also propose to increase the National Health Service contribution with effect from the beginning of July next by 1s. a week for the employed man (10d. from the employee and 2d. from the employer), and by the appropriate amounts for other insurance groups. This will increase the yield from the contribution by about £49 million in a full year."
After a reference to the necessary Resolution in another place, my right honourable friend continued:
" A Bill relating to the dental and optical charges will be presented tomorrow. Regulations altering the charges for prescriptions and amenity beds will be laid on Friday, and a new Welfare Foods Order will be made shortly.
" All these changes apply to Scotland, except that relating to amenity beds, for which in Scotland the charges are adjusted automatically.
" The effect of all the measures which I have announced will be to reduce the net Health Estimates by about £50 million in 1961–62 and about £65 million in a full year."
My Lords, that is the statement.
3.44 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, we are obliged to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House for giving us this statement. Obviously, as we are to have two subsequent developments in the other place, by the introduction of a Bill and also some draft Regulations, it would be inappropriate to start a debate upon this statement. Nevertheless, I cannot help but comment that the total of the increases indicated, allowing for some slight adjustments downwards in other respects, seems to be a sort of combined attack upon the general policy of supplying the Welfare State. We shall have to examine this statement very carefully, and also look at the Bill, the financial legislation and the like, when they come in; but I think there is little doubt that

205
your Lordships will require to have a fairly early debate upon this quite deliberate changing of the financial basis of the Scheme.
LORD REA: My Lords, it is a very useful and interesting tradition that when a statement of this nature is made in another place we are given it in this House. But, my Lords, it also has its dangers. It might lead to some sort of quick debate, which I think your Lordships will agree would be quite out of place to-day, on such a long and important statement. I do not propose to make any snap judgment about this statement except to say that I am not sure I can agree with the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition that this is an attack on the welfare services. Whether it is robbing Peter to pay Paul or borrowing from Paul to lend to Peter I think we must look into later; and I agree with the noble Viscount that the sooner we have an opportunity to go into this matter further, the more pleased we shall be.
VISCOUNT AMORY: My Lords, could I ask my noble friend the Leader of the House whether my memory is correct that, after this increase in the contribution of the stamp is made, the stamp contribution will amount to little more than one-fifth of the total cost of the Service?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I first of all thank both the noble Viscount and the noble Lord opposite for emphasising the undesirability of introducing to-day a debate on this subject, which is an important one, and on which arrangements for a debate will have to be made in due course through the usual channels. I would accept what the noble Lord, Lord Rea, has said: that this is certainly not an attack, or a combined attack, upon the Welfare State although, of course, these financial arrangements do effect important changes. I think it will be seen, as my noble friend put to me, that the burden borne by the stamps is probably less, proportionately, than would be supposed—and, indeed, that the actual burden is probably less than in 1948, having regard to the differences in levels of wages and other sources of income since then. But these are all matters we can go into. I realise they are controversial and I should not like, without precise information, to give a
206
positive answer to my noble friend—he is much more likely to be right than I am —in the present circumstances.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, the noble Viscount the Leader of the House gave certain net figures at the end of his statement, saying the Estimates were reduced by certain sums of money. To what Estimates is he referring—the new Estimates or previous years' Estimates?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: The new Estimates, which are not yet presented. That was the intention.

THE POST OFFICE TELEPHONE SERVICE
3.47 pm.
Debate resumed.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, the comments which I propose to make in this debate (I shall be very brief) will be based entirely on the Paper which I hold in my hand, which is called Post Office Capital Expenditure, 1960–61, Cmnd. 973. One thing which I am pleased to see in this Paper is that there has been some slight increase in the amount of capital expenditure incurred by the Post Office. But when I say that the increase has been slight, I should like to emphasise that that is what I really mean, because it has risen from £94 million in 1956–57 to £97 million in 1960–61, and there has been a good deal of wobbling about in between those two figures. I do not call that a very big increase, and it does not seem to me to bear any kind of relation (as, indeed, other noble Lords have said) to the profits which the service has made during that time.
Then, when I read further down this document, there was one comment that shocked me profoundly. That was where it speaks of the fact that repairs and changes could be done more quickly than they were, and says:
" Orders will be completed more quickly but this may stimulate fresh demands for service."
That is said as if it were a thing to be rather frightened of and rather deplored. Surely, that is a thing to be really pleased about. If your service is so good that you have more demands upon it, so long as you have a paying service you should be delighted. That is what any normal

207
business firm wants, but that is not what the Treasury, who still, apparently, control the Post Office, want.
Then one can have no ground for much complacency, because, although orders are being cleared more quickly than they were, there are still some 48,000 people who want telephones. I admit that last year there were 68,000, and that a 20,000 reduction is something to be quite satisfied with: yet it is nothing to be very pleased and gratified about if there are still 48,000 waiting for a telephone. And supposing that the demands go up, I take it that we shall be back again to 68,000. At least, there is nothing, to make me think that that will not be the case.
Further, one wonders sometimes, although one must be extremely pleased with the way that all this modernisation of the service is going on—the extension of the dialling system and the other advances mentioned by both the noble Lord, Lord Crook, and the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr—whether the customer, the person wanting the telephone, is not being left rather behind in all these modernisation achievements to-day. Because, after all, the telephone service is for people who want a telephone. It seems to me no great consolation to the people who have not got a telephone to be told that there is a dialling system to-day where you can dial trunk calls direct. I wonder whether the emphasis is not a little on the wrong thing.
Another point which struck me in the statement was this: that apparently some 40,000 people are waiting for telephones because the lines are not available. I take it that that means there are not enough cables available. I would ask, why is that? Is it because of a lack of staff, or of the engineers making the cables, or a lack of raw materials, or what? It seems to me a serious state of affairs; that we have 40,000 willing customers for a telephone yet cannot get it because there is a lack of cable. That is the situation which one finds to-day.
Perhaps I may be permitted here just to give an illustration of one of my own personal experiences. In the part of London where I live, my telephone goes wrong about a couple of times a year. I would not say any more than that,
208
but certainly twice a year it goes out of order. I must say that the Post Office repair it quite quickly: they are very nice about it. But they tell me that the cables are worn out; that they are no longer properly insulated. So these breakdowns occur. There again, if the Post Office is going to get a Trunk Dialling System going, is it not better to have proper and efficient cables instead of cables which go wrong all the time?
There is one case in point which occurred, I think, last summer. One Sunday there was a very heavy thunderstorm about lunchtime which lasted for about a couple of hours. When we "came round" from it, the entire neighbourhood where I live found themselves without telephones. That extended over to the Monday, the Tuesday, and the Wednesday. Then suddenly I remembered—due to some of my experiences as an old-time civil servant—that the only thing to do was to telephone the Minister's private secretary. I did that and I got my telephone back that evening. My next-door neighbour is a busy general practitioner: he did the same thing and got his telephone back in the same way; but the rest of our neighbours waited a day or two longer. I should think that if they can get one or two telephones restored, surely they can get them all restored. Otherwise, something is very wrong with the system generally.
There is another occasion I remember, about some two years ago. I wished to have one of my telephones moved from one end of the room to the other, which meant that a new length of telephone wire—not cable but telephone wire—had to be put in. The Post Office told me that it would take at least four months. I may say that perhaps that was a good thing, because by the time the four months came round I had forgotten why I wanted it moved, and it was not moved. It seems to me absurd that one should have to wait four months to get a telephone moved from one end of a room to the other.
Here is another example of a peculiar practice which I found existing in the Autumn of 1958. I have inherited, in Kent, a house where the telephone was in the name of a deceased relative. I had a considerable amount of correspondence with the Post Office with a

209
new contract. I thought that there was nothing to do, and that they would put my name in the telephone book in due course, because I had signed a contract. But not at all. When the new book came out last year, my aunt's name was still in the book. I rang up and told them about it, and they said that they were not told to change the name; that another new book would not be coming out until 1962, so that had no chance of getting my name into the book until then. That makes it quite uncomfortable for me now, when the name of somebody who died five years ago is still in the telephone book, after I have had correspondence with the Post Office and signed contracts for a new telephone. Yet no one seems to trouble about that. It is that kind of thing which I find very trying indeed about the telephone service. I have no complaint to make about the men who carry out the work; they are first-class and work quickly and efficiently. The service is a good service in all sorts of ways, but it could be better, and I trust that this debate which the noble Lord, Lord Crook, has instigated will do something to relieve the position.
3.55 p.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I think your Lordships will agree that we have had so far a most interesting debate on the telephone service. Indeed, to my recollection it is the most interesting debate I have listened to since the war. We are all grateful to my noble friend Lord Crook for making this debate possible, and for his extremely balanced and well-informed speech on a very complicated and difficult subject, as anyone who has had anything to do with the Post Office would agree.
I think this debate has shown one thing quite clearly. This question of the telephone service, which is of very considerable public importance, is not the sort of matter that catches the headlines of the Press, but it is a subject with which your Lordships' House is peculiarly suited to deal. We have more time and leisure than the other place, and we are exceptionally well placed to deal with a subject of this kind. But I should like to ask the Government one question in this connection. It is the policy of the Government—indeed, legislative effect has been given to this policy—to have more junior Ministers and
210
fewer Lords in Waiting. It is no reflection on the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald: I am certainly looking forward to hearing from him a well-informed and extremely skilful speech. But he will agree with me that he cannot speak with the same authority as a Minister in the Department for which he is gallantly acting as spokesman on the Front Bench opposite. What I hope the Government will consider when they implement this policy, which seems to be finding favour amongst ex-Lords in Waiting, is that consideration may be given to allowing us to have the Assistant Postmaster General in this House when the Postmaster General is a Member of another place. We have had no direct representative of the Post Office—no Minister—in this House since the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr; and that was some time ago, because it was before I went abroad. I hope that that is a matter to which the Government will give consideration, because I am sure that it would give us the opportunity and the stimulus for further debates of this kind.
I am sure that all speakers in this debate were anxious to acknowledge the qualities of the people who work in the telephone service itself—the Post Office engineers, the research scientists, and the very large personnel engaged in its work. Whatever criticisms may have been made of the telephone service, they were not criticisms of the people who operate it. I think, if I may say so, that the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, rather misunderstood what my noble friend Lord Crook said on this subject. I was so struck by one sentence in his speech that I made a note of it; perhaps I may quote it to your Lordships, in order to show that what I think my noble friend was saying was that the blame for the defects in the telephone service should be laid at the door of the Treasury, not at the door of the Post Office. The sentence in his speech which I noted down was this:
" The only trouble with the telephone service is top control coming from the Treasury."
I hope that I have quoted my noble friend correctly.
Now, my Lords, I think this is a point which is worth emphasising. My noble friend said that the telephone service in this country is backward—and this is a statement of fact with which I think everyone will agree—as compared with

211
the telephone service in a number of other industrial countries; or, indeed, as compared with the telephone service in some of the smaller European countries, such as Denmark, Norway, or Switzerland. He said—and again I agree with him, though this is not a question of fact but of opinion—that the main reason for our backwardness is not any technical failure, because we have an admirable telephone equipment, an excellent manufacturing industry, and certainly no lack of demand (because everyone who has no telephone and can afford one is clamouring for one, and everyone who shares a line wants one of his own), but the fact that we have failed to put sufficient capital into the manufacture of telephone equipment.
What is the reason for this? Surely it is that we have been unable to ensure for the Post Office the normal programme of capital development that any big business enterprise would have. And, after all, the Post Office is a business enterprise rather than a Government Department, and should be looked at in that way. When the Government want to damp down capital investment as a matter of public policy, the first victims for cuts are always those who are under Treasury control; and it is really most unfair (I thought that my noble friend Lord Attlee made this point with great force) that capital should be allocated in this way and that the capital development of the telephone service should depend on the vagaries of the national balance of payments. It is impossible to develop any business in this way; but, in fact, this is exactly what happens. And we should not forget, in talking of capital development in the Post Office, that 90 per cent. of this is on the telephone service, so that in speaking of capital development we are really thinking of the telephone service.
As my noble friend Lord Crook pointed out, there has been this extraordinary fluctuation over the past five years in the number of new telephones, reflecting the changes in capital investment, ranging from 135,000 to 396,000 new telephones per annum. What is needed is a plan for sufficient capital expenditure for steady expansion over a definite period of years. My noble friend Lord Crook is thinking of three years and perhaps that is as far as we can aim.
212
For myself I should have thought that a longer period would be even more desirable, but it may not be practicable. The Post Office Engineering Union, which of course has a very good knowledge of this problem, has proposed that there should be a five-year plan to increase the number of new telephones from 8 million to 10 million, at a rate of expansion of 5 per cent. per annum, which happens to be about double the present rate, which is only 2½ per cent. I must say that even that, in relation to demand, seems to me a not unworkable and not unattainable target; but whether that is a practicable target is not a matter about which I am able to form an opinion. I give this merely as the view of a responsible body which knows a good deal about this problem.
But what I am quite certain about is that any steady capital development, on which the telephone service of this country depends, is impossible unless the Post Office is given a greater measure of commercial freedom and is not bound tightly, as it is at present, to Treasury policy expressing the economic policy of the Government. Therefore, what I think we may legitimately ask the noble Lord who is to reply for the Government to say is how much more commercial freedom the Post Office will be given. I am glad that it is the policy of the Government to give the Post Office more commercial freedom, and that this policy has already been put into a Bill. But how far will this freedom go? Will it be limited to recurrent expenditure and revenue, or will it apply in some measure to capital investment as well?
The crux of the matter is whether the Post Office will be free to make firm plans for capital development over a period of years. It must be able to plan this capital development without fear of drastic cuts. I know that it is undesirable to cut the telephone service away from other services of the Post Office and hand it over to private enterprise. Private enterprise has done well in certain countries, but I do not think that it would be suitable here. But I would ask the noble Lord how far the Government are prepared to go to give the Post Office at least as much freedom as other nationalised industries, because this is the most important thing from the point of view of business efficiency and of a better and more efficient telephone service.
4.6 p.m.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I can say with confidence and sincerity not only that your Lordships' House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Crook, for launching this debate, but also that although this may not be the easiest time for a Government spokesman to answer a debate on the telephone service, the moment is apposite from almost every other point of view and therefore we can welcome it. There is scope at this moment for a progress report on the telephone service; there is material for such a report, and I hope to show your Lordships that most of that material is encouraging. The noble Lord, Lord Crook, was good enough, as he said, to warn me that he would be critical, and even informed me of the lines along which he would advance his criticisms. Other noble Lords have added theirs, including the noble Earl, Lord Attlee. I will attempt to answer or reassure as many critics as possible and will certainly write to noble Lords regarding any other criticisms that I may omit, either from lack of time or of immediate information.
At the same time, I am grateful for the fact that not all has been criticism; and on behalf of the Post Office I would thank particularly my noble friends Lord De La Warr and Lord Amulree and, of course, the noble Lord, Lord Crook, for some of the kindly remarks made. I shall try not to base my answer on only the best examples. Indeed, I hope that my method of selection will meet with the noble Lord's full approval. There is little or no difference between us as to the touchstones of an efficient telephone service. Fourteen months ago in another place, in opening his maiden speech for the Post Office, my right honourable friend said that the customer judges the Post Office not by speeches and statements of policy but by the time it takes to buy a postal order or to get through to the operator. Or one might add, by the time it takes to acquire a telephone with which to get through to the operator and the time it takes to get through to another subscriber. People who require telephones and are ready to pay for them are people who want to communicate with others without delay, and speed is of the essence. Delay is the principal target
214
of criticism and the most general. Complete failure and frustration due to breakdowns is a great deal rarer.
Possibly I should announce in opening that what I shall not try to do is to persuade noble Lords that all their criticisms are imagined and that the telephone service to-day (I emphasise to-day) is exactly what we should wish it to be. That would be a great injustice to the directors and to the whole staff of the Post Office, who set themselves a higher standard than anyone else outside when it comes to the service they wish to give to the public. I shall try to persuade your Lordships that grievances come mainly from the aggrieved and that in large parts of the country telephone subscribers are perfectly satisfied with the service that they are getting.
I shall try to convince you that improvements are on their way and that it is better, as the Government believe, to aim at an entirely new and satisfactory service in ten years' time than to put off that day by temporary, costly and already out-of-date adjustments to the old model. I shall also seek to persuade the noble Lord and the House that in many respects, in comparison to other countries, we are not so unfavourably served as the noble Lord supposes and would have us suppose. Finally, and far more daringly, I shall submit that some of the admitted shortcomings of the telephone service to-day are owed partly to the character inherent in, or at least endemic to, the average British telephone subscriber.
First of all, since the Motion for this debate is based on the White Paper on Post Office Capital Expenditure, I should give as a background the general financial considerations which govern the service as it is and our future plans for it. No one is more anxious to develop the telephone service quickly than the Postmaster General and the directors of the Post Office, but the pace of that development is largely a matter of the capital investment which can be made available. Forming, as it does, part of the total investment for the public sector, this has to be, in our view, subject to Government control, together with many other important services, such as roads, hospitals and electricity. It will continue to be subject to this control, and policy on public investment must take into account both the aim of expansion and the balance

215
between demand and reserves. For this reason, much as a guaranteed level of investment for, say, three or five years ahead would help the Post Office planning, there are definite difficulties in this for any Government, when so many factors can affect the economic situation over such a term.
We are well aware of the difficulties which uncertainty in investment imposes on the Post Office, and we seek to minimise them. Each summer proposals for Post Office capital investment, as well as those for other parts of the public sector, are considered and a figure proposed for the following year. If the national finances permit, at a later date the approved figure may be increased. This happened in the summer of last year, when the capital investment ceiling for 1960–61 was raised from £92 million to £94 million. Apart from this, the Post Office ploughs back a considerable proportion of its income into the business. Recent performance suggests that in future about two-thirds of the requirements of capital can be provided in this way, leaving only about one-third to be borrowed.
The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, and the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, asked principally about commercial freedom and mentioned the White Paper on the Post Office status. As we are slightly inhibited in a discussion of that subject, as the noble Lord, Lord Crook, agreed, because it is at present passing through another place and will one day reach us. I think the most I can say on this occasion is to quote from the described purpose of the Bill in this respect:
" Treasury responsibility for the Post Office would cease, except in so far as its activities affect the national economy generally, or where Post Office staff as part of the whole Civil Service are concerned. In practice this would mean that Treasury control over the Post Office would be restricted to three things—

(a) Pay, grading and conditions of service of staff;

(b) Investment control, including control of borrowing for the purpose of financing it (as for the public sector generally);

(c) Foreign exchange control.

Some months ago, the Treasury made a study of the extent to which public investment could be varied without serious distortion in the interest of employment policy. The conclusion was
216
that it is not sensible to try to vary public sector investment more than marginally in any one year; that is to say, by from 2 to 3 per cent. In the case of the Post Office there is some scope for varying, at fairly short notice, our capital expenditure on the provision of local cables and installing subscribers' telephones. Much of the expenditure arises, however, from long-term projects already in hand as a result of decisions in previous years and cannot be varied appreciably at short notice. I can give noble Lords details of capital investment in recent years and that proposed in 1960–61 and 1961–62, but I would suppose that only the total figures are desired at the moment.
The approved level of total Post Office investment in 1960–61 was fixed in July, 1959, at £90·6 million (at 1958 prices—equivalent to £92·1 million at March, 1960, prices), but in September, 1960, in view of the buoyant demand for telephone service, the ceiling was raised to £94 million (at March, 1960, prices) and expenditure of £96 million for 1961–62 and a minimum expenditure of £100 million for 1962–63 has now been approved. These are, it seems to me, substantial figures, but a massive effort is required.
Already the telephone service is expanding at a record rate, and the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, is, I can assure him, quite mistaken in supposing that we take a sad view of this. I assure him that he misread the tone of that public statement to which he referred. There has been an upsurge of orders for new telephones, and more calls, especially trunk calls, are being made than ever before; and this gives us great delight. This expanding demand must be met at the same time as a huge modernisation programme, and the problems of carrying out both tasks at the same time will be clear to all noble Lords. All the same, achievements in meeting this demand have been rather more impressive than Lord Crook suggested. Lord Crook's figure of 135,272 for telephones connected in 1958 is accurate; but 1958 was, in all fairness, a freak year, the year of the "squeeze", and last year's figure of over 450,000, an increase of 13 per cent. over the previous year, is a notable improvement on the 2·3 per cent. given

217
by the noble Lord, and is far more indicative of current aims and, I am confident, of coming achievements and trends.
Every effort is being made to prevent the number of those waiting for new exchanges or more cables (at present about 50,000) from rising, and to limit the waiting period to twelve months. The aim is to complete straightforward cases in a few weeks. Fewer and fewer people are now being obliged to share their telephones. Some 75 per cent. of the telephones supplied to residential subscribers in the past year were exclusive lines. It may be of some interest to your Lordships to know that out of the approximately 1 million telephone sharers in the country 700,000 are perfectly content with their condition, 20 per cent, or 200,000, are actively unhappy, and the remaining 10 per cent. do not mind particularly, but if given the choice would presumably choose an exclusive line.
What is equally important, as noble Lords have pointed out, is that improvement in service should accompany this, and there are many who are dissatisfied with the service as it stands. I should be doing small service to the Post Office if I pretended that all complaints were groundless, but I have proved in my own circle of friends and in my own personal experience that they can be exaggerated. That is almost inevitable. Men who use telephones frequently are busy men to whom minutes and seconds are important. For them, in fact I may say for us, the irritation caused by delay in getting through on a telephone is equalled only, perhaps, by that occasioned by a lackadaisical or indifferent taxi-driver, rara avis, happily, in this city.
Some weeks before this debate, I sat at lunch with three friends, one the head of a leading public relations firm, another the city editor of a national newspaper, and the other the London director of a development corporation in the Commonwealth. With almost embarrassing gusto they were ready to relate their own telephone experiences. All declared with great positiveness, that more than half the local calls they dialled failed to get through, due to a technical fault in the system; that they were rather surprised when they got through at the first attempt. I took note and investi-
218
gated the three London telephone exchanges concerned. I discovered that unless the three particular connections complained of were uniquely and catastrophically bad, compared to the recorded behaviour of their respective exchanges, then the Munchhausen who lurks in all of us had joined us at that convivial lunch.
No doubt every noble Lord in the House to-day can relate frustrating incidents of his own and, indeed, one or two have done so. The noble Earl, Lord Gainsborough, mentioned waiting five minutes in order to get through to an operator. But your Lordships, being unselfish by nature and by definition, will be chiefly interested to know what your average compatriot suffers from the present state of affairs. In the year ended September, 1960, the average subscriber had to wait 8·6 seconds for the operator to answer an average call. His failure to connect at all varied, according to the type of exchange he was on; but, taking the worst type—that is, the director exchange—his failures attributable to the Post Office would have been less than three in every hundred calls he made. We aim to cut the waiting time down to five seconds.
The quality of service at present varies about the country, and the bad figures are confined to definite areas. In London, the Home Counties, the Midlands and North East England, we are far from satisfied with the service given at present. This is a passing state of affairs with rational causes—causes which are paradoxically encouraging in themselves. The rate of growth in telephone traffic in these areas over the past two or three years has been generally double the normal rate of growth, and most marked of all in South East England. This has overloaded the system generally, and in many places has produced staff shortages. In London we are about 10 per cent. under strength, and while we have endeavoured to spread the shortfall, some exchanges, mainly those in the centre of London are seriously affected by the inexperience of the staff. An intensive advertising campaign has been in progress for some time, but even so, it is proving extremely difficult to recruit sufficient people to balance wastage, let alone to provide for additional work. Some relief has been

219
achieved by borrowing staff from provincial exchanges and by recruiting in some cases as far afield as Yorkshire for work in London. I shall return again to the question of staff raised by the noble Lord, Lord Crook.
By way of securing more intimate statistics, I looked up case histories of three private subscribers' numbers: Wallington 2620, Knightsbridge 7716 and Crofton 394. For my purposes they differed conveniently in their facilities. Wallington has a large and up-to-date manual exchange, Knightsbridge a large automatic exchange, and Crofton a small and old-fashioned automatic exchange. I looked at their experience of local calls, of short-distance trunk calls, and other trunk calls, and of faults requiring engineer's attention. The reports I received were as follows: against the national average time to answer of 8 seconds by day and 10 in the evening, Wallington's report said:
"Service slightly better than in other London exchanges but not entirely satisfactory. Time to answer 9 seconds by day and evening. Last reported fault was on the 25th of February 1960".
The Knightsbridge report said:
"Time to answer 15 to 20 seconds."
The Crofton report said:
"Time to answer has been over 12 seconds, but has improved a little recently. Four to 5 per cent. of calls fail due to plant faults. Equipment is old and of an obsolescent type. Several faults reported in last year. Installation is to be overhauled".
The noble Lord, Lord Crook, will have recognised the first of these numbers as his own, and will no doubt have guessed that the other two are mine. I was somewhat relieved to find that his service compares favourably to mine, and so do his prospects. Wallington exchange is likely to be changed to automatic by 1966 with the introduction of S.T.D.; Knightsbridge will have S.T.D. in 1962; but Crofton 394, although it will benefit by the replacement of plant in Wakefield in 1966, will have to wait until 1970 for S.T.D.
The telephone instrument, with its bell, dial and cord, is made up from some 200 pieces. It has almost the complexity of a radio set, but in most houses is liable to considerably rougher treatment. The open wire, where it is in use, is
220
subject to the elements. Poles, pillars and cabinets are liable to be damaged in traffic accidents. Underground cables can suffer from excavations of other contractors, and by entry of water through corroded cable sheaths. The equipment in the exchange is precision equipment. The large exchanges, such as those which I have tramped over during the last few weeks, contains several miles of internal cable and millions of soldered connections. The thousand switches, which are the heart of such an exchange, have about 250 pieces each. Failure of any element in all this can cause a call to fail. None the less, to-day it is extremely rare for an exchange to become completely out of order. During the war we lost some exchanges through bombing, but in peace time only the small automatic exchanges in isolated parts of the country are likely to be affected, and this only exceptionally.
Our telephone service has been compared unfavourably to that of other countries. In certain respects, that is true. In other respects, it is the envy of other countries. My noble friend Lord De La Warr has already made the point of the cheapness of the service. Local call areas are, for instance, larger than in any country, and, of course, with the introduction of S.T.D. the whole country, including Northern Ireland, will become a local call area. I shall have, naturally, a little more to say on Subscriber Trunk Dialling. Also we have a far more generous provision of telephone kiosks than in any other country. The position of the lack of telephone kiosks in particular areas, drawn attention to by the noble Earl, Lord Gainsborough, is something that has not been brought to my attention before. So far as I know, telephone kiosks are being provided at the same rate as formerly, but I will definitely look into any given case.
The two countries most usually cited as being better served than ourselves are Switzerland and Western Germany. It might be fairer to compare London and Switzerland, rather than Britain and Switzerland. There are 1½ million telephones in Switzerland compared to 1¼ million in the City and County of London. The Swiss telephone service is completely automatic, and so is London's, where most of the subscribers were able to dial each other even before the war, a state of affairs which the Swiss

221
have reached only in very recent years. In Switzerland, there are 30 telephones per 100 of the population: in London. there are 39.
Our system is more closely comparable to that of Western Germany, the areas and population served being almost the same. There are 8 million telephones here, compared with 5½ million in Western Germany; 15 per cent. of the population compared with 10 per cent. possessing telephones. In Germany, it is true that 99 per cent. of the telephones are automatic, compared with 82 per cent. here, and the Germans are also better provided with S.T.D. There is a factor here which affects the whole of our industrial comparisons with Western Germany. The Western Germany telephone system was almost completely destroyed by war-time bombing, and when reconstruction was started the most modern equipment was naturally installed. Before the war, our intention was to have 100 per cent. automatic exchanges by 1945, but due to the war many manual exchanges have had to be retained far longer than was intended. There is another respect in which we have a certain advantage. A telephone call from London to Switzerland or Western Germany costs 10s. for three minutes. A similar call from Western Germany to London costs 11s. 5d., and from Switzerland 12s. 7d. The same discrepancy in telephoning between London and Rome is 13s. 7d., and between London and Moscow 12s. 11d.
The Post Office participates, of course, in the work of the International Telecommunication Union and its consultative committees. There are also progress visits of technical and administrative personnel to and from other countries. In recent years, visits of Post Office teams from the United Kingdom have been made to Sweden, Germany, Switzerland, Holland and France to examine the operation of their telephone systems with a view to improving the efficiency of our own and to reducing our costs. A visit was made to America in 1958 to study operating methods, and this has produced valuable results, particularly in regard to training and supervision.
Many forms of development have been mentioned by noble Lords. Perhaps the most interesting and immediate is Subscriber Trunk Dialling, for which there
222
is a very important reason for our being somewhat behind other countries. As my noble friend Lord De La Warr has explained, in the first ten years after the war the Post Office had to devote its main efforts to overtaking arrears of basic plant and to catching up with the backlog and meeting the rising new demand for telephones. All Governments since the war have considered that that was the right way to set about it, and I am quite certain of that myself.
None the less, ever since the war the Post Office has been looking to the future, undertaking an ambitious programme of expanding the network of long-distance trunk cables and installing automatic trunk exchanges in the largest towns. All this prepared the way for more extensive mechanisation, and the first Subscriber Trunk Dialling exchange was opened by Her Majesty the Queen at Bristol in September, 1958. The noble Lord, Lord Crook, has referred to the results. I have slightly different but corroborative figures. The immediate result for the people of Bristol was that trunk calls to places they could dial went up by 40 per cent., and have since increased to more than 60 per cent., above the number before the introduction of Subscriber Trunk Dialling.
Since the Royal opening at Bristol, work at other centres has been pushed ahead. All the places mentioned in the 1957 and 1958 White Papers which outlined the new plan now have Subscriber Trunk Dialling, or will have it very soon. Other important centres not mentioned at the time, like Rugby and Bolton, already have the new service. But this is only a start. Subscriber Trunk Dialling equipment is now being installed or manufactured for no fewer than 600 exchanges. By March, 1962, just over a year hence, about 300 of these installations, serving 1¼ million subscribers, or one quarter of the total in the country, should have been brought into service. This also confirms the noble Lord's hopeful figure. In another year the proportion of subscribers with Subscriber Trunk Dialling will have risen to 40 per cent., and by 1966 to 70 per cent.
By 1970 the Post Office confidently expects over 90 per cent. of all lines in the country to have Subscriber Trunk Dialling. The centres that will have

223
Subscriber Trunk Dialling this year include many of the principal cities, such as London, Edinburgh, Belfast, Birmingham, Glasgow, Liverpool and Manchester. In London and five of the largest centres a new type of electronic equipment, using magnetic drums, will be installed—the first of its kind in the world. Last Wednesday, Peterborough joined the centres on Subscriber Trunk Dialling and next Tuesday Skipton will be added to the list. It seems clear from these facts, my Lords, that although the Post Office may not have been able to start its plans for mechanising the trunk service as soon as it would have liked, it is now taking great strides.
There is another aspect to this matter. While it is satisfying to be first in the field, I think that most noble Lords would agree that it is most important to have the best system. And from what I know of the British Subscriber Telephone Dialling system it is second to none in the world. For example, in many countries, including America, dialled trunk calls are no cheaper than calls made through the operator, and they are subject to a three-minute minimum charge. In the British system all dialled calls are charged in 2d. units, according to their duration, and short-duration calls can therefore be made very cheaply indeed. Even if you speak for three minutes, most calls are cheaper. The system of dialling codes used for trunk calls is simple and easy for subscribers to remember. In addition, the plans include a new coin box which is designed to give the benefits of a quicker and cheaper trunk-dialling service to the general public, as well as to telephone subscribers, and eventually these will be installed in all public telephone boxes in Subscriber Trunk Dialling areas.
Noble Lords have mentioned a number of specific matters in connection with the service, and I will try to deal with some of them very briefly, in view of the hour. The noble Lord, Lord Crook, mentioned staffing policy. The size of the engineering force—that is to say, workmen engaged on laying and jointing cables, fitting subscribers' telephones, installing equipment in telephone exchanges and on maintenance—required to maintain the telephone service to subscribers, is largely dependent upon the amount of capital investment made
224
available. Ideally, many of the Post Office's problems—for example recruiting and training, associated with keeping this force up to strength—would undoubtedly be eased, as the noble Lord suggested, if a guaranteed level of investment several years ahead were possible. A certain amount of flexibility in the deployment of the force can, however, be achieved by switching people from one job to another.
In short, because of the size of the system, and because not all the engineering staff are employed on capital works—many of them are on maintenance duties—the effect of variations can be softened. Recently a thousand additional engineers have been engaged in the London area. One problem is the unusual wastage. Many girls having been trained by the Post Office almost immediately leave for jobs in hotels or large office buildings where the hours are less onerous. A shorter working week and new conditions of service which should help to make the Post Office telephonist's job more attractive are under discussion with the staff associations, and it may be possible to introduce them soon. There has been, as noble Lords remember, a "go-slow" move at the Mayfair exchange last year, but, I think, there has been no repetition of that at any exchange since then.
Direct inward dialling has been referred to, and this facility, which as the noble Lord, Lord Crook, said, enables calls from outside to be dialled to a firm's number and then straight through to the extension telephone without any help from a private switchboard operator, is an attractive one, but it involves complex technical problems. A number of schemes of this kind are in use on Post Office-owned installations, and the experience gained there has helped in planning the first non-Post Office project of this kind, at London Airport, which should be working in two years time. Meanwhile, the Post Office is actively studying the possibilities of its wider application.
Telephone service to trains was referred to. Trials of a telephone service to trains have been carried out in South Lancashire using the car radiophone stations. The results were in general good, at least equal to the quality of service from cars, but certain difficulties were experienced

225
when trains were passing through tunnels. The provisions of public radio-telephones in trains is technically feasible, but the establishment of a satisfactory service would be very costly. There is not enough evidence of public demand at present to justify expenditure on such a service.
The ship-to-shore services have been mentioned. The facilities provided in the Post Office ship-to-shore telephone service are being extended. The V.H.F. ship-to-shore radio-telephone service is being introduced in two stages. The first stage, the equipping of Humber, North Foreland, Niton and Land's End radio stations, has already been completed. The provision, timing and scope of the second stage will depend on the demand for service. However, because it is known that many ships sailing from the Mersey are extensively fitted with V.H.F. radio equipment, the Post Office is considering equipping Anglesey in advance of the second stage. Until last year, passengers on deep-sea ships could obtain radio-telephone service only over the long-distance high-frequency circuits. They can now obtain medium-frequency service via coast stations at Anglesey, Land's End, Niton and North Foreland when they are within 250 miles of the United Kingdom. Further expansion will also depend on the demand for this type of service.
The noble Lord, Lord Crook, and others were interested in electronic exchanges, and I am happy to tell them that no limitation has been placed on research for electronic exchanges because of shortage of capital investment. The Post Office and the five principal manufacturers referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Crook—who because of their vast experience in research are able to make a unique contribution to this—have together made substantial progress. High-gate Wood was always regarded as an experimental exchange and was not expected to be economic. The number of possible electronic techniques that can be used to perform various functions required is large, and it was deliberately decided to employ different techniques in different functional sections of the exchange in order that their merits could be compared from all points of view—for example, economy, reliability and ease of maintenance. The ultimate aim
226
is an economic standard electronic exchange.
The noble Lord has asked: where do we stand now? From the lessons already learnt from the model, and from the production of equipment, this sort of work is proceeding at high pressure to produce improved designs, so that British industry will retain its position in the forefront of telecommunication development and be able to offer in the world markets electronic exchanges which will be fully competitive with those of any other manufacturers. Your Lordships will not overlook the fact of the leading part that the Post Office has played in the use of electronic techniques to perform some of the more complex operations in association with traditional automatic equipment. For example, electronic "directors" to steer calls through the complex London network have been working at Richmond Exchange since 1952. The equipment for S.T.D. at Bristol, installed in 1958, is controlled exclusively by cold cathode electronic equipment, and more than 40 units of electronic equipment, embodying magnetic drums, for controlling the S.T.D. service from London and the largest provincial cities are now in production.
It is clear that those who have spoken in this debate insist upon such development, not simply for export, and will make the fullest use of it when it is perfected. But one of the problems besetting development generally is the comparative lack of enthusiasm among the normal telephone subscribers in this country for anything new. It may come as something of a surprise to your Lordships to learn that the average residential telephone user makes less than one call a day on his telephone, though the average for business and residential subscribers together is 530 a year. That is still less than one and a half calls a day. The comparative number in Japan is 2,000; in Sweden, Canada and the United States it is between 1,000 and 2,000. We have to stimulate the calling rate. The recent lowering of cheap trunk rate at night time and its extension to all day on Sunday, and the lowering of the cost of local calls from 3d. to 2·d. have all had this objective. Until that objective is achieved, it is rather as if every railway traveller in the country insisted upon having, a permanent seat reserved for him and used it only a few days in the year.

227
The Post Office, in conjunction with London University, has recently started a joint research programme into the sociology of telephone usage. But the march of progress is not urged on by all subscribers. At Hemsworth, three miles away from my own home, the manual exchange is about to become automatic, and the newspapers have recorded dismay rather than self-congratulation in the village. Under the headline "Hemsworth will miss its Hullo girls" one paper claims:
" Hemsworth's switchboard is Hemsworth. Few telephone users in the area do not automatically regard the girl at the other end of the line as a sort of institutional friend and helper. People will have to fend for themselves instead of asking the girl to put them through to the butcher. One man in the neighbourhood has already asked whether, since he will have to work the dial himself, he will get a rebate on his rental."
Another paper, under the headline "Goodbye to a jolly Hello", records the opinion of the deputy clerk to the urban district council:
" I have been using the exchange for 26 years and for my money it is the best in the country."
In order to impress your Lordships with the innate conservatism of our countrymen I might mention that Hemsworth has the largest Labour majority in the entire country. It was maintained by my good friend Mr. Horace Holmes for many years, reaching the point of 38,000.
Despite this sentimental and in some ways endearing attachment for the obsolescent. I am sure that automation will be welcomed, as we have proved, when it becomes familiar. Already the telephone service is expanding at a record rate, both in the demand for telephones and in the number of calls, particularly trunk calls. This demand, however, has come before the current programme of mechanisation has hit its stride, and before it has given effective relief to telephone operators. The short-term result has been, inevitably, delay in providing telephones and, in some places, delay in answering calls, this being due to people becoming more telephone-minded. That, to us, is entirely encouraging.
It is a very different situation from that which confronted the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, during his period of office
228
at St. Martin's. He has already recorded that he found it necessary at that time to appoint a firm of consultants, Messrs. Whitehead & Staff, to investigate and make recommendations in the matter of popularising the telephone. Most of these recommendations were, as he said, accepted and introduced. It may be the long-term result of the noble Earl's action which is posing us part of our problem to-day—a problem which has to be met by generous and discriminating expenditure.
My Lords, we are setting ourselves to provide a sufficient investment capital for the following achievements: To complete the conversion to automatic working of the remaining manual exchanges by 1970; to extend Subscriber Trunk Dialling to nearly all telephones, also by 1970; to provide for the rapidly increasing level of trunk traffic, and to expand the system to the extent necessary to provide services on demand and to eliminate entirely the waiting list. Your Lordships will appreciate that this is something like waging a war on four simultaneous fronts. There is no doubt that the voice of the country, as heard in your Lordships' House to-day, demands victory on all four fronts. So long as the continuing prosperity of the country can provide the capital equipment, I am confident that all those victories will be won.
THE MARQUESS OF WILLINGDON: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, can he tell us how he obtained the figure of 70 per cent. as the proportion of party-line users satisfied? I was never asked, nor, I think, was the district nurse.
4.47 p.m.
LORD CROOK: My Lords, I rise to thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate—the noble Earls, Lord De La Warr, Lord Attlee, Lord Gainsborough and Lord Listowel, and the noble Lord, Lord Amulree—for their contributions. I also thank the noble Lord who has just sat down for the nature of his reply and the way in which he has given it. I think he selected the way of replying that I should have done: he failed completely to answer one of the criticisms that I have put forward and he told us all of the wonderful world that we are going to have. It will be for

229
me to come back in a year or two when we have not got that world, and to remind him of what he has said; or alternatively, if we have got it, to say how good it is that we have managed to get the things that we have been wanting to get.
Some of the information that he has been given in his brief was a little forgetful. There was a paragraph where we were told to think about cities in a completely different context from the open country. A little later we were told that it was right to compare London and Switzerland. I must take the noble Lord to Switzerland and show him the open country, the mountains and the snow, and the cables, and where they have to be taken. Perhaps he will then know that there is a little difference.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Lord has considered the difficulty of taking lines across open country or underneath the London streets.
LORD CROOK: I have. I have absolutely no doubt that I shall have to take the noble Lord to Switzerland, just as I have considered that he ought to come and spend a day with me with a stop watch, because he would need to do this in order to convince me of the accuracy of his figures with regard to the Wallington Exchange. He needs only to dial, where they have the dial— it is "WAL"—to find out how frequently he is unable to get Wallington and, in order to get through, has to bother the Exchange by dialling "100".
I deplore using personal material too much on an occasion like this, but, although I did not say so, I believe that one of the important things about delays is that when one has no dial one has no "999" service. In districts like my own, and those of many other noble Lords, ordinary fire alarms have been completely taken away and we have no alarm to pull. We are told that we have to rely on the telephone. If we were asked to rely on the eight-seconds' service I should be happy; but when a burglar is bashing someone over the head next door and I cannot get a number I am not
230
happy about returns such as the noble Lord offers to-day from people using stop-watches with times given somewhere else.
The noble Lord has agreed with me on many other points. Clearly our S.T.D. system will be the best in the world when we get it. But in wanting a dial I am rather like the little boy in the Pears' advertisement—holding out my hand for the soap but never getting it. The noble Lord mentioned that the staff difficulty was closely related to capital investment, as it is in many other fields. As to the conservative nature of people in his own area not taking to new dials, I think they must have been influenced by the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, in passing on some of his nostalgic reluctance to be rid of the girls.
As to new services, if the Post Office would be a little less conservative and embark on new services, I believe that it would get a return. Where it has done so it has gained. "TIM" was the first: it was a tremendous experiment, and a great success. And the Test Match score service, limited as it has been in the amount of service offered, has been a tremendous financial success. I believe that the Post Office has already picked up 7 million telephone calls on the limited Test Match score service offered. If the example of other countries in such services were followed, I think the Post Office would benefit. I understand the Post Office already has a Committee looking into that aspect. It is surprising what the public will respond to.
In Hull, the only place in the country whose telephone service does not come under Her Majesty's Post Office, I was surprised to find that the municipal service there instituted a "Call Santa Claus" service and last December made a lot of money with it. It is not for me to keep your Lordships further on an occasion such as this. Having thanked those who have subscribed to this debate, may I ask permission to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave withdrawn.

AVIATION FUELS AND SAFETY
5.3 p.m.
LORD BRABAZON OF TARA LORD BRABAZON OF TARA rose to ask Her Majesty's Government, in view of the change by some Airlines from kerosene to petrol, "what price safety?"; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope your Lordships will forgive me for raising a question at this late hour (five o'clock is called "this late hour" in your Lordships' House) but we are all air passengers to-day, and safety in the air is something that is dear to my heart, for in my life I have seen too many of my friends killed. Flight was born of the internal combustion engine, and the internal combustion engine runs on petrol—probably the most objectionable fluid one could ever think of. We have been saddled with that fluid ever since. At one time we tried to introduce diesel engines. Some were made. They were too heavy and lacked boost on take-off; but of course it would have been wonderful had we succeeded, because there is a fuel which is almost non-inflammable. History is full of minor crashes of aeroplanes that have turned into bonfires and burnt the occupants. But we must not overstate the case. Over the course of years we have made aeroplanes flying on petrol safe, and were I not to say that I think I should be overstating the case against petrol. And when one remembers the millions and millions of miles flown per year without accident by aeroplanes driven by petrol, it will be seen that everything has been done to ensure safety and that that form of transport is a sound and safe method of travel.
I want first to make my own personal position clear to your Lordships. I am chairman of the Air Registration Board, and I have been fourteen years in that position. I would stress the fact that it is not in any way a political appointment. The Air Registration Board was set up by Statute. It is a curious body which would exist only in our country. The Board is composed of four people elected from and by the aeroplane manufacturing side; four by the operators; four by the insurance people and four by the general public. The Board has earned an international reputation and is highly thought of throughout the world. because it has done wonderful work. If there were any one criticism I could have
232
of it it is its choice of Chairman; but that is the fault of the members.
To-day I am allowed to speak as a private person, and anybody who disagrees with me on what I am going to say is entitled to ask me: If you are on the Air Registration Board, and if you consider a turbine-engined aircraft running on petrol to be dangerous, why do you grant such an aircraft a certificate of airworthiness?" I must make that point clear to your Lordships. The business of the Board is to see that an aeroplane is airworthy in the air. We see to the strength of the structure, the choice of metal and materials, that the under-carriage is safe and the general design is sound. We also have the responsibility of proving that the aeroplane handles correctly in the air. Beyond that we do not go. What happens on a crash is really outside our province, and the question of the use of petrol in turbine-engined aircraft has never been raised on the Council itself.
Critics might say that the position we take up of not being concerned with crash-worthiness is not quite true; they could advance the fact that we are responsible, for instance, for the placing of sufficient exits in a new design of aeroplane. But we do not go further than that. In the amazing development of the airliner over the last 60 years, unlike motor car engineers, aeronautical engineers have invented a new prime mover in the form of the gas turbine; and for that we have to thank the great Whittle.
Whittle was always anxious that his engine should run on diesel oil so that the fuel then would be practically non-inflammable. His engine can run on that fuel, but at high altitudes, where the temperature is very low, there are difficulties about "gumming-up", and it has never been a success. Kerosene (or paraffin, as one may call it) has been used now for many years and it is extremely successful. The difference between running an engine on paraffin, as compared with petrol, is such that there is no advantage with one or the other. The efficiency of the two fuels is about the same. Experts will say that one has a little more heat value; on the other hand, it has not quite the range of the other. But in flight they are both satisfactory, and it is for that reason that the

233
Air Registration Board is quite right in giving such aeroplanes a certificate of airworthiness. The point I wish to make to-day is a very narrow one, and I hope that your Lordships will appreciate that. It concerns the consequences arising in circumstances of a minor accident on a bad take-off or on a faulty landing when tanks are broken and fuel is spilt. I am not talking about great crashes where aeroplanes go into mountains or fall down from 6,000 ft. and everybody is killed; in such cases it is immaterial what fuel is used. But it is of these minor accidents on the ground that I want to speak to your Lordships to-day.
Your Lordships will appreciate the extra speeds indulged in to-day. When I first flew, my maximum speed was 40 m.p.h., and I landed at 30 m.p.h. To-day aeroplanes take off at 160 knots and touch down at 130 knots. Nothing will persuade me to think that that is really safe, but it works, and there are very few accidents at that speed on touch-down—a very remarkable thing. But what has to be noted is that, as aeroplanes advance in speed and complexity, the business of the pilot becomes even more and more important, because his work requires great precision and nicety of judgment. If your Lordships put yourself in the position of a pilot carrying 150 passengers and coming down at an airport at night, with rain and a side wind, you will appreciate the enormous skill and responsibility which are put upon his shoulders. But the accidents which I refer to are accidents which take place due to a bad take off or due to a swing on landing, when the passengers, by virtue of their belts, are comparatively safe. But when fuel is spilt fire results. It is that type of accident about which I want to speak to your Lordships to-day.
Accidents of that kind should not result in loss of life if there is no fire. But fire, as we know, occurs. It is difficult to say how the first ignition occurs. It may be due to shortage of electric currents, to spark from metal as it grinds along the concrete, or it may be due to the flame from an engine. But the fact remains that aeroplanes in minor crashes usually catch fire. We cannot get away from that fundamental fact. In those circumstances I was very shocked—I repeat, very shocked—to find that some
234
operators were switching from kerosene to gasolene, and in the technical Press I issued a challenge. I said, "Let us imitate the conditions in which an aeroplane crashes on take off;I will go on to an aerodrome and I will spill 40 gallons of kerosene, stand in the middle of it and drop a match, if anybody who advocates petrol will do the same with 40 gallons of petrol". Curiously enough, my Lords, there were no takers. I did not get much support, especially from the Press, over this matter. I do not blame the Press in any way. The Press get great revenue from the big operating companies and from the oil companies, and I can quite follow their train of thought when they do not want to get involved in some riot which would occur between those two very great interests.
Anyhow, to my surprise, the great British Broadcasting Corporation rang me up and said, "Will you give a comparative exhibition of this on television?" I got my friend Mr. Rickard, who is a great expert on all questions of fuel, to attend with me—and he has been a tower of strength the whole time—and we repaired to Wembley and did the thing on a minor scale. We spilt eight gallons of kerosene and we attempted to light it. We threw matches into it; we had a blow lamp; nothing would make it burn—to our fury. At last we had to light a rag and put it into it and then it started to burn. But we did the same with petrol, or J.P.4 as it is called in this case. Very wisely, we did not approach too near. We threw a match and there was one "pfff" and a bonfire. That was with eight gallons. As I reminded people on that television service, if an accident occurs to a Boeing 707 on takeoff is not a question of 7 gallons; it is a question of 17,000 gallons. That would be a proper bonfire. Do not let us pretend that kerosene does not burn: of course it burns: the point is that the rate of propagation of the flame is so much slower than that of petrol. It gives one time to get out before the fire really gets going.
Let me give your Lordships examples of three recent accidents. There was a Lockheed-Electra which crashed at La Guardia. Something went wrong with the engine; it has not been decided what it was. Anyhow, it got into trouble and came down on its back. The tanks were

235
burst and the fluid caught fire. But it was kerosene; it did not burn very quickly. We can imagine the state inside that aeroplane when it was upside down and people were trying to get out. But although it caught fire, all the 70 passengers and the five of the crew got out, with no casualties at all. We have the case of the Boeing 707 which swung off on coming down at London Airport. It did not catch fire, although the fire service there said that it was a marvel it did not, as kerosene was pouring out of one of the engines. Ninety-five passengers got out, and 12 of the crew.
Recently, again, when a Douglas DC.8 caught fire 102 occupants got out alive. Four of the crew were killed, but that was due to percussion, not to the fire. One hundred and two survived. I had a letter from someone in that aeroplane, Mr. Rushen, and he writes to me and he says:
" Mr. Mitchell and I were two of the British passengers in the Mexican Airlines DC.8 jet which crashed at Idlewild, and we are both utterly convinced that we owe our lives, as do all the other passengers, to the fact that this particular aircraft was powered by Kerosene and not by J.P.4 or any similarly volatile propellant."
These things are, I think, very remarkable and I hope that we shall not have to wait for an accident with an aeroplane using petrol to prove the point of the extra safety of kerosene. The point arises—and I suppose it is a legal point—as to whether if an aeroplane were fuelled unnecessarily with a more dangerous fluid it would constitute negligence; because, if it constituted negligence, claims, of course, would be unlimited and a case for manslaughter would arise. Those are very serious thoughts indeed. I am very proud of the two British Corporations. After all, they do everything they can for safety, and for running their enterprises satisfactorily; and neither of them has ever used, or has thought of using, any other fuel than kerosene—and we thank them very much for that splendid example of considering the safety of the public.
Your Lordships will ask me: what is the incentive to change from kerosene to petrol? The answer is very curious. I have to quote something said by Mr. Hagrup, who is a prominent member of the technical side of an organisation called I.A.T.A., which is a body made
236
up of all the operating companies. Talking about the two fuels, he said:
" It is not possible to say which is the safer fuel. Nobody can say that one is safer than the other. They just cannot."
I entirely agree with that; but that applies in the air. From an operating point of view, that is perfectly true. But listen to what Mr. Hagrup says after that:
" The point is that if J.P.4 tends to become cheaper—it is not now, but it may become cheaper—then we must be ready for it."
I consider that remark to be very cynical, with no consideration for passengers, or anything at all; just a matter of whether it is cheaper. At present, it is about a farthing a gallon cheaper, which means, on a trans-atlantic flight, £15. It might well become a penny cheaper, and the difference would then be £60. Spread over 120 passengers, that is not a lot extra to pay for added safety. That is what I put in my Motion —"What price safety?". How much are we prepared to pay for the little extra safety it gives when there is the question of a crash? That is what we have to consider.
Your Lordships may well ask: what are we to do about this? The question is: what can we do about it? The great British companies behave themselves, and are an example to the world. The offenders—I name them, and I am not afraid to name them—are Sabena, T.W.A., Trans-Canada and Pan-American. They are the offenders. The oil companies are inclined to push them towards J.P.4 or petrol—for this reason: that, out of a barrel of oil you get more J.P.4 than you get kerosene. It is true to say that if all the air forces of the world used kerosene there would be a shortage, but it is up to the oil corn-panics to produce more kerosene out of a barrel of oil. So far, they are concentrating, by cracking, only on getting very high-volatile spirits for motor cars and such like. That is one of the urges that are going on to-day.
The Government could not possibly say that it is dangerous to fly any of these machines on petrol. That would be quite ridiculous, because more than half of the airplanes of to-day, of the piston type, fly quite satisfactorily on petrol. They cannot therefore do that. In fact, putting myself in the position of the unfortunate Minister who has to

237
reply, I can see nothing that can be done. But what I do say is that it is a good thing to have this question voiced in this House, because passengers may realise that this danger exists. And if, when they buy their tickets, they would ask whether they were to be flown on petrol or kerosene, that would have a very big effect upon the running of the airlines by the operators.
If the, Government were prepared to go so far as to say that, within the very narrow limits of 'what I have been speaking about—that is, the danger of spilt fuel when there has been a ground accident—there is extra danger in using petrol instead of kerosene that would be, to me, quite satisfactory. Because if they said that, then that statement would hang over the head of any operator using J.P.4, and it would indeed be a very unpleasant situation to be faced with at any inquiry into a catastrophe concerning fire. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
5.16 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, the noble Lord, not for the first time in his distinguished life, has followed an individual path; but on this occasion, I hope, this individual path, this rather lonely battle which he has been fighting, will become less lonely. It is a fact that he has fought this particular battle with surprisingly little support and surprisingly little reaction from people who ought, think, to have jumped in on the cause in which he has interested himself. We have an opportunity to-day in this House, and the Government have an opportunity, to make a contribution— not a very spectacular one (the noble Lord was extremely moderate in the presentation of his case), but a contribution to safety which may, sooner than we think, and certainly at some time, be responsible for saving some people's lives.
I think it is clear that the use of this alternative fuel—J.P.4 or petrol, or whatever we may want to call it—is not essential. The noble Lord has dealt with some of the arguments that have been used. I have heard of other arguments. It has been argued, even, that there is a danger of kerosene being less satisfactory at very great heights; and it is true that, under certain conditions, there may be little to choose between them from a safety point of view. But it is not in regard to those conditions that we are
238
concerned: it is simply on this narrow point of a minor accident on the ground.
I am sure your Lordships all remember the first Comet crash before the disasters that really overtook the Comet which were essentially design disasters—the crash, I think at Rome Airport, where the Comet either overran or the nose-wheel collapsed and there were thousands of gallons of kerosene spread over the ground. At that time, the newspapers all pointed to the fact that on this occasion the passengers escaped because they had the advantage of flying in an aircraft, a modern jet, which was fuelled by kerosene. It seems extraordinary that we should contemplate for one moment throwing away the advantage that this fuel gives us. It is all the more surprising because the gains to the operators, in financial terms or in operational use, from using other fuel are so very marginal. They are marginal in the way that the noble Lord has said, when one compares the millions of pounds spent annually on maintenance, repairs and depreciation in a modern airline with the few thousand extra pounds, at the outside, which would be spent on using a safe fuel.
My Lords, the days of speed or of unrestricted competition in transport are gone. The public demand safety. They would not even tolerate some of the habits in some of the great railway races of the last century. Let us consider an alternative proposition. Suppose somebody came along and said that it would be cheaper, and aircraft would be faster, if they were to use yet another fuel—something which is, I agree, not practicable—like high-test peroxide or one of the really unstable fuels. We should all laugh at the suggestion. But because these two fuels are so narrowly separated, it seems possible they may use the more dangerous, as the noble Lord has mentioned, whenever they think they can get away with it. We do not think they are mischievous or unconcerned; they have merely decided—a hard, operational decision, they might argue—that they must use what, to them, seems the most efficient fuel. I am sorry that no one has yet taken up the noble Lord's challenge. It would be a pleasant spectacle to see the noble Lord standing in the middle of his 40 gallons of kerosene tossing matches around. We can all think of other people who might be candidates for the other test!

239
This seems to me to be an absolutely clear-cut case. When we are spending such prodigious sums to-day on safety, when every day we read in the newspapers of some particular Safety Campaign, it is astounding that the newspapers, who claim, at any rate, that they have the public interest at heart, have not taken this matter up. I think this is an occasion when this House should give a lead, and I hope that the noble Earl who is to reply will give that lead. We appreciate that it may not be possible for him to say everything we want him to say, but we hope that he will at least make it clear that he is going to do something about it and make further representations, because I suspect that this is not the last time we shall hear from the noble Lord on this subject. I must say that the noble Lord will find a growing team of supporters who will accompany him, if necessary, on his special test-piece to prove the case that he is making.
This is an urgent matter. It is not one that we ought to spend a long time over, but it is something about which the Government ought, I believe, to make representations, whether through I.A.T.A. or through publicity of one kind or another. And, above all, they should make a really forthright declaration that they strongly support the policy followed by British airlines in using a safer fuel; that they deplore the presence on British airports of aircraft which do not use the safer fuel; and that they will, if necessary, bring pressure to bear on, or at least have talks with, the oil companies to find out what the true facts are with regard to any drive they may be making to use J.P.4. In particular, we should like to know how far the R.A.F. are using an unsafe fuel. I do not want to pursue that subject to-day, because we realise that we cannot go so far as we should like. But we should like to know, for instance, whether Transport Command are using J.P.4, or whether they are using kerosene.
LORD BRABAZON OF TARA: Kerosene.
LORD SHACKLETON: The noble Lord has answered my question. If Transport Command are using kerosene, this seems to strengthen our case.
240
One of the most famous of last words among householders in days when fires would not light was, "Put a little paraffin on the fire". Provided it ignited at once it was not too dangerous. The danger with paraffin on those occasions was that it filled the room with an inflammable gas and ignited later. But it was far more dangerous when people put paraffin on a fire, and then found that it was not paraffin but petrol. I have known this happen with Primuses on expedition, as well as in people's houses. Yet we are prepared to play, not with small quantities of fuel, but with these vast amounts which the noble Lord has mentioned. I am sure your Lordships will expect a very forthright answer from the Government; and I am also sure that your Lordships will agree that the noble Lord, again not for the first time in his remarkable career, has rendered a service to the community.
5.25 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, put his case very mildly indeed. In some ways I think he put it too mildly. He certainly did not exaggerate it and use language which, like petrol, was inflammatory. The position, as I see it, is that it is largely a question of safety against availability. The noble Lord has said that he thinks the reason that there has been no support for him in his campaign is that the Press, having in mind its advertisers, did not like to offend either the oil companies or the aircraft companies. I should think that perhaps this is an unfair attack to make on the Press; at least, I hope it is. I, for one, cannot believe that the Press as a whole would, for those reasons fail to report a matter of this importance. I think the reason is that, as the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, has said, no one came forward to support the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara. As I will tell your Lordships in a minute, I had very much the same difficulty, and it is because of that that the Press have probably held back.
So far as I am concerned—and, I have no doubt, so far as other Members of your Lordships' House are concerned — once the Motion was on the Order Paper we waited until it came up, so that we could give what views we have to your Lordships' House instead of expressing

241
them outside. I think that is the right course to take. There seems to be no doubt whatsoever that kerosene—the highly-refined kerosene which aircraft use in these turbine engines—is much safer than petrol when an aircraft crashes to the ground. I should have thought that that had been proved beyond any shadow of doubt. Indeed, when I had an official connection with the Department concerned with these matters, and one of the great virtues of jet and turboprop aircraft adduced in those early days was this very fact, that if an aircraft crashed on the ground it would be very much safer if kerosene were used. The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, has instanced several recent cases where there have been crashes with aircraft using kerosene, with few resultant fatalities, and in some cases no fatalities occurred. I can give him another instance where the same thing happened, and that was the case of the South African Boeing 707 which crashed in Nairobi and which the noble Lord probably remembers.
My Lords, I gather that the R.A.F. do not any longer use the J.P.4 petrol; they use kerosene. Also, the Fleet Air Arm will not allow any J.P.4 on a carrier; they insist on kerosene being used. So it looks, at all events, as if the Service Departments, the Admiralty and R.A.F., arid the two State Corporations, are quite satisfied about the safety of kerosene. That is, I imagine, a great mark in its favour. But it is not only kerosene and petrol which are at issue. There are other fluids in aircraft. For instance, there is the hydraulic brake fluid. There are non-inflammable brake fluids, but, for some reason, quite a number of operators will not use them but instead insist on using an inflammable brake fluid. These may be quite as dangerous, in some ways, as the fluids of propulsion which the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, has mentioned.
I have been trying to find out why companies insist on using J.P.4 petrol. It is so obvious to us, why is it not obvious to them, that kerosene should he used? It is very difficult to find out, but I understand that it is not so much a question of price—indeed, very little a question of price— as of availability. It appears that the oil companies have not organised a world-wide supply of kerosene, as they have organised a world-
242
wide supply of petrol, and therefore it is often difficult for operators to obtain kerosene in places where they would like to do so.
Why are the oil companies not organising this world-wide supply? That is the real question that we have arrived at in our process of elimination. Is it more expensive? Is it more difficult? Why are the oil companies taking up this attitude? If it is just a question of saving money on their part, it would be perfectly dreadful to think that they were risking the lives of people in this way for the saving of what, to them, must be a comparatively small sum. If that is so, I think it would 'be worthy of our greatest condemnation. But we have not heard their point of view, and I think they are entitled to tell us why they do not make kerosene available on the world-wide scale that is desired.
I suggest to the noble Earl that he holds an inquiry—if he wishes, a departmental inquiry; I do not mind what sort it is so long as it is held by competent people and so long as its results are published. I have had great difficulty in getting any of the authorities concerned to give me any facts upon this subject. The position in the minds of many of the authorities is not so clear-cut as we have put it to-day. When I asked questions they hedged their answers around with all sorts of qualifications. There was this and that to be considered. And I could not get any of the authorities officially to come out into the open, although they would sometimes do so unofficially.
Here is the view that I got from the aircraft insurance companies. One would think that they were pretty well concerned in this matter. I have cut down what was said because it was rather lengthy, but I do not think I am doing them an injustice. This is what they told me this morning. The insurance companies will support Government regulations, while reserving the right to make their own estimate of risk in fixing rates. So far, they have not noted firm rules as to the difference between fuels in air safety. Secondly, accidents lately suggest that in survivable crashes more people have continued to survive when kerosene is used. Thirdly, it is too early to say whether the situation is due to inherent physical difficulties, as so many complex factors are involved in

243
ignition. Fourthly, since fire and survivorship are only two of the factors in overall airline risk rating, so far these factors by themselves have not made any significant changes to premium rates. That is the considered opinion of the insurance people.
In these circumstances, and in view of the fact that I have not been able to get clear-cut opinions from the authorities I have consulted, I suggest to the Minister that he would be doing a great service to airline operators, to the oil companies, to the travelling public and to the crews as well, if he held an inquiry on the lines I have suggested, so that we can clear up the facts, and the public, the authorities and the crews alike will know exactly what the risks are.
5.35 p.m.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, has rightly asked the question: what price safety? But I do not think that we should single out one particular factor involving the safety of passengers. Whenever one boards an aircraft there is an element of risk, and this risk is made up of a number of considerations. The type of fuel can be one of these considerations, but there are others, such as climatic conditions, possible mechanical failures, certain stresses that may develop, associated with metal fatigue. And these considerations cannot be overlooked. I think that they all form part of the risk in flying nowadays.
All forms of travel carry a certain risk—safety ratio, if I may put it that way. No doubt, due to conditions of taking off and landing, and to the simple fact that in the case of difficulty in midair one cannot just halt an aircraft and remain poised there, flying has a higher risk-safety ratio than earth-bound forms of travel. In matters of safety in modern means of travel, I agree that ail reasonable precautions should be taken; but, as in all things, a proper balance has to be maintained. One body of opinion may stress one aspect of safety precautions, while another body of opinion may consider some other aspect to be a greater risk.
If I may, I would quote some examples which have a certain bearing on the matter in hand. It has been stated that Transport Command use kerosene when
244
operating from this country, but it is equally true to say that they are prepared to use kerosene or J.P. fuel, and it may well be that abroad they would use the other fuel. The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, referred to availability. I am advised that the question of availability has something to do with the siting of refinery plants. Another aspect of safety is rearward-facing seats. Transport Command Britannias are fitted with these, while Comets are fitted with forward-facing seats. In all these matters there are various elements which affect safety, and they can be viewed from different angles. For instance, with regard to airlines, Air France planes will take on J.P. fuel only if kerosene is not available, and at the first possible opportunity will empty the tanks of the aircraft and take on kerosene. On the other hand, Trans-Canada Air Lines use exclusively J.P.4 fuel in their D.C.8 aircraft and in their Viscounts. With regard to the latter aircraft, the Viscount, these have been in service since 1955 with conspicuous success. There are other airlines—for instance, Sabena, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, Pan-American Airways and T.W.A.—which use either fuel.
In the last few months the technical Press has rightly been devoting a number of columns to the fuel aspect of safety. There is a body of opinion that believes, with regard to the Mexican D.C.8 airliner which crashed on the night of 19–20th January, when taking off from Idlewild Airport, that had the aircraft been using J.P.4 fuel the number of passengers who would have escaped may not have been so great. But that has not been proved.
LORD SHACKLETON: Would the noble Lord tell the House also whether there is any body of opinion that takes a different view from that?
LORD MERIVALE: What I am trying to stress is that in this case it has not been proved that if the aircraft had burned J.P.4 fuel a similar number of passengers would not have escaped, because, in effect, the aircraft exploded; and I understand from Press reports that it exploded when passengers were within 50 feet of the aircraft. I am only saying that it has not been proved that had the aircraft been fuelled with J.P.4 a

245
similar number of passengers would not have escaped. But, unfortunately, some of the aircrew—four I believe—were burned to death. The point I am trying to make is that there is no evidence available that had J.P.4 been used, a similar number of people would not have escaped.
Also on the question of safety, who can assess or deny the effect of taking off under conditions of a blinding snowstorm on the safety of the aircraft? It is not long ago that a B.E.A. Viscount was completely burnt out at London Airport. But in that case it was not the fuel that was responsible; it was the fluid of the hydraulics system which ignited on spurting out after the crash. Therefore, I think there is insufficient evidence available to dictate to the airlines whether they should use one fuel or another. I think it should be left to them to decide which fuel they wish to acquire, but, naturally, in consultation with the research departments of the main petroleum companies.
With regard to one or two of these companies, the official reaction of the one approached first, a British company with Dutch affiliations, was, "No comment." An American supplier was more forthcoming, and thanks to their co-operation I was able to appreciate the extensive research carried out and to note that particular care was taken by their research and engineering section to bring to the attention of the airlines concerned the important variations in the fuel properties that exist between the fairly light J.P.4 and the heavier kerosene.
I do not wish to weary your Lordships with technical details, but this comparison, which was based on a world-wide fuel survey, went into such aspects as energy content, burning quality, inflammability limits, cleanliness, static electricity and flashpoint. Here I should like to quote an extract from one of their journals, which is headed, "Some important characteristics of aviation kerosene and J.P.4." The writer says:
" The differences of particular interest to an airline are in the energy available from the fuel, the combustion quality of the fuel, its inherent cleanliness properties and the safety considerations associated with flammability limits and with unusual ignition sources."
246
Therefore, I think it can be said that the petroleum companies have taken this question very seriously, and I should imagine that the advice they can give to the airlines on this matter is of the greatest importance. I believe it is right that the airlines, with that technical information which is available to them from highly qualified persons, should be allowed to decide for themselves what they prefer to do.
The question of the economic aspect has been touched on by other noble Lords, but, as is mentioned in the editorial of Flight on January 13 of this year, a significant economic factor which must be borne in mind, apart from the question of cost, is that operations are more often weight-limited—that is payload—than tank-limited. As has been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, J.P.4 does give off more heat energy—I believe in the region of 100 B.T.U.s per lb. Another important economic point, I feel, is that a far greater proportion of J.P.4 is extracted from crude oil. For instance, Saharan crude has a surplus of the lighter fractions; that is to say, petrol. That is an economic consideration. Other crudes will have various proportions, and all that has a bearing on the economic position. I assume, therefore, that if there were an exclusive demand for kerosene it might tend to put up the prices of this fuel. So it would seem to me, as I have said, that the airlines should be free to decide, so that a natural balance can establish itself; that is to say, a balance which would be regulated by normal supply and demand.
Finally there is one point on which I heartily agree with the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara. I do not think that many passengers take into account fuel considerations when they are booking a seat on board a plane, but in view of the noble Lord's Motion, I am wondering whether airlines might consider advising travel agents as to which aircraft, on the one hand, carry rearward-facing seats, which is a safety factor, and, on the other, which aircraft or flights carry the lighter or heavier spirit.
5.50 p.m.
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, it must surely be one of the greatest advantages of your Lordships' House that an expert such as the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, can come here and, without fear

247
or favour, give his opinion to your Lordships, and, indeed, to the whole of the world. Before I go further, I must say that I regret that at some points my speech has to be a little technical, but I will be as non-technical as possible.
The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, who has initiated this debate, fully realises that there will be people throughout the world who will be awaiting the opinion of Her Majesty's Government with regard to the content that my noble friend has brought forward. I want to congratulate the noble Lord upon bringing this matter before your Lordships. We all know that he has devoted a lifetime to the service of aviation and to the aircraft industry, and, as he has told us, he is now Chairman of the Air Registration Board. I want to congratulate him and his comrades on the Board on the great services they have given, in particular, to the interests of safety in the air. We know that the noble Lord is also the holder of the first pilot's certificate issued by the Royal Aero Club, and I have no doubt that, remembering those days, my noble friend specifically brought out the hazards which face the pilot of a great commercial aircraft in these modern times. The noble Lord has a reputation for being forthright and for saying exactly what he believes. No one, if I may say so, navigates the slippery slopes of expert argument with greater precision, gallantry or success than the noble Lord, whether in your Lordships' House or in many places overseas.
For the Record, I must make quite clear the differences between three fuels which have been mentioned in your Lordships' House to-day because, unfortunately, the terms that have been used mean many different things to our friends overseas, and to our competitors in the air transport field. First of all, there is the high-octane fuel which the piston engine uses. The noble Lord called this petrol, and he went on mentioning petrol. For that reason, I must make these differences plain. High octane fuel is really a super high-grade motor car fuel. I am going to call it gasolene. I regret that term but, unfortunately, to our friends, particularly on the other side of the Atlantic, gasolene does mean and does include this particular type of piston-engine fuel. Unfortunately petrol
248
does not mean the same thing to them or to many other people. So when I say "gasolene", I mean piston-engine fuel.
The next fuel that we deal with—and this is what we are really concerned with in the noble Lord's Motion—is turbine-engine fuel, either paraffin or kerosene. Those are slightly different, and I am going to use all through my speech the term J.P.1, which your Lordships will have heard the noble Lord use at times. J.P.1 is really aeronautical paraffin. The second type of fuel (and this is the fuel with which the noble Lord is especially concerned) is what our American friends call wide-cut gasolene; which is different from petrol as we know it; different from gasolene as the Americans know it and different also from kerosene—in other words, J.P.1. In English language it would be somewhere between the lowest grade of motor car petrol and what we call paraffin. For aviation purposes it is called J.P.4, and I shall always refer to it as J.P.4 when I mean this wide-cut gasolene.
There are differences in the two fuels. The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, and the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, described some of them. The main points your Lordships will be interested in is that J.P.1—that is, the paraffin-type fuel —has a higher flash-point, as it is called, than J.P.4. That means that J.P.1 needs a higher temperature to make it burn and, because of this, normally burns much more slowly. That is really the difference between the two fuelswith which the noble Lord is concerned, and it was the difference of burning of which he gave such a dramatic demonstration upon television. Nevertheless, as the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, showed, J.P.4 is claimed to be more reliable—an element of safety in aircraft operation—in certain technical circumstances. One of these circumstances is claimed to be in conditions of cold. It is also claimed that J.P.4 has a higher output of heat per pound weight of fuel carried. That is also claimed to be a very important technical advantage with regard to modern aircraft.
I confirm that the difference in price is really negligible at present. The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, mentioned this point in his speech, but there is only a negligible difference. Only in certain places is it

249
difficult to get one fuel or the other. In most aerodromes both fuels are available.
LORD OGMORE: That is not quite the point. What these companies are afraid of is that there is not a worldwide availability in sufficient quantities—that is to say, if everyone were to use it. That, I gather, is their fear.
EARL BATHURST: That could be so if everybody used it. However, if that should happen, no doubt it would be possible to make more of it. As the noble Lord has made that interruption I will go on to a point I was going to mention later. B.O.A.C., who are probably one of the largest users of such fuel, find no difficulty at all, I am informed, in obtaining it at all the major aerodromes. It is where airlines operate principally from the Service aerodromes that there may be difficulty. I confirm what the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, has said; that jet engines run perfectly well with equal operational safety on either of these two fuels, J.P.1 or J.P.4. I think it is an important point to emphasise to ordinary air travellers. In fact, there is no reason at all, in so far as operational safety is concerned, why these two fuels should not be mixed together. Sometimes they may have to be mixed, and it makes no difference to the safety of the operation of those engines, as indeed the noble Lord told us. It is the narrow view of the crash which the noble Lord has described that we are concerned with to-day—the crash where large quantities of fuel are spilled and yet passengers live. The question is, which fuel is going to give them the greater chance of escape before there is burning or before there is an explosion?
The first point which all airlines and air operators have to bear in mind in considering this problem is that all fuels used in aircraft engines are highly inflammable and represent a potential fire hazard. In normal operation the actual risk to the passengers and crew has been almost eliminated by careful attention to the design and construction of the aircraft that is where the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, and his Board are especially concerned, as he described. Piston-engined aircraft, which must use gasolene, still exist in very large numbers throughout the world.
250
I was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, to give a lead. I do not think he will expect me exactly to go the full way that he would like me to do, but I should like him to note the words I am going to say next, because I believe that when they are considered they are as strong a lead as I can possibly give to your Lordships to-night, All British operators use J P.1, together wih the major world airlines. Only a few foreign airlines use J.P.4 for some of their operations with turbine aircraft. There is no difficulty to B.O.A.C. in obtaining the J.P.1 that I have described. If that is the opinion of our two great airlines with the support of my right honourable friend, that goes a fair way, I think your Lordships will agree, in giving the opinion of Her Majesty's Government with regard to this question which the noble Lord has brought up. However, I agree with the noble Lord that there is no appreciable difference in safety as between the two types of fuels while in actual flight; and the noble Lord described the reasons for that.
I have indicated, as the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, also indicated, that there are various technical arguments for and against the use of J.P.1 and J.P.4. These arguments are derived from the known properties of the two fuels and the empirical evidence of known accident cases, where the use of J.P.1 has appeared to give the better chance of survival. The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, described some of those accidents most graphically.
It is clear that this is a subject of great technical complexity, and the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, mentioned some of those problems about which there is still considerable controversy among aviation experts. This has been shown by the considerable space given to the matter in aviation magazines and in the Press in recent months in articles concerning the respective merits of the two fuels. With your Lordships' approval, I will place in the Library the fully collected cuttings that have appeared in the technical Press and other places with regard to these two fuels. The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, and the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, mentioned how difficult it is to get hold of both sides of the argument, and I think probably this is the first time it will have been done,

251
to have both sides in one sheaf. I much regret that it was not possible to have these in the Library before, but I am afraid that I removed the only copies available.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, may I intervene? I did not say that the difficulty was in getting hold of the argument, but in getting anybody to make up his mind and give a definite opinion.
EARL BATHURST: I think I have given a pretty considered opinion about what B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. and other English operators consider. When the noble Lord sees these articles he will see that there are pros and cons; and I have mentioned some of the difficulties with regard to J.P.4.
LORD SHACKLETON: Perhaps I may interrupt the noble Earl. I was not quite sure whether he had finished giving the lead he had promised. Have we now had the lead, in the sense of the Government's opinion on this matter?
EARL BATHURST: The noble Lord has had the lead; I think I made it quite clear that the opinion of B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. and the other operators—backed by my right honourable friend; obviously it must be backed by my right honourable friend—was that they would not be carrying out the policy complained of. The noble Lord will hear a little more in a moment or two.
In view of the technical controversy that we have just been talking about, which has still to be resolved, we must be careful in making premature judgments on the evidence which is at the moment available, and some of that evidence will be seen in those cuttings. An empirical study of accident cases, however, does point to the probability that in certain cases where passengers have survived impact J.P.1. has afforded a better chance of escape, either because it has not ignited —that is, the fuel has not ignited—or because the spread of the fire has been slow; and that is exactly the point the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, so dramatically demonstrated. That is the second part, I think, of the lead showing the way my right honourable friend is thinking. In a moment I think the noble Lord will see that there will be another,
252
too, in conjunction with the opinion of the noble Lord.
This tentative conclusion must be tempered by the fact that the number of these accident cases is too small to provide convincing statistical evidence in favour of J.P.1. And I certainly hope, my Lords, that we shall never have an accident to a plane using J.P.4. with such results as the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara and others of your Lordships envisage. That would be tragic. Many cases are known where piston engines using gasolene, which is probably more dangerous in these conditions than either J.P.4. or J.P.1., have crashed heavily and yet have not burst into flames. That is not an inexplicable point. It has happened many times, as your Lordships are aware, that an aeroplane using this gasolene has not burst into flames. But far be it from me to use that as a reason why the noble Lord's experiment should not be of vital interest regarding the two fuels, J.P.1 and J.P.4. Amid this welter of technical argument and counter-argument which has abounded in the present controversy, perhaps the only conclusion which the average air passenger can draw is that the J.P.1 fuel has, as the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, has dramatically demonstrated to us on television, a theoretical safety advantage over J.P.4 in the limited type of crash which the noble Lord considered to-day. It is significant that in a statement in the Aeroplane, a technical magazine, on January 6, a spokesman for one of the major airlines using J.P.4 also agreed with this conclusion, but in the following words:
" In the type of accident that results in fuel being spilt on the ground J.P.4 is more likely to ignite if there is a spark above it than kerosene, and this is all that Lord Brabazon is talking about."
That is a point of view. The article then went on to say
"Unfortunately it is far from the whole picture."
Then the writer advances the various technical counter-arguments, some of which the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, has put forward.
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, is not that the kind of argument which history records was used against the Plimsoll Line?
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, I have not said whether I agree with this argument or not. I am saying only that there is a most technical argument taking place and that there are always two technicians with two different ideas. I should not like it to be thought that the case is simple or clear-cut, as possibly might be thought from the results of the noble Lord's dramatic experiments. It is much more complicated, and that is why I beg to put that piece of evidence on the other side before your Lordships.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, may I intervene for just one moment? I think the noble Earl was not doing the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, full justice just now in saying that the quotation he read out said that the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, was concerned solely with the likelihood of ignition. I do not think the noble Lord was concerned solely with the likelihood of ignition; he was also much concerned with the rate of spread of the fire if there was an ignition. His point was that if there is an ignition kerosene causes a much slower rate of spread of fire.
EARL BATHURST: I thank the noble Lord for what he has said. I hope he appreciates that in what I read out it is not myself speaking; that is an expert opinion from the other side. It is exactly what the noble Lord is saying—that is the opinion of the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara. For that reason, I think the noble Lord will be pleased with what I have to say in a few moments.
With the high approach and take-off speeds of jet aircraft which the noble Lord mentioned, these types of accidents are likely to occur at take-off and landing with a heavy load of fuel. Due to the public interest and concern, largely due to the words and actions of the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, the Government have carefully considered the argument that in these limited circumstances—that is, in the circumstances of an accident such as the noble Lord described, and the circumstances which the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, mentioned just now—J.P.1 fuel may have a safety advantage over J.P.4.
The Government have also consulted the Air Registration Board, whose statutory duty it is to advise the Minister on airworthiness and safety matters, as indeed the Board's Chairman has just told
254
us. The Council of the Board have recommended to my right honourable friend in the terms that the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, has already mentioned. However, the Board recognise that, in certain limited circumstances only, after an accident has occurred, J.P.1 may offer better prospects of escape. This is the considered advice of the Board. That, with the limited evidence at present available, has therefore led Her Majesty's Government to conclude that there is a prima facie case that in certain limited circumstances after an accident has occurred the use of J.P.1 fuel may offer the better prospect of escape to passengers who have survived the impact, because of its lower volatility and higher flash-point. That is exactly, in technical words, what the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, has just said.
I think there is a third lead which the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, will be pleased with—at least, I dare to hope so—and, above all, that the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, may be pleased with. It must be remembered, however, that considered statements by some of the airlines using J.P.4 have said that in certain conditions J.P.1 is less safe than J.P.4, and that, taking all factors into account, J.P.4 is the safer and the more reliable fuel. That goes against what the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, said, but it is derived from some of the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I do not think I dealt with that point at all. I do not recall dealing with the in-the-air comparison between J.P.I. and J.P.4 at all. I will look at Hansard, but that is not my recollection.
EARL BATHURST: The noble Lord gave me the impression that he did not believe that there were any factors in favour of this J.P.4 fuel.
LORD OGMORE: I said that there were no factors in favour of J.P.4 as compared with J.P.1 when it came to a crash on the ground; that was the point I was making. After all, this is the limit which the noble Lord has to some extent introduced into this debate. We are not discussing the relative factors in the air.
EARL BATHURST: I am afraid that there are many factors. I am only trying to do my best to draw the attention of

255
the noble Lord to what experts on the other side of the J.P.1 fence have to say with regard to this other fuel.
LORD OGMORE: I am much obliged. The noble Earl has been most courteous. I just want to say that it is not my argument. I do not say that it is not an argument, but it is not mine. It was for this very reason that I asked for an inquiry. I think that is the only way to settle it.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, we fully conceded that of course there are factors in the air that had been put forward. The noble Lord mentioned that and I mentioned it. I wonder whether we can be told what the arguments are in favour of J.P.4 from a safety point of view in the air?
EARL BATHURST: That would be a most technical thing to have to do. But one of the arguments in favour—I do not by any means say that it is an overwhelming one—is in regard to water in J.P.4. There is much less water, and therefore much less to freeze. Therefore there is less likelihood of a filter blocking. There is also the argument that there are little bits deposited inside the fuel tank in J.P.1, rather than in J.P.4. There is also static electricity, which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale. I mention that only in deference to the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton. But I am quite certain that the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, was not convinced that there was anything in favour of J.P.4, and it was for that reason that I brought his name in, to do my best to show him that there are, in fact, technical opinions on the other side.
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, the noble Earl would agree, I suppose, that the factors which he has mentioned do not prevent either B.O.A.C. or B.E.A. from using J.P.1?
EARL BATHURST: It is the opinion of B.E.A. and B.O.A.C. and that of other operators. Far be it from me to say that that is the only opinion that exists. I do not think I can go further in regard to what other operators may do. I can only put forward an indication of the factors with regard to the two fuels. After that digression, in view of this prima facie case which I have mentioned
256
in favour of J.P.1, and in order to verify the precise significance or size of this possible safety margin, which the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, has mentioned, in favour of J.P.1., the Minister of Aviation has decided that further technical studies will be necessary to establish the actual position. These studies are now being put in hand. I think they will go a long way to please the noble Lord. Lord Ogmore, and also the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, who mentioned an inquiry. I cannot say how long this will take, or how the results can be published; but no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, will not be slow in putting down a Question in due course with regard to that.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, this is a most important statement which the noble Earl is making, as he and we all realise. It is most important to all of us to know, first of all, that there is to be an inquiry—he can, if he likes, call it a study; it is the same thing—by competent people (as I am sure they will be); and secondly, that the results will be published. I think that is equally vital. If the noble Lord would go so far as to say that, it would be most comforting to us.
EARL BATHURST: I will go so far as to say it is going to be a most detailed technical study, and my right honourable friend has himself personally instituted this study which is about to take place at this moment. With regard to publication, I would rather the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, asked a Question on that at a reasonable time in the future.
Her Majesty's Government also considered whether any immediate action is necessary, either nationally or internationally. As I have already said, no British operator is using J.P.4 except on the very rare occasions when J.P.1 is not available. Therefore, there is no need for my right honourable friend unnecessarily to use his regulatory powers with regard to the issue of a certificate of airworthiness for aircraft registered in this country. The Air Registration Board will continue to recommend for certification to the Minister aircraft fitted with turbine engines using either J.P.1 or J.P.4: and as I have indicated, and as the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, mentioned, that is perfectly safe during flying operations.

257
A further important consideration in reaching this decision was that refusal to certify British manufactured turbine engines for use with either fuel might adversely affect the export of aircraft and engines to countries where J.P.4 is in use. It had also to be borne in mind that on rare occasions on world routes aircraft may be forced to use J.P.4 because J.P.1 is not available. That point was covered by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore.
With regard to the international situation, Her Majesty's Government have no powers, except those of persuasion, over the choice of fuels by foreign airlines. The Government have raised this issue informally at recent conferences of the International Civil Aviation Organisation which the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, mentioned, and tried to stimulate interest among representatives of other countries, but without finding any positive support. In the present climate of opinion among international aviation authorities and foreign airlines, it is clear that any attempt by this country to secure effective international action will depend principally on whether the detailed technical analysis which my eight honourable friend the Minister of Aviation is to carry out enables us to present to I.C.A.O., the international body, and to world air lines a more convincing case than can be presented at the moment. The Government will, however, pending the Outcome of these technical studies and whenever it is possible, do their best to explore international opinion on the possibilities of international action, on the lines I have indicated.
In finishing, I want to thank the noble Lord and those who have participated in this debate. I thank the noble Lord for bringing this vital subject, a subject of life and death for the future. before your Lordship? House. I assure the noble Lord that his efforts do not go in vain. As I have indicated, it is a subject at present uppermost in the mind of my right honourable friend.
6.24 p.m.
LORD BRABAZON OF TARA: My Lords, I should like to thank very much noble Lords who have rallied round me in this particular debate, and especially the noble Lords, Lord Shackleton and Lord Ogmore. Lord Ogmore brought up a point which I must say slipped my mind: that of availability. which in this particular case is a very good one. But the noble Lord said I attacked the Press. I did not mean to do so in any way. I have never accused them of any unworthy motives in this matter. All I wanted to point out was that they were in great difficulties and consequently did not quite know what to do.
The noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, made a very interesting speech but not actually about the subject; because the subject is the very narrow one of spilled fuel in a ground crash, and we must not go outside that. I am very obliged to my noble friend Lord Bathurst. I must say I kept on thinking of what I should say were I in his shoes; and I could not have bettered what he said, because he slipped over the difficult ice in a most remarkable and accomplished way.
The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, asked me what were the points in favour of J.P.4. I could make my case, because I know the subject from both sides, but it is a question of the order of magnitude of the points. When we come to the experts they will say, "That point is in favour of this and this point is in favour of that". But what we poor passengers have to consider is: are we going to be burned when we arrive by a bad crash, or not? If paraffin is being used we have a chance of escape, but with J.P.4. there is "not a chance in hell", and no amount of inquiry or anything else will disabuse me of that conviction. I have pleasure in asking leave of the House to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at twenty-seven minutes past six o'clock.