Sitting of 30 January 1961

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  CARDIFF CORPORATION BILL [Lords]
  As amended, considered; Amendments made to the Bill; Bill to be read the Third time.
  BIRMINGHAM CORPORATION BILL
  Read a Second time and committed.
  BRITISH TRANSPORT COMMISSION BILL
  To be read a Second time Tomorrow.
  CLERICAL MEDICAL AND GENERAL LIFE ASSURANCE BILL
  Read a Second time and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  DARTFORD TUNNEL BILL
  Read a Second time and committed.]

  GREAT OUSE WATER BILL
  MANCHESTER CORPORATION BILL
  To be read a Second time Tomorrow.

  MERSEY TUNNEL BILL
  Read a Second time and committed.
  MIDDLESEX COUNTY COUNCIL BILL
  To be read a Second time Tomorrow.
  NEWPORT CORPORATION BILL
  To be read a Second time upon Wednesday.
  PORT OF LONDON BILL
    RIVER RAVENSBOURNE &C. (IMPROVEMENT AND FLOOD PREVENTION) BILL
    Read a Second time and committed.
  SHELL BRAZIL BILL
    STATIONERS AND NEWSPAPER MAKERS' COMPANY BILL
    Read a Second time and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  WINCHESTER CATHEDRAL CLOSE BILL
  Read a Second time and committed.
PETITION

  Housing, London
  Mr. Reynolds: I ask the leave of the House to present a Petition from many thousands of residents in North and East London, particularly 6,000 residents of my own constituency, which showeth that the housing position is extremely grave, that many thousands of families are forced to live in overcrowded conditions and that thousands of others in the area lack essential amenities.
  The Petition alleges that this is primarily due to the decontrol provisions of the Rent Act, 1957, the restrictive effects of Her Majesty's Government's housing policy, the very high interest rates charged both to local authorities and to the people who are endeavouring to become owner-occupiers by purchasing their own houses, 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.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

  SOUTH-WEST AFRICA (UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION)
  Mr. Callaghanasked the Lord Privy Seal how the United Kingdom delegate to the United Nations voted on the section of the resolution deprecating apartheid in South-West Africa, which was approved by 90 votes to nil with three abstentions.
  The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. D. Ormsby Gore): In the vote to which the hon. Member refers, the United Kingdom delegate abstained.
  Mr. Callaghan: Is there no explanation of the Government being once again one of the three nations which abstained, especially as the Government on 15th December accepted a Motion moved by myself agreeing to take action in the United Nations about the attitude of the South African Government? Is not this in line with what the Government are now doing about the landing of ratings at Gibraltar? How do the Government expect to command any respect in the country if every time they have the chance to stand up for decency they turn tail and run away?
  Mr. Ormsby Gore: If the hon. Member will read the resolution and the explanations of vote on the resolution, he will understand the matter very much better. I can assure him that nobody at the United Nations accepted his view that by abstaining on this resolution we were in any way encouraging the policy of apartheid.
  Mr. Callaghan: Is it not the case that 90 nations voted on this resolution and we were in company with France and Portugal as the only countries which abstained? Is it not a contemptible attitude for the Government to take?
  Mr. Ormsby Gore: I do not think that it is at all contemptible if we are in the right, and I believe that on this occasion we were in the right. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because the resolution dealt with a matter which, as the hon. Gentleman knows very well, had already been referred to the International Court by two African countries.

  ICELANDIC FISHERIES DISPUTE
  Mr. Wallasked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement on the negotiations with the Icelandic Government over fishing limits.
  Mr. Croslandasked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will make a statement on the progress of the negotiations with Iceland for a fisheries limits agreement.
  The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Edward Heath): Since my reply to the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) on 19th December, my noble Friend has had discussions with the Icelandic Foreign Minister. We remain in close touch with the Icelandic Government and await their views on the latest position. I regret that I cannot say more at present.
  Mr. Wall: Will my right hon. Friend agree that the industry has been very patient during the long period of negotiations? Will he also agree that any agreement, when reached, must show that the Icelandic Government do not propose some years hence to go beyond the 12 mile limit?
  Mr. Heath: I willingly pay tribute to the patience of the industry, which has now extended over a long period. The terms of any agreement to be reached are being negotiated at the moment.
  Mr. Crossland: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear the time factor in mind? Daring the last two months there has not been much danger of any incidents because there has been no fishing off Iceland, but the spring fishing season is about to begin and, unless skippers have clear instructions about what the position is, we shall once again be back to the old round of incidents.
  Mr. Heath: We are acutely aware that the onset of spring may well bring renewed dangers, and we have pointed that out very forcibly to the Icelandic Government.

  LAOS (SITUATION)
  Mr. Donnellyasked the Lord Privy Seal what reply Her Majesty's Government have sent to the communication they have received from the Chinese Government regarding Laos.
  Mr. Heath: No written reply has been made to the Chinese Foreign Minister's letters of 28th December and 15th January. Her Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires has personally explained our attitude to the Chinese Government and has given them a copy of the proposal for the return of the International Commission which we have made to the Soviet Government.
  Mr. Donnelly: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what is happening and if there is any further news about the proposal he has been making to the Soviet Government?
  Mr. Heath: No. We have as yet received no definite reply from the Soviet Government.
  Mr. Healey: In view of the very long delay which has unfortunately taken place since the Government first committed themselves to bring about a return of the International Commission to Laos, will not the Lord Privy Seal now consider supporting this demand for an intenational conference which, though it may take time to organise, could still come about before the International Commission gets back?
  Mr. Heath: The time taken up in the communications about the International Commission was in endeavouring to secure agreement between those involved. We are now awaiting a reply from the Soviet Government, and we very much hope that they will be in agreement. To start now on the second course of trying to get agreement about the conference will undoubtedly also take a certain time. Therefore, we are indeed hopeful that we may get agreement on the International Commission and get that under way.
  Mr. Healey: As the right hon. Gentleman admits that it may well take time to get the conference convened and since it is quite clear from what has transpired in the last few months that a final settlement in Laos will require a conference, would it not be wise now in any case to set the proceedings in motion so that the conference may be recalled?
  Mr. Rankin: On a point of order. Is there not a Question on this subject at No. 18?
  Mr. Speaker: I am sorry about this. I did not appreciate that that was the same point.
  Mr. Healey: It is not the same point. I did not refer to the Cambodian Government's proposals for a 14-nation conference. I referred simply to an international conference.
  Mr. Heath: We visualise that the International Commission will be able to get under way first. That is our desire.
  Mr. Mayhew: May I ask the Lord Privy Seal—
  Mr. Speaker: No. I think we must get on.
  Mr. Warbeyasked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a further statement on the situation in Laos following his proposal for the resummoning of the International Commission for Supervision and Control.
  Mr. Mayhewasked the Lord Privy Seal what replies he has received from the Soviet Government to his latest proposals for re-establishing the International Commission in Laos.
  Mr. Heath: Her Majesty's Government have not yet received the Soviet Government's considered comments on the proposals which we put to them on 21st January. There have been further exchanges of view with the Soviet Government, but they are still considering their reply.
  Mr. Warbey: Does the Lord Privy Seal appreciate that the right wing rebel, General Phoumi Nosavan, is now clearly determined to fight it out with the support of Siam, South Vietnam and the American military forces, and that in this situation there is a very grave danger of the whole conflict snowballing into one involving the Great Powers? Has it not now got beyond the bounds of something to be dealt with even by an International Commission? Will not the right hon. Gentleman consider the importance of urgently setting about preparing for the resummoning of the Geneva Conference powers?
  Mr. Heath: I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's account of events or of the present position. It is because of the danger involved in the situation in Laos

  569
  that we have been endeavouring as earnestly as we can to secure the return of the Commission.
  Mr. Mayhew: I do not in any way suggest that only one side is at fault in the dispute. Is not the Minister aware that this is an inordinately slow procedure which is being gone through? What is being assumed about the terms of reference of the International Commission? Is it being assumed that they will be the same as they used to be? Fresh terms of reference will be needed, and a conference will be needed for that also.
  Mr. Heath: These discussions are going on through diplomatic channels and have been pressed forward by Her Majesty's Government as hard as they could. On the nature of the discussions, the hon. Gentleman will not expect me la reveal the proposals made in the exchange of notes with the Soviet Ministers.
  Mr. Healey: Has the King of Laos agreed to the return of the Commission? Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that he does not consider that the agreement of the so-called Government of Prince Boun Oum is required before the Commission can return?
  Mr. Heath: We cannot get to the stage of the King of Laos having a request to receive the Commission until there has been general agreement that the Commission should be brought into being again and the necessary procedure has been gone through.
  Mr. Rankinasked the Lord Privy Seal the nature of the proposal he has received from the Government of Cambodia for a 14-nation conference on Laos; and what reply he has sent.
  Mr. Heath: Prince Sihanouk of Cambodia proposed in a letter to the Prime Minister dated 1st January that a conference of fourteen interested states should be held in a neutral Asian country in order to bring peace to Laos. My right hon. Friend replied in a letter dated 13th January. I will, with permission, circulate the correspondence in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  I understand that the Soviet and Chinese Governments have indicated that they agree with it and that the
  570
  French and American Governments have replied on similar lines to our own.
  Mr. Rankin: While awaiting the correspondence which the right hon. Gentleman proposes to circulate, in view of the fact that it now seems unlikely that the Control Commission will be reconvened, will not the right hon. Gentleman give his support to this proposal for a conference in view of the fact that it would include the nations on the Control Commission, the nations which were represented at Geneva and the nations in South-East Asia which are concerned in the Laotian problem?
  Mr. Heath: If the hon. Gentleman will read the Prime Minister's reply, he will see that he set out our attitude towards this proposal but also emphasised, as I have already told the House, a desire to see the Commission in action in order to bring about a cease fire in Laos. I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's statement that it is now unlikely that the Commission will be accepted. We must await the reply of the Soviet Government.
  Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: This correspondence having been disclosed, why has the Prime Minister made an exception to his rule that correspondence between heads of Government should be kept confidential?
  Mr. Heath: As my right hon. Friend found that his letter had been published in Cambodia, it was thought only right to make it available here.
  Following is the correspondence:
  Text of letter from His Royal Highness Prince Sihanouk, Head of State of Cambodia, to the Right Honourable Harold Macmillan, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, dated 1st January,1961.
  Monsieur le Président,
  Le Cambodge a pour rèle politique la non-ingérence dans les affaires intérieures des autres Etats et a toujours scrupuleusement respecté cet impératif de sa neutralité. 11 ne saurait pour autant demeurer indifférent devant la situation créée à ses frontiéres par la guerre civile qui fait rage au Laos et menace à tout instant de se transformer en conflit international.
  Je me permettrai, en ma qualité de Chef d'un Etat directement soumis aux conséquences des derniers événements du Laos, d'exposer à Votre Excellence les problémes posés au Cambodge par lévolution tragique de la crise laotienne, et les moyens que ie crois susceptibles d'être utilisés pour aider à leur solution.
  1) La conséquence la plus directe et la plus visible de la guerre civile au Laos est l'afflux de réfugiés laotiens dans notre Pays, réfugiés qui viennent s'ajouter aux sud-vietnamiens ayant trouvé asile au Cambodge depuis plusieurs années et dont le nombre ne cesse de croÎtre.
  Or, le Cambodge, pays pauvre qui travaille durement pour sortir de son état de sous-développement, n'est pas en mesure de subvenir aux besoins d'un nombre supérieur de réfugiés inactifs sans compromettre gravement son Plan Quinquennal et son avenir même.
  2) Plusieurs dirigeants éminents des Pays amis, ceux du camp occidental comme ceux du camp socialiste, m'ont fait part de leurs appréhensions devant les événements graves qui se déroulaient au Laos, événements qui, depuis lors, se sont, transformés en épreuve de force entre les partis en présence. De plus les puissances occidentales et socialistes s'accusent aujourd'hui réciproquement d'ingérences dans les affaires intérieures laotiennes, de soutien armé clandestin aux groupes rebelles, de participation effective à la guerre civile. Ce nouveau motif d'antagonisme entre les deux Blocs rivaux contribue à augmenter la tension internationale et à éloigner la détente que les petioles appellent de tous leurs voeux.
  3) Enfin le Cambodge estime de son devoir d'élever sa voix pour prendre la défense du Peuple frére du Laos dont l'existence est gravement menacée. 11 serait conforme à la Charte des Nations Unies, dans sa lettre et dans son esprit, comme au respect du droit des Pcuples à choisir leur régime et leur politique, de permettre au Peuple Lao d'exprimer sa volonté Dar des élections libres, en dehors des pressions et des influences étrangéres.
  Aucune Nation et aucun Peuple au monde ne peut demeurer insensible devant les souffrances d'un Peuple pacifique qui a recouvré son indépendance depuis quelques années et souhaite que lui soit reconnu le droit souverain de décider de son avenir.
  On doit reconnaitre que le Laos est aujourd'hui dans une impasse et que la force n'est pas à même de résoudre le probléme posé assez artificiellement par une division de ce malheureux Pays en plusieurs clans rivaux.
  Les conflits intérêsts idéologiques étrangers, voire les ingérences étrangères. dans le probléme actuel du Laos nous conduisent à penser qu'il serait souhaitable et urgent de réunir en une conférence tous les Pays qui ont manifesté leur intérê à l'avenir du Laos et du Peuple Lao. Cette conférence aurait pour but—étant formellement exclue une partition du territoire lao—de déterminer les moyens susceptibles de ramener la paix au Laos et de donner la possibilité au Peuple Lao d'exprimer clairement et librement son choix de la voie politique qu'il souhaite suivre.
  Une telle Conference pourrait, je pense, rassembler:
  — Les signataires des Accords de Genève de 1954, c'est-à-dire la France, la Grande Bretagne, l'Union des Républiques Socialistes Soviétiques, la République Populaire de Chine,
  572
  la République Démocratique du Vietnam, le Royaume du Cambodge et le Royaume du Laos
  — Les Nations ayant participé à la Com- mission internationale de Surveillance et de Contrôle desdits Accords de Genève, en l'occurence, la République Indienne, la République Populaire de Pologne, le Canada.
  II est en effect évident que la situation actuelle au Laos découle directement de la situation créée en Indochine par les Accords de Gèneve de 1954. Mais it est non moms évident que les signataires des Accords de Genève et les garants du respect de ces Accords ne peuvent être tenus pour seule responsables de la guerre civile lao.
  Je pense qu'il est indispensable qu'à cette Conférence projetée participent également les Nations ayant une frontière commune avec le Laos. suit: la Thailande, la République du Vietnam. I'Union de Birmanie. Enfin les Etats-Unis d'Amérique qui n'ont cessé de manifester leur intérêt pour le Royaume du Laos doivent impérativement être sollicités pour siéger de plein droit à cette Conférence.
  C'est dans un but totalement désintéressé que je me permets de présenter ce project de table ronde "à Votre Excellence en lui demandant de bien voulour me faire connaître son point de vue à ce sujet. ses objections, ses critiques ou ses suggestions éventuelles, et la suite qu'Elle estime devoir lui réserver.
  Je me garderai bien de préjuger de l'avenir de ce projet mais je pense que toute Nation qui refuserait la confrontation proposée perdrait une grande partie de son prestige moral et la confiance que lui accordent les petites nations afro-asiatiques.
  Enfin, qu'il me soit permis de préciser qu'une Celle Conférence devrait se réunir en territoire internationalement reconnu comme neutre. La Suisse répond certes à ces conditions mais son éloignement du coeur du problème rend souhaitable un choix portant sur une Nation asiatique également neutre.
  Je prie Votre Excellence d'agréer les assurances de ma très haute considération.
  Text of reply from the Right Honourable Harold Macmillan, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, to His Royal Highness Prince Sihanouk, Head of State of Cambodia, dated 13th January,1961.
  Monseigneur,
  I am most grateful for the personal message which Your Royal Highness has sent me about Laos. I particularly value your views on this matter which so closely affects your country. and I am convinced like Your Royal Highness that we must seek to resolve this problem by negotiation in order to avoid further conflict.
  I have studied most carefully the proposal for the convening of a special Conference, and I find it of great interest. I have also been reflecting carefully on the proposal which you made at the recent Assembly of the United Nations for a neutral zone in Laos and Cambodia. I feel sure that any Conference convened to deal with Laos would wish to give the full attention to this proposal which it undoubtedly deserves. The trouble is that it would take a considerable time to arrange

  573
  such a conference and to reach any measure of agreement in it, while in the meantime fighting and bloodshed in Laos would continue with the risk of increased intervention. I feel sure that the first thing must be to try and put a stop to the fighting, and the only method of doing this which appears to have the support of all parties is Mr. Nehru's proposal for the immediate return of the International Commission. I hope that you also feel that this should be our first step. I am working very hard to get general agreement on this course at present and I very much hope that the British Foreign Secretary will shortly be able to invite the Soviet Foreign Minister to join him in asking the Prime Minister of India to take the necessary steps. I should personally prefer to wait and see how the Commission gets on with its task before reaching any final conclusions about the holding and nature of a Conference.
  If at a later stage we feel that the time is ripe for a conference, I will certainly let you know.
  I have the honour to be, Monseigneur, your Royal Highness' obedient servant,
  Harold Macmillan.
  Mr. Rankinasked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will grant de jure recognition to the present Government of Laos.
  Mr. Heath: No formal act of de jure recognition is required.
  Mr. Rankin: If no formal act of de jure recognition is required, does it mean that we are now giving de facto recognition to this overthrow of a legitimate Government?
  Mr. Heath: De jure recognition is required only where there is a change of regime. In this case, the régime in Laos has been unchanged. Where the Government itself changes, then another Government enters into working arrangements with it, which is what we have done with the present Government in Laos.
  Mr. Healey: Has the Lord Privy Seal's attention been drawn to the recent Press conference in which the Minister of Education, speaking under the chairmanship of Prince Boun Oum, the Prime Minister of the so-called Government of Laos, admitted that reports recently circulated by the Laotian Government about the entry of Vietnam formations into Laos were totally false and had been circulated only in order to strengthen the morale of people of Laos? In view of this and many other similar facts, can the Lord Privy Seal assure the House that he will not consider the Government of Prince Boun Oum as the legal Government of Laos?
  Mr. Heath: That is a completely different question.
  Mr. S. Silverman: In connection with the recognition of any particular Government in this country, would the right hon. Gentleman reply to that part of the supplementary question asked him a little while ago by my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew), in which he asked about the terms of reference of the International Commission which the Government of Great Britain would like to see returned? Were not those original terms of reference to implement agreements reached at Geneva in 1954, and, as those agreements seem long ago to have been discarded, is it not the case, as my hon. Friend said, that new terms of reference would be desirable?
  Mr. Speaker: I do not see what that has to do with de jure recognition?

  ST. HELENA (BAHRAINI PRISONERS)
  Mr. Warbeyasked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a further statement on the three Bahraini citizens detained on St. Helena.
  Mr. Wyattasked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will make a further statement on the Bahraini prisoners now in St. Helena.
  Mr. Stonehouseasked the Lord Privy Seal what action he now proposes to take with regard to the three Bahraini political prisoners on St. Helena.
  Mr. Fletcherasked the Lord Privy Seal if he will now assure the House that the three Bahraini citizens imprisoned on St. Helena in respect of convictions before a special court in Bahrain will not be sent back to Bahrain without their consent.
  Mr. Heath: As the answer is long, I will, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, answer these Questions together at the end of Questions.

  PASSPORT PHOTOGRAPHS (MR. LEIGH VANCE)
  Mr. Brockwayasked the Lord Privy Seal whether he has completed his consideration of the factors involved in

  575
  the provision of passport photographs of British subjects to the police of foreign Governments; and what decision has now been made in this matter.
  Mr. Wyattasked the Lord Privy Seal why he made available for transmission to the French authorities a copy of a passport photograph of Mr. Leigh Vance.
  Mr. Heath: Passport photographs have in certain circumstances been supplied to the police and transmitted by them to police forces abroad for the purpose of investigating crime. In this case, I am informed that copies of the passport photographs of Mr. Leigh Vance were sent to the French police at their express request to investigate an alleged offence.
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I have reviewed the general practice and have decided that in future passport photographs made available to the police will be transmitted to police abroad only when required in connection with the investigation of offences within the Extradition Acts or, in the case of Commonwealth countries and the Colonies, within the Fugitive Offenders Act, 1881.
  Mr. Brockway: I greatly appreciate that response of the right hon. Gentleman, but may I ask him whether it is not wrong in principle that photographs which are supplied to the Government for the protection of citizens bearing passports should be handed over to the police of other countries for their prosecution, particularly when the police methods in those other countries in the use of the photographs would not be accepted in the practice of British justice?
  Mr. Heath: I do not think that the House would wish the use of these photographs to be denied where serious crime is involved. Under the new arrangement which I have just announced they would be so available. It is the fact, as announced on the passport form, that the photograph which is sent becomes the property of the Government. The balance between the individual and the use of the photograph for serious public purpose; is a difficult matter, but I hope that we have now struck the balance.
  Mr. Wyatt: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in this case Mr. Leigh Vance was advised by Scotland Yard not to send a photograph of himself? Nevertheless, the right hon. Gentleman's Department made one available to the French authorities. No charge could have been proceeded with if this had not been done, because the incident to which it referred took place many months ago. As a result, Mr. Leigh Vance has been put to considerable expense. As the new ruling would have prevented this considerable expense, will the right hon. Gentleman consider some compensation?
  Mr. Heath: I could not give any undertaking about the last part of the hon. Member's question. I have studied this matter and there is a slight difference in the account which was given of the discussion which took place about Mr. Vance sending a photograph himself. The subsequent part of the procedure—the police forwarding the photograph—was done under the regulations or the procedure existing at the time, which, as I have explained to the House, had been in existence for many years but which has now been changed by my announcement today.

  CONGO
  Sir T. Mooreasked the Lord Privy Seal the total amount of cash, food, clothing and medical equipment which Her Majesty's Government has supplied for the relief of starvation and distress to the people of the Congo.
  Mr. Fernyhoughasked the Lord Privy Seal if, in view of the suffering in the Congo and the response by private citizens to the various appeals for aid to the people there, he will substantially increase Her Majesty's Government's grant towards helping the victims of famine in that territory.
  Mr. Doddsasked the Lord Privy Seal on what basis Her Majesty's Government decided to contribute £5,000 in response to the appeal for emergency aid by the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations on behalf of the large numbers of starving human beings in the Congo.
  Mr. Heath: Since my statement on 25th January, we have had a report from

  577
  the member of the Embassy in Leopoldville who has visited the famine area. This indicates that without United Nations assistance South Kasai might have lost up to half its population, but with its assistance there seems every chance that the famine and its effects will be controlled. Ninety-five tons of food are being brought into the area by road and air every day. The food is being distributed by the local Congolese and seeds are being sown.
  There is still, however, considerable misery and a high rate of deficiency diseases. But hospitals and dispensaries. of which there are 60, are working and these medical arrangements will, it is understood, be greatly helped by the arrival of tents which we are sending from Kenya as emergency hospital accommodation. It has been difficult to get a reliable figure of the daily number of deaths. It seems that these were never as high as 200 a day, fortunately, and the figure may now be as low as 10–15 a day.
  It is estimated that 90 per cent. of refugees (who totalled about 300,000) are being fed regularly, though not all are receiving the prescribed minimum of 1,500 calories. The Congolese Red Cross are organising an effective distribution of milk.
  If the first crop, due at the end of April, is successful, it will be possible to reduce the relief operation by approximately 50 per cent. within six months. But there is still much to be done before the United Nations will be able to wind up its relief operation in South Kasai.
  Sir T. Moore: While warmly appreciative of the sympathetic and helpful attitude of the Government and of other Governments, may I ask whether, in view of the somewhat horrifying pictures, photographs and reports that have come in to us from the Congo during the last few weeks, we could not possibly do more? If transport is the problem, as was mentioned in the papers today, why is it that the United Nations were able to hire ten American aircraft to take back the United Arab Republic contingent to Cairo? Surely, starvation should be dealt with first. Could we not do it ourselves, if necessary?
  Mr. Heath: I had seen the statement of the secretary of the Oxford Famine
  578
  Relief Fund about the use of transport and we are making further inquiries to see whether we can assist in that respect, although our transport is already greatly stretched. The allocation of United Nations transport is a matter for the Secretary-General and his representatives.
  Mr. Fernyhough: In view of the report which the right hon. Gentleman has just given to the House, is he really satisfied that Her Majesty's Government are doing all that they ought to be doing? Is this the way we defend Western values?
  Furthermore, when the right hon. Gentleman made his statement last week, was he really being serious when he said that whether we gave the other 2 million dollars of the 5 million dollars that we had promised to the Secretary-General's Fund depended upon the response of others? Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that this House and the whole country would like the Government to show an example to the rest of the world of how we love our fellow man?
  Mr. Heath: That is exactly what we have done. We have shown an example to the rest of the world by making, proportionately, such a large sum available to the United Nations as the 3 million dollars which has been paid and the 2 million dollars which has been promised. As I said last Wednesday, however, we are entitled to say to the United Nations that in an operation of this kind we expect others to make a contribution to it. We have made a considerable contribution from the point of view of transport in finding where food was available and helping to transport it and in the specific donation which we gave in answer to the request for seed for sowing. As I have told the House, that operation is now completed.
  Sir C. Taylor: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many private individuals and firms would support him in this appeal for foodstuffs, medical supplies and clothing, provided that the appeal came from the Government and provided that those individuals and firms were satisfied that the supplies went to the people who really needed them and not, as sometimes has happened, into the black market?
  Mr. Heath: In this country, these funds are usually organised by voluntary

  579
  organisations, and Her Majesty's Government have complete confidence in the Red Cross and the Oxford Fund for carrying out this work.
  Mr. Brockwayasked the Lord Privy Seal if Her Majesty's Government will instruct the United Kingdom delegate to the United Nations to propose an extension of the terms of reference of the United Nations intervention in the Congo so as to include initiatives for a political settlement by the release of Patrice Lumumba and other political prisoners, the reassembly of the elected Parliament with the right to appoint a Government, the summoning of a representative constitutional conference to determine the relationship between the regions and the centre, and the disarmament of the rival armies.
  Mr. P. Williamsasked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will make a further statement about the situation in the Congo.
  Mr. Swinglerasked the Lord Privy Seal if he will propose that the United Nations should take steps to secure the release of political prisoners in the Congo before the opening of the forthcoming round-table conference.
  Mr. Dribergasked the Lord Privy Seal if he will propose in the United Nations action designed to ensure the strengthening of the United Nations forces in the Congo, the disarming of irregular troops including the Congolese National Army, the expulsion of Belgian officers and other ranks, and all other foreign troops, other than those of the United Nations, and the liberation of all Congolese political prisoners, including_ Mr. Patrice Lumumba.
  Mr. S. Silvermanasked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will make a statement to the House concerning the forthcoming round table conference on the Congo; and what information he has as to whether the Prime Minister of the Congo will be able to attend.
  Mr. Dribergasked the Lord Privy Seal if he will propose in the United Nations that representations be made to President Kasavubu urging him to invite to the Congo round table conference, representatives of the various political, regional and tribal groups, and, in parti-
  580
  cular, urging the attendance of Mr. Patrice Lumumba and his main supporters.
  Mr. Parkinasked the Lord Privy Seal if he will propose in the United Nations that representations be made to President Kasavubu urging him to include Mr. Lumumba among those invited to attend the Congo round table conference.
  Mr. Heath: Since the House adjourned for the Christmas recess, the situation in ',he Congo has radically changed. Mr. Gizenga and his supporters in Stanleyville have succeeded, by means of kidnapping the provincial authorities there, in establishing some control over the Kivu Province. They have also attempted to assert themselves in the northern part of the Katanga Province, in violation of a United Nations ban on troop movements in that area.
  There have been widespread reports of arbitrary and violent action and threats against Europeans in the Kivu and Orientale Provinces. In view of these, Her Majesty's Government have made representations to the United Nations authorities both in Leopoldville and in New York about the safety of British subjects. We have received assurances from them that they will do all in their power to afford protection to British subjects. Our Ambassador at Leopoldville has meanwhile made arrangements for the evacuation of British subjects, should this become necessary.
  I do not propose in answer to this Question to deal with the famine situation in South Kasai about which I made a full statement to the House on 25th January. There are also further Questions down on the Order Paper.
  The difficulties of the United Nations force in the Congo have been increased by the decision of some countries to withdraw their contingents from the United Nations force. I hope that, if this should happen, the Secretary-General will be able to replace them from other sources.
  Since early January the United Nations Conciliation Commission has been in the Congo and they have held talks both with President Kasavubu and M. Tshombe. Her Majesty's Government hope that the Commission will help the Congolese to bring about a solution of

  581
  their problems. In this context, Her Majesty's Government welcome the attempt by the President of the Congo to convene a conference of political leaders from the various provinces to work out a solution to internal difficulties. The question of who should be invited to it is a matter for the President to decide, though Her Majesty's Government hope that it will be as widely supported as possible. Preliminary meetings, to arrange for the full conference, opened in Leopoldville on 25th January.
  In Her Majesty's Government's view, these internal problems are matters which the Congolese should settle for themselves. We shall ourselves continue to give full support to the United Nations effort.
  Mr. Brockway: Is the Lord Privy Seal aware of the great anxiety which many Members have lest the United Nations effort in the Congo may came to naught? Is it not the case that whilst the United Nations is correct in saying that it does not want to intervene in internal affairs on one side or the other, in effect its policy since the recognition of Mr. Kasavubu by the United Nations has been to support one side against the other? L there going to be any hope of a political settlement in the Congo unless Mr. Lumumba is released and unless an elected Parliament is able to meet freely and fully?
  Mr. Heath: It will indeed be a serious situation if the United Nations effort in the Congo breaks down. On the other hand, if the United Nations were to try to impose its will by force in the Congo it would obviously become an even more serious situation in many respects. As far as the constitutional authority is concerned. the United Nations accepted the authority of Mr. Kasavubu, and I think it is helpful that there should be an accepted constitutional authority in the Congo. What we hope is that as a result of the round-table conference which he is trying to bring about, it will be possible to follow up with other constitutional developments so far as the provinces, the constitution, the Government and the assembly of Parliament are concerned.
  Mr. Swingler: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that if there is
  582
  to be conciliation in the Congo, which we all want to see successfully brought about, and if there is to be a round-table conference representative of all political forces in the Congo, which is an indispensable condition, there should be a release of political prisoners before this conference is convened? Otherwise it is inevitable that its success and development will be jeopardised. In particular, the only man who has a constitutional claim to the premiership of the Congo should be at the conference and represented.
  Mr. Heath: So far as political prisoners are concerned, in the hon. Gentleman's terms, there are, so to speak prisoners on both sides. Her Majesty's Government made their position absolutely plain in the resolution that we sponsored at the United Nations, that there should he no detention or ill-treatment and that all this should be done within the rule of law.
  Mr. Driberg: In view of what the right hon. Gentleman has just said, may I ask him whether he has any comment to make on the removal of Mr. Lumumba to Elizabethville and the disgraceful way in which he was maltreated and beaten up on the way? Does he realise that Mr. Lumumba is still supported by large numbers of Congolese people who regard him as their only legal Prime Minister, and that the round-table conference would be utterly futile and dangerous if he were not present at it?
  Mr. Heath: The matter of detention in the Congo is one for the authorities in the Congo. Her Majesty's Government deplore ill-treatment throughout the Congo.
  Mr. S. Silverman: Has not the United Nations a direct interest in seeing that this conference, when it is held, should reach a settlement satisfactory to all the contending parties? Does the right hon. Gentleman see any hope whatever of such a result if the Prime Minister, Mr. Lumumba, were actively prevented from attending it by either Colonel Mobutu who usurped military authority, or Mr. Tshombe who usurped authority in Katanga, by forcibly detaining him? Would not the result of that be to render the whole conference abortive, and, therefore, ought not the United Nations to do at any rate something to

  583
  see that the conference shall be attended by all those whose contributions are necessary in order to reach a satisfactory solution?
  Mr. Heath: The United Nations is represented on the spot by the Conciliation Commission, which is certainly acting energetically. I also understand that invitations were sent to the representatives of Mr. Lumumba in the Provinces.
  Mr. Fell: As to the ban on the movement of troops to which my right bon Friend referred, can he tell me whether the United Nations has now lifted the ban on the movement by aircraft of troops in Katanga by Mr. Tshombe?
  Mr. Heath: Not as far as I am aware.
  Mr. Fell: In that case, will my right hon. Friend apply pressure to the United Nations for the immediate lifting of the ban?
  Mr. Healey: Would not the Lord Privy Seal agree that Mr. Lumumba, whatever his legal claims to be Prime Minister, is a personality ofalmost unique importance in the Congo situation? [Laughter.] Certainly; there is no doubt whatever about that. Secondly, would he not agree that one of the reasons for the present unhappy situation in the Congo is the progressive estrangement between a majority of the United Nations and an important group of States in Africa and outside concerning the precise status of Mr. Lumumba? Can the Lord Privy Seal say whether Her Majesty's Government are undertaking any action to end this estrangement?
  Mr. Heath: It is, as I have already stated, an internal matter of the Congo. The President of the Congo in the past has stated the charges on which Mr. Lumumba was being hold. Her Majesty's Government regret the action taken by the States which wish to withdraw from the United Nations position in the Congo. Our view is well known.
  Mr. Driberg: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the situation in the Congo is gravely aggravated by the presence of fairly large numbers of Belgian military personnel—
  Mr. Fell: Nonsense.
  Mr. Driberg: —it is perfectly true—especially serving with Mr. Tshombe in
  584
  Katanga? Can he take any initiative in the United Nations to secure their with drawal? Also, in view of the sharp change in the situation to which the right hon. Gentleman referred in his opening answer, will he consult with the Leader of the House about the possibility of an early debate on the Congo?
  Mr. Heath: As to the last part of the supplementary question, I will see that the hon. Gentleman's remarks are brought to the notice of the Leader of the House. The resolution of the United Nations about the introduction of troops or weapons into the Congo from outside is quite clear. On the other hand, where provincial authorities have been recruiting their own troops from outside, from other places in addition to Belgium, that position is quite different.
  Mrs. Hartasked the Lord Privy seal what proposals Her Majesty's Government have made in the United Nations for a protest to be sent to President Kasavubu concerning the ill-treatment and imprisonment of Mr. Lumumba and what proposals Her Majesty's Government have made designed to secure his immediate relase.
  Mr. Heath: Our representative at the United Nations sponsored in the Security Council last month a resolution which sought to censure any violation of human rights or any measures contrary to the recognised rules of law and order in the Congo. This resolution was, regrettably, vetoed by the representative of the Soviet Union.
  Mrs. Hart: Is it not essential not only for the future of stability in the Congo but for the future of the United Nations and its prestige in the world that every effort should be made to ensure that the discussions about to take place in the Congo represent every shade of opinion there in order that they may lead to a successful conclusion?
  Mr. Heath: Yes, but I have already dealt with that point.

  GERMANY

    Naval Vessels
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Lord Privy Seal what proposals are under discussion in Western European Union to

    585
    raise the maximum permitted tonnage of German naval vessels; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Heath: As I explained to the hon. Gentleman on 23rd November last, the proceedings of the Western European Union are confidential. This matter is still under consideration, and I am not yet in a position to make a statement.
    Mr. Allaun: Will the Minister give the House an assurance that the Government will stop encouraging this step-by-step removal of all the restrictions on the regrowth of German militarism and, in particular, the proposal to raise to 5,000 tons the maximum size of Germany's destroyers, which would allow them to carry missiles?
    Mr. Heath: As the House knows, the Federal German Republic is a member of N.A.T.O. and it is right that any proposals which it makes should be considered in the Western European Union. I am also quite certain that it is to the best advantage that the discussions should take place confidentially between allies.

    Krupp Coal and Steel Holdings
    Mr. Shinwellasked the Lord Privy Seal if he will now state the policy of Her Majesty's Government on the sale of Krupps' holdings in West Germany.
    Mr. Heath: As has already been announced, the Mixed Committee of Experts has granted a further extension of time until 31st January. 1962. for the disposal of the Krupp coal and steel assets.
    Mr. Shinwell: While this discussion about the sale of the Krupp's holdings has been going on for the past eight years, has the right hon. Gentleman observed that Her Majesty's Government have agreed to a further extension of time? Is it not now becoming obvious that the Government and our allies primarily concerned about this matter have no intention of realising these holdings but intend that they should be retained by Krupp? Is he aware that the Labour Government, having considered the matter from all its aspects, decided that the Krupp's holdings should be retained as a national concern in Germany?
    Mr. Heath: The Mixed Committee of Experts operates under the terms of the Bonn Settlement Convention, and it could not have granted an extension of time to 1962 unless it was satisfied that reasonable efforts to sell had been made and that no satisfactory offer to buy had been received.

  PEACEFUL CO-EXISTENCE
  Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Lord Privy Seal what steps he proposes to take in 1961 to end the cold war and to bring about peaceful co-existence between East and West.
  Mr. Heath: Her Majesty's Government's views on East-West relations were well described in the statement issued by the three Western Heads of Government on 17th May last year, in Paris. They said that they remained unshaken in their conviction that all outstanding international questions should be settled not by the use or threat of force but by peaceful negotiation. They themselves remained ready to take part in such negotiations at any suitable time in the future. This will continue to guide our action in 1961.
  Mr. Allaun: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the Foreign Secretary of the growing view that every time he opens his mouth in public, he makes a cold war propaganda speech, that this is the worst possible way to secure coexistence, and that the only alternative to co-existence is non-existence?
  Mr. Heath: I cannot possibly accept that view of my noble Friend's speeches, in which he has always placed very carefully the balance between defending the interests of this country and the Western world and negotiating with those who are prepared to negotiate.

  UNITED STATES

    United Nations Resolution (Colonialism)
    Mr. Donnellyasked the Lord Privy Seal the nature of the representations that he made to the United States Government regarding the United Nations discussion on colonialism.
    Mr. Ormsby Gore: We maintain close consultation on many matters with the United States Government, including, of course, matters which arise in the United Nations. In view of the confidential nature of such consultations, I have nothing to say with regard to the specific subject raised by the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Donnelly: Will the Minister of State explain why, having swallowed the disastrous record in Cyprus and Suez, the Government are straining at this particularly innocuous resolution of the United Nations? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this farcical fixation with fuedalism is doing long-term damage to our country?
    Mr. Ormsby Gore: I do not know that I accept much of that little lecture from the hon. Member. If, however, he would read some of the resolutions, he would find, for instance, one paragraph which states:
    " Convinced that the continued existence of colonialism prevents the development of international economic co-operation, impedes the social, cultural and economic development of dependent peoples…"
    If the hon. Member thinks that that is a good description of British colonial policy, I do not agree with him.
    Mr. Healey: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether the Foreign Secretary was consulted by the Prime Minister before he took his deplorable decision to telephone the President of the United States and ask him to vote against his convictions on this matter?
    Mr. Ormsby Gore: This matter was dealt with in Questions by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister last week and I have nothing to add.

    Presidential Press Conferences
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Lord Privy Seal what facilities are given to the Press relations officer of Her Majesty's Government in Washington to attend Presidential Press conferences.
    Mr. Ormsby Gore: The Press officer of the British Embassy may attend Presidential Press conferences by applying to the White House Press Office for a visitor's card.
    Mr. Hughes: Did this officer attend President Kennedy's first Press Conference at which the momentous news was given that the Soviet Government had released the RB.47 airmen and that President Kennedy said that there were no more U.2 flights to go over the Soviet Union? Why has there been this loud silence from the Foreign Office? Was it informed about it?
    Mr. Ormsby Gore: I think the whole world was informed about it, because there were at least 100 million people looking in.

    Discussions
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Lord Privy Seal if, in view of the inauguration of the new Administration in the United States of America, he will initiate discussions with the State Department about proposals for disengagement and limited arms zones as immediate measures designed to reduce tension.
    Mr. Ormsby Gore: We shall, no doubt, be discussing a very wide range of matters with the new United States Administration in the coming months. It is part of the continuous progress of consultation with our great ally. I cannot forecast what particular subjects may be raised, and our attitude to the matters raised by the hon. Gentleman is well known.
    Mr. Swingler: Does the Minister realise that the attitude is not well known? Is he aware that the Prime Minister has from time to time put forward ideas about limited arms zones, for example, but it was understood that he dropped them because of the opposition of the Eisenhower Administration? Now that President Kennedy is in office and has started a useful exchange of conciliatory gestures with the Soviet Union, will the Foreign Office now undertake with the Prime Minister to restart the Prime Minister's campaign for limited arms zones? May we have an assurance about that?
    Mr. Ormsby Gore: It is not really very wise to make quick answers on subjects like disengagement because, unless we define rather carefully what we mean by "disengagement", we can get into very deep water.
    Mr. Healey: Does the Minister recall that the Prime Minister himself had no difficulty in talking about zones of limited armaments in an agreed area of Central Europe when he signed the communiqué with Mr. Khrushchev? At least, is it not 50 per cent. up to Her Majesty's Government to decide which items will be discussed with the Government of the United States?
    Mr. Ormsby Gore: Of course, we shall decide to discuss a great many things with the United States.

  BAHRAIN (MINISTER'S VISIT)
  Mr. Healeyasked the Lord Privy Seal if lie will make a statement on his recent conversations with the Ruler of Bahrain.
  Mr. Wallasked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will make a statement on his recent visit to Bahrain and his talks with the Ruler.
  Mr. Heath: I visited Bahrain on 15th, 16th and 19th January, spending altogether two and a half days there. In the course of this, I had two long conversations with the Ruler about various matters of mutual concern. The contents of these talks must, of course, remain confidential, but they were governed by the spirit of close friendship which has existed between Her Majesty's Government and Bahrain for over one hundred years, and which both Her Majesty's Government and the Ruler are anxious should continue.
  I paid visits to the Women's Hospital as an example of the free medical services provided there, to a boys' technical school, part of the growth of free educational facilities over the past ten years and to the Law Courts to discuss the progress made in developing these courts. In addition, I saw the building of the new port extension at Jufair and the doubling of the causeway between Manama and Muharraq. I was impressed by this progress which I hope will continue in the interests of everyone in Bahrain.
  Mr. Healey: In view of the information which the Lord Privy Seal gave the House just before the Recess—that he had asked for clemency for the prisoners
  590
  now held on St. Helena under Her Majesty's custody—can the Lord Privy Seal, in spite of the fact that he says he circulated an answer covering some of these points in the OFFICIAL REPORT, tell the House whether he persuaded the Ruler to release these men, and. if not, will Her Majesty's Government not release these men who are now under British sovereignty without further ado?
  Mr. Speaker: The Lord Privy Seal said that he would answer Question No. 10 and a number of others at the end of Questions.

  POLITICAL PRISONERS AND REFUGEES
  Mr. J. Hyndasked the Lord Privy Seal what steps are being taken by Her Majesty's Government in pursuance of Resolution No. 182 of the Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe, in particular with regard to calling for an inquiry by the International Red Cross into conditions prevailing in the detention centres of the Soviet zone of Germany, and obtaining an alleviation in the conditions of political prisoners.
  Mr. Heath: Her Majesty's Government have not taken any steps in pursuance of Resolution 182, which calls for no specific action on the part of member Governments, but which has, I understand, been communicated to the International Red Cross.
  Mr. Hynd: In view of the fact that there has been considerable controversy about the actual conditions of these prisoners, will the Government give support to the proposition that it seems desirable that the services of the Red Cross should be used in order to clear it up.
  Mr. Heath: Her Majesty's Government certainly share the sentiments underlying this resolution.
  Mr. J. Hyndasked the Lord Privy Seal what steps are being taken by Her Majesty's Government in pursuance of Resolution No. 184 of the Council of Europe Consultative Assembly towards securing the closing down of refugee camps in Italy and resettling handicapped refugees, the providing of vocational training for Italian and foreign migrants, and assisting freedom of movement for workers in Europe.
  Mr. Heath: The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees recently stated that as a result of the World Refugee Year fund-raising campaign, to which Her Majesty's Government as well as voluntary organisations made a substantial contribution, his camp clearance programme is now "totally and completely assured". This means that all refugees, including those in Italy, who qualify under his programme will have left the camps by the end of 1961.
  Mr. Hynd: While thanking the Minister for that reply, might I ask whether Her Majesty's Government, in addition to supporting these activities financially, will bear in mind the other two aspects of this problem mentioned in the recommendation and give whatever moral support they can to their implementation.
  Mr. Heath: I will certainly bear that in mind.

  NEPAL (STATE VISIT)
  Mr. Healeyasked the Lord Privy Seal what consultation he has had with the Government of Nepal concerning the arrangements for the forthcoming State visit to Nepal.
  Mr. Ormsby Gore: In making arrangements for Her Majesty's visit, there have been the usual consultations between the two Governments.
  Mr. Healey: In view of the state of political unrest in the State, can the Minister assure the House that he is quite satisfied that the security arrangements for Her Majesty's visit are entirely efficient? Secondly, in view of the great concern which has recently been expressed on political events in the State of Nepal, can the Minister of State assure the House that Her Majesty's visit does not imply any condonation by Her Majesty's Government of the recent actions of the Ruler of Nepal?
  Mr. Ormsby Gore: In reply to the first part of the supplementary question, I can give that assurance. All indications are that security arrangements are extremely satisfactory. As regards the second part of the supplementary question, I think it is quite clear that this is a visit by Her Majesty to the King of
  592
  Nepal and the people of Nepal. It has no reference whatever to the political conduct of affairs in that country.

  PERSIAN GULF PROTECTORATES
  Mr. Stonehouseasked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement on his visit to the Persian Gulf Protectorates; and what steps he is taking to improve British relations with the people of these territories.
  Mr. Heath: Between the 11th and 19th January, I visited seven States in the Persian Gulf area, that is to say the Sultanate of Muscat and Oman, Kuwait, and the independent Sheikdoms under British protection. I discussed with the Rulers and Her Majesty's Representatives questions arising out of the relationships between Her Majesty's Government and these States.
  I was also able to study economic developments in the area as well as measures taken over recent years to improve the welfare of the peoples there. I was encouraged by the interest which the Rulers are taking in this subject, although the pace of progress must vary greatly in different areas, depending on the resources which are available to them. All the Rulers emphasised to me the desire of their States to maintain their close friendship with this country and I assured them that Her Majesty's Government will continue to foster cordial relations with the peoples of these territories.
  Mr. Stonehouse: Would the Minister agree that the winds of change are blowing in the Middle East as well as elsewhere in the world? What steps is he faking to encourage the development of representative institutions in the States and Sheikdoms for which we are directly responsible? Did he discuss this during his visit?
  Mr. Heath: We are not directly responsible for the Sheikdoms. We have responsibility for their international relations in some cases, though not specifically in the case of Kuwait. Naturally, we wish to see that they go forward in ordered progress.
  Mr. Healey: Would not the Lord Privy Seal agree that in many cases Her Majesty's Government's treaty relationships with these States are dangerously

  593
  out of date, having first been contrived as a protection against piracy of British ships in that area? Can he say whether any negotiations are now under way for revising those relationships?
  Mr. Heath: I have examined this question and I find that these relationships do change from time to time, and in many cases they have changed recently in accordance with the situation.

  SIERRA LEONE (UNITED ARAB REPUBLIC CONSULATE)
  Mr. N. Pannellasked the Lord Privy Seal what were the reasons for Her Majesty's Government's agreement to the establishment by the United Arab Republic of a consulate at Freetown, Sierra Leone.
  Mr. Heath: After consultation with the Government of Sierra Leone, Her Majesty's Government saw no reason for refusing the United Arab Republic's request.
  Mr. Pannell: In view of the impending independence of Sierra Leone and the relative insignificance of the United Arab Republic's inferests in that Colony, would it not have been better to defer a decision and leave it to the unfettered discretion of the Sierra Leone Government after independence?
  Mr. Heath: It was because of forthcoming independence that Her Majesty's Government consulted very closely with people in Sierra Leone and, as they were quite agreeable to Phis appointment being made, Her Majesty's Government accepted it.

  U.S.S.R. (CULTURAL EXCHANGES)
  Mr. Mayhewasked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement on the recent British-Soviet negotiations on cultural exchanges.
  Mr. Wadeasked the Lord Privy Seal what progress has been made in the negotiations with the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics for the cessation of jamming of overseas broadcasts from Britain.
  Mr. Ormsby Gore: A delegation led by my honourable Friend the Joint Under-Secretary visited Moscow recently
  594
  to review progress in the cultural field and conclude a new Agreement to replace the 1959 Anglo-Soviet Cultural Agreement which expires at the end of March. The new Agreement provides for further exchanges in the scientific, technological, educational and cultural fields. It is similar in scope to, though slightly wider in scale than, the current Agreement but covers a two-year instead of a one-year period. The text is being printed and will be laid before the House as soon as possible, I hope this week.
  In discussion it was made clear to the Soviet side that Her Majesty's Government regard these exchange programmes merely as a beginning, and that they look forward to the day when the Soviet Government will allow unfettered contacts and will no longer try to prevent their people from choosing for themselves what they wish to read about us in our books and newspapers.
  The question of jamming was discussed at length with the Soviet authorities during these negotiations, but I regret to say no positive results were achieved.
  During the course of the negotiations, the Soviet authorities signified their agreement to the publication of a British quarterly magazine in the Soviet Union, and a separate agreement on this has now been concluded.
  Mr. Mayhew: While these agreements have been shown to be valuable, has not the assumption always been that they would lead to the establishment of normal free communications between Britain and the Soviet Union? Is the Minister aware that during the last year or two progress in this direction has been extremely disappointing? Will he make it clear to the Soviet authorities that merely to sign these agreements year after year is not enough and we expect progress towards free communications between the two countries?
  Mr. Ormsby Gore: I think I can agree with every single word that the hon. Gentleman has said.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: Was it under these agreements that the Old Vic gave successful performances in Moscow, the members of the company being handed bouquets from the audience? Would it not be a great event if the Foreign Secretary or other Ministers were to

  595
  receive bouquets from a Russian audience?
  Mr. Ormsby Gore: It would, of course, be very agreeable. The Old Vic, in fact, was sent there under the last agreement.

  GERMANY

    Travel Restrictions (East Germans)
    Mr. Shinwellasked the Lord Privy Seal what steps he is taking to relax the restrictions which operate through the Allied Travel Bureau in Berlin to enable people in East Germany who wish to travel to the United Kingdom to do so.
    Mr. Heath: I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for West Ham. North (Mr. A. Lewis) on 25th January.
    Mr. Shinwell: What benefits accrue to the United Kingdom from condoning the continuance of these restrictions? If there are no benefits accruing to this country, why does the Minister not take measures to bring the restrictions to an end?
    Mr. Heath: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, this action was taken in concert with our allies in N.A.T.O., and all have observed the arrangements; but, as I said 'to the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. A. Lewis), the restrictions governing the issue of temporary travel documents to East Germans 'have to some ex tent been relaxed.
    Mr. Shinwell: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the suggested relaxation is of very little consequence indeed? When citizens of East Germany wish to travel to this country for the purpose of furthering trade between the two countries, which is very desirable at this time and will be so in the future, can he not inform our allies that the restrictions should be terminated?
    Mr. Heath: I agree with the last part of the right hon. Gentleman's question, and I hope, therefore, that he will not under-estimate the relaxation which has taken place.
    Mr. Healey: Is it not most undesirable that Her Majesty's Government out of loyalty to the alliance should be expected to operate very much stricter
    596
    controls over the movement of East Germans coming to Britain that the Government of the Federal Repulic of Germany itself maintains over them?
    Mr. Heath: The only question on which this arises is one of trade, and the situation was perfectly on a par with all countries until the recent negotiation of the trade agreement; but, as I explained to the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), there has recently been a relaxation of the arrangements.

  DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
  Mr. Liptonasked the Lord Privy Seal what further action he will take to secure the effective recognition of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the United Nations in 1948.
  Mr. Ormsby Gore: The General Assembly of the United Nations is engaged upon the drafting of International Covenants on Human Rights which will embody the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. As the honourable Gentleman will be aware, the Universal Declaration was proclaimed as a common standard of achievement and has no legally binding force.
  Mr. Lipton: That sounds all very well, but is it not utterly deplorable that, in direct contravention of the letter and the spirit of this Declaration, Her Majesty's Government should kow-tow to racialism at the expense of British sailors who are good enough for the Royal Navy but not good enough for shore leave with their shipmates in South African ports? Will the Minister at least send a copy of the Declaration to his right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty?
  Mr. Ormsby Gore: As the hon. Gentleman has indicated, the last part of his supplementary question has nothing whatever to do with me.

BAHRAINI PRISONERS (ST. HELENA)
The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Edward Heath): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I will now answer Question Nos. 10, 25, 30 and 37.

597
In the debate on the Adjournment on 20th December, about the three Bahraini prisoners at present detained on St. Helena, I gave the House an undertaking that these men would not be returned to Bahrain before I had made a further statement to the House after the Christmas Recess. This would give time for their legal advisers to consider the position.
I have now had an opportunity of visiting Bahrain and of discussing the matter fully with the Ruler in the light of the debate. In view of certain statements made during the debate, the wide publicity they received and the effect I found they had had not only in Bahrain, but in other parts of the Gulf, I wish, first, to emphasise two points.
First, the Ruler of Bahrain is an independent ruler who has entered into Treaty relationships with this country governing his international relations. Her Majesty's Government have not sought to interfere with the autonomy of the Government of Bahrain either in the lifetime of this Government, or in that of the Government drawn from Members opposite, nor do they intend to do so now. Her Majesty's Government greatly value the friendship of the Ruler of Bahrain and his people and wish to continue to maintain and strengthen it.
Secondly, I found that the allegations made during the debate as to what would befall these prisoners if they were to be returned to the jurisdiction of the Ruler of Bahrain had caused great offence to a wide cross section of people of varying nationalities in Bahrain. The withdrawal by the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse) on Thursday last, and its unqualified nature, was welcomed by the House. Other accusations of a similar kind were widely recognised in the Gulf as being out of keeping with the traditions of Bahrain, and its Ruler and Her 'Majesty's Government completely reject these allegations.
When my noble Friend reviewed the question of these three men the position was as follows. The trial of the three men in question took place entirely within the jurisdiction of the Ruler of Bahrain. Her Majesty's Government had undertaken custody of these men at the request of the Ruler because of the tension in the Gulf. That tension had
598
been dissipated, and with it the necessity for these men to be detained outside the area. Moreover, the prisoners would be better off in regard to visits from their relatives, the delivery of letters and reading matter without delay, and in living in the climate and on the diet to which they are accustomed if they were back in Bahrain.
My recent visit to Jidda Island where the Ruler had informed Her Majesty's Government that these three men would be placed if returned, confirmed this. It was against this background that the Political Resident was instructed to raise this matter with the Ruler. He informed him that Her Majesty's Government did not wish to continue to detain the prisoners on St. Helena, and that should the Ruler feel unable to exercise clemency, the prisoners should be returned to Bahrain. It was in reply to this initiative from Her Majesty's Government that the Ruler requested that the men should be returned to Bahrain. I informed the House of this request in reply to a Question from the hon. Member for Wednesbury on 19th December.
Many hon. Members asked about the conditions in Bahrain to which these men would be returning. I informed the House on 19th December that Her Majesty's Judge of the Chief Court in the Gulf had been permitted to visit the prison at Jidda Island, and assured me that the conditions there were good. In view of the criticisms made in the House, the Ruler invited me to visit Jidda Island. Having seen the conditions there, and after talking to the two prisoners already there, I can confirm the views of Her Majesty's Judge of the Chief Court. Any humane person looking at detention in any prison must find the boredom and waste odious. That apart, these two men are living in reasonable conditions, with a considerable degree of freedom on the island.
On 29th October the prisoners' solicitors in this country asked for certain information concerning the removal of these men from Bahrain in 1956. The information requested was given in full to the solicitors in a letter dated 9th January. The solicitors informed us in a letter dated 12th January that, in their view, their clients are now in a position to commence fresh habeas corpus proceedings forthwith. At the same time,

599
the solicitors requested our views about the method of conducting such proceedings.
On 18th January, 1961, these were passed to them. We are now awaiting the decision of the prisoners' solicitors on this matter. Meanwhile, the three men will remain on St. Helena until a decision is reached, provided this is done in a reasonable time, or, in the event of fresh proceedings being brought, until all stages of the proceedings are concluded.
I explained this to the Ruler during my visit and I will keep the House informed of any further developments in this matter.
Mr. Warbey: First, has the right hon. Gentleman seen the letter in The Times of 12th January by Major Little, a former senior police official in Bahrain, who gives a very different view, both of prison conditions and the administration of justice in Bahrain, from that which the right hon. Gentleman has gained from a rather brief visit?
Secondly, does he appreciate that, whatever may be the outcome of the negotiations with the solicitors of these three men, the view expressed by this side of the House was that Her Majesty's Government, by acting as a common gaoler for these men, had accepted a moral co-responsibility for a flagrant miscarriage of justice and that, therefore, it is the duty of the Government to see that this matter is set right by bringing about the quashing of the sentences and the releasing of these men to go where they will?
Mr. Heath: I have observed the letter in The Times.In fact, I discussed it when I was in Bahrain and, for particular reasons, I do not accept many of the criticisms which that gentleman made.
The point of the last part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question was dealt with before the Privy Council as far as past proceedings are concerned. As I have stated, there may be further proceedings in the future.
Mr. Wyatt: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Colonial Office has admitted to the solicitors of the men on St. Helena that they were taken into
600
custody by the British before the Order in Council was promulgated in Bahrain making such detention by the British legal and that, therefore, they were kidnapped by the British authorities? Should not the right hon. Gentleman now release them instead of allowing this long-drawn proceeding to start all over again? Will he assure us that he will not try to pass retrospective legislation to cover what was initially an illegality by the British authorities in Bahrain?
Mr. Heath: As the point to which the hon. Gentleman refers is contained in the information given to the solicitors, as a result of which they have informed us that their clients are in a position to bring proceedings forthwith, he will not expect me to comment on it.
Mr. Stonehouse: The fact that the two prisoners whom the right hon. Gentleman interviewed on the Island of Jidda are given such special facilities and that the other criminals on the island are still kept in chains will indicate to public opinion that these five men were not in any way guilty of the very serious charges brought against them in 1956 and that they are political prisoners. Therefore, would we he justified in returning these men to the jurisdiction of the Ruler of Bahrain?
Furthermore, is the Minister aware that the solicitors have been advised by their clients on St. Helena that they do not wish to take habeas corpus proceedings in view of the tremendous expense which they would involve, particularly as the Crown has advised the solicitors that it would wish to contest these proceedings at every stage with counsel? As I say, proceedings would involve them in great expense which they are unable to afford, in view of the four years they have been in prison. In view of all these facts, will not the right hon. Gentleman show clemency and release these men?
Mr. Heath: No such deduction can be drawn from the first point that the hon. Member has made. The solicitors to the three men have not informed Her Majesty's Government of that fact. At least, they had not up to 1 o'clock today, when I left the Foreign Office. I think that the House will agree that it is right that in a case of such evident complexity the Crown should be represented by counsel when it is heard in the courts.
Mr. E. Fletcher: In view of the very doubtful validity of the proceedings on the part of the Ruler of Bahrain and Her Majesty's Government in all the steps that have been taken with regard to these three unfortunate men, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he has made representations to the Ruler that the right thing now would be to exercise a full degree of clemency and release them? Did the right hon. Gentleman make these representations and, if so, what was the result?
Mr. Heath: As to the validity of the proceedings, they were fully dealt with as placed before the Privy Council in the judgment of the Privy Council. As I have told the House, if there are further doubts the solicitors to the three men are considering bringing further action about them. I discussed the whole matter with the Ruler and any question of clemency for these men must be one entirely for the Ruler of Bahrain.
Mr. Costain: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are some hon. Members who have lived and worked in Bahrain who would agree with his findings?
Mr. Paget: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that an application for habeas corpus made by these men was rejected upon the basis of certain information given by the Foreign Office to the Privy Council, and that that information would appear to be quite inconsistent with what the right hon. Gentleman has now told us about the sovereignty and autonomy of Bahrain? Secondly, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when I raised this matter I never mentioned at all any question of ill-treatment in Bahrain?
The whole point, as I see it, is that for the first time in our history we are being asked to send people out of our jurisdiction to punishment within a jurisdiction where the Queen's writ does not run and without any extradition proceedings and without any proceedings whereby the men can be heard as to the injustice with which they are being treated. This is something absolutely novel and wrong within our constitutional procedure and certainly ought not to happen without the House having an opportunity to discuss it.
Mr. Heath: As for the statement made to the Privy Council by the then
602
Foreign Secretary, which was concerned with jurisdiction, the hon. and learned Member knows that it was on a very limited point and that the Ruler of Bahrain and rulers of other States and, indeed, Governments of other countries have conceded jurisdiction of various kinds to other States for particular limited purposes. That is what he did in this case.
The hon. and learned Member has reverted for the first time since he asked for the Adjournment on 20th December on this subject to his original point about the transfer of jurisdiction without further proceedings. He will know that the Colonial Prisoners Removal Act allows for their being returned to the original jurisdiction without further proceedings.
Mr. Grimond: In view of the great anxiety on both sides of the House about the circumstances of the original trial and conviction of these men, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman represented to the Sheikh quite clearly that in the view of Her Majesty's Government it might be as well if he remitted their sentence? If these men do not now bring further proceedings, have the Government made a decision that they are to be sent back to Bahrain?
Mr. Heath: As soon as a decision is reached in this matter one way or the other I will inform the House of the decision.
Mr. Wall: Will my right hon. Friend make clear that in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government the original trial was carried out justly in accordance with the law of Bahrain?
Mr. Heath: That matter was placed before the Privy Council, which declared that they were valid judicial proceedings.
Mr. Healey: In view of the fact that Her Majesty's Government have publicly said that in their opinion these men should be afforded clemency and that they are under Her Majesty's Government's jurisdiction and, if returned to Bahrain, will pass outside that jurisdiction, a situation which would not have arisen under the Colonial Prisoners Removal Act, can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that he will not return these men unless he is satisfied that they will be accorded clemency in Bahrain?
Mr. Heath: The conversations I had with the Ruler of Bahrain were confidential and must remain confidential. Great thought has been given to this matter and I am advised that Her Majesty cannot herself lawfully pardon these prisoners, nor can she lawfully authorise the Governor of St. Helena to do so. Her Majesty has no power to remit their sentences, nor has she any legal right to set the prisoners at liberty without their having been pardoned or their sentences having been remitted.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Sir G. Nicholson: On a point of order. Most of the questions have been asked from the other side of the House. Would it not be fair, Mr. Speaker, to have some from this side?
Mr. Speaker: The process would become almost interminable if I tried to be so fair.

H.M.S. "VICTORIOUS" (VISIT TO SOUTH AFRICA)
Mr. Paget Mr. Paget (by Private Notice)asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty whether he will countermand orders issued to "H.M.S. Victorious" to land at Gibraltar today six of Her Majesty's ratings.
The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing): It has been the practice for some years not to send coloured personnel in Her Majesty's ships visiting South Africa, except in special cases—for instance when the men have their families there. This is done to protect naval officers and men from social discrimination ashore.
The appropriate changes in the complement of H.M.S. "Victorious" were all made before the ship left the United Kingdom. Therefore, there is no question of countermanding orders.
Mr. Paget: Is the Civil Lord aware, first, that the story of the change-over taking place at Gibraltar broke in the Sunday newspapers yesterday, one of them making it its main lead? It has been repeated in the newspapers today, including, I think, The Times.Why is it that the Admiralty allowed that to happen if it was untrue, and why did it not issue a contradiction?
604
The second point which I understand the hon. Gentleman to make is that this apartheid procedure has been going on in Her Majesty's ships for some years. Is he aware that when a burglar is charged it is not normally considered a very good defence if he says, "I have been at it for some years, but this is the first time I have been caught"?
Finally, will the hon. Gentleman say whether there is any port in the world, other than in South Africa, where Her Majesty's sailors, regardless of their colour and race, do not receive that courtesy which they are entitled to expect according to the comity of nations?
Mr. Orr-Ewing: The story arose over the weekend. We did not state specifically that six ratings would be put ashore. Thte statement issued by the Admiralty gave an account of our practice both past and present. Because the details of the scheme are left to the drafting authorities, we were not able to confirm them. That is why we did not specifically deny them. We did not have the facts over the weekend.
It is true that we have carried out this practice for some time. To be honest, if we did not carry it out we should be blamed if any ugly incident occurred in South Africa, and if we carry it out we are equally blamed. It was not done at the request of the South African Government and they were not consulted about it. The practice is followed because we recognise that when Her Majesty's ships visit any country we must comply with that country's laws and social conditions.
Mr. Thorpe: If the price that this country has to pay for visiting South African ports is the application of Dr. Verwoerd's racial policies on board our ships, is not the price too high, and would it not be better to maintain our principles and forgo the visit? Also, is it not a fact that there are some coloured ratings in the Royal Navy who have relatives in South Africa and are to call in at South Africa during the trip? What guarantee has the Civil Lord been able to obtain that they will not be treated like second-class citizens of the Union?
Mr. Orr-Ewing: It is a matter for debate whether one creates good will and

605
influences people by ostracising them. I would recall that the Prime Minister was encouraged not to go to South Africa, although I am sure that most people will now say that as a result of his trip and the speech he made there the visit did good. I feel that the same thing applies to our naval visits and the exercises that we carry out in South Africa. It is true that a few ratings who have families in South Africa are going, but I have no reason to believe that they will not be treated very fairly and will not be discriminated against.
Commander Courtney: is it not a fact that last October there was a most unpleasant incident involving a United States coloured naval rating which received much publicity in the South African Press? Is it not in our interests that we should avoid in so far as we can any incident of that kind which will enable mischief-makers to create trouble between ourselves and South Africa?
Mr. Orr-Ewing: I think that that is true. I recall a Press report about the incident. It is that sort of incident that we wish to avoid. If it is suggested, as it is, that we should stay away, I would point out that the fact that we differ, and have made it abundantly clear, with one facet of South Africa's internal policy, does not mean that we should stay away. We disagree much more profoundly with the fundamental policies of some other countries, yet we still pay visits to those countries.
Mr. G. Brown: Has not the hon. Gentleman missed the point? If we cannot be sure that this visit will not lead to ugly incidents, is not the right thing for us to do, as was suggested by the 'hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe), to observe our principles and stay away until we can obtain such an assurance?
Secondly, since the hon. Gentleman says that he is sure that the coloured ratings who have families in South Africa will be treated fairly in every way, why is he so unsure that the others would not? Why has he made that distinction?
Thirdly, the hon. Gentleman, if I understood him aright, said that when we visit ports in other countries we always try to take account of their political and
606
social policies. Does he mean that where-ever a ship of Her Majesty's Navy goes we first vet the crew to take off anybody who may have any views which the country being visited would not like?
Mr. Orr-Ewing: All this is a matter for debate. it is my view, and I think the general body of opinion in the House would support me in saying this, that we are more likely to influence South Africa to the views which we have by paying visits of good will, and, incidentally, exercising and training with them, than by staying away. This is a matter of judgment. The Prime Minister was urged to stay away, but I think that most people would agree that he did an immense amount of good by going.
I did not say that we would take into account the political policy of a visited country. What I said was that we take into account, as we should, the law of the land.
Mr. G. Brown: Would any anti-fascist ratings have to be taken off a ship calling at Spain?
Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: Is my hon. Friend aware that many of us have a great deal of sympathy with the Admiralty over the dilemma in which it has been placed by this matter, but none the less, now that this has come out, cannot the South African Government be told that if they wish to have these friendly visits in future they must agree to behave like other Governments and receive all members of British ships on equal terms even though it means recognising and treating them as if they are all white?
Mr. Orr-Ewing: I would say, in reply to that, that the South African Government have been extremely helpful in the past. [HON. MEMBERS: "0h."] However, I come back to the point that surely it is better to go there and try to influence them and create good will than to stay away and ostracise them.
Mr. Mendelson: The Civil Lord has told the House that the Prime Minister was advised not to go to South Africa, but decided to go. Would he not agree that that is not a parallel at all? What the House seems to be asking—I notice that hon. Members on both sides are beginning to get worried about this—is a question to which the Civil Lord has not

607
yet given a reply. Why can we not say as a country, or instruct the Navy as a Department to say, to the South African Government, "We want to have the best possible relations and we believe in friendly visits, but if people are good enough to risk their lives and fight for their country why cannot you accept them as equals when they come to your shores?"
Mr. On-Ewing: I am sure that the South African Government will read what has been said in the House.
Mr. Shinwell: Will the Civil Lord be good enough to inform the House, first, whether the lower deck ratings on H.M.S. "Victorious" were consulted about this matter? Were they asked whether they had any objection to the coloured members of the crew staying with them until they reached Cape Town? Will he also say whether the Prime Minister was consulted before the First Lord of the Admiralty took this decision, in view of the speech which the Prime Minister made when he visited South Africa, the "wind of change" speech, which, apparently, offended many people in South Africa, but afforded a great deal of satisfaction to people elsewhere?
Will the Civil Lord, at the same time, say what is the purpose of the visit of this vessel to South Africa? Has it a military purpose, and if so, what is it? If it is a good will purpose exclusively, what is the use of talking about good will when we take an action of this kind which is regarded as highly objectionable, even to the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite, who, apparently, thinks he knows more about the wishes of men on H.M.S. "Victorious" than the Civil Lord himself does?
Mr. Orr-Ewing: This was not done after consultation with the lower deck; it was a decision taken by my noble Friend and the Board of Admiralty. As I have said, this has been our practice for some years. I should have thought that the lower deck people would have resented the fact if some of their shipmates had been singled out for special discrimination in South Africa, and I think that the well-being and harmony of the ship is better ensured by the sort of practice that we have been carrying out.
608
As to the purpose of the visit, H.M.S. "Victorious" is on her way to join the Far Eastern Fleet, and on the way she is to exercise and train with the South African Navy—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] It is one of our Commonwealth Navies —which, incidentally, is equipped with ships built in this country. It is part of our undertaking to train and exercise with the South African Navy. We should not overlook the fact that should we be involved in war the South African ports and Navy would be of tremendous importance to the whole free world.
Mr. Paget: The Civil Lord has said on several occasions that this is a matter which should be debated. There is no point in debating it after the ship has arrived, because by that time the trouble would have happened. In my submission, the importance of this in the light of the Salisbury Conference, the conference in London and, indeed, the South African application to remain a member of the Commonwealth, is clear. In view of all this, I should have thought that it was profoundly important that the world should at least realise that the "wind of change" had blown through the British Admiralty and that we were aware of it.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I desire to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, to consider a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the sailing of H.M.S. "Victorious" on a courtesy visit to the Union of South Africa without obtaining from the Government of the Union assurances that, without regard to race or colour, Her Majesty's sailors will be received with that courtesy to which they are entitled in every port of the world.
Copy of Motion handed in.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, to consider a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, The sailing of H.M.S. "Victorious" on a courtesy visit to the Union of South Africa without obtaining from the Government of the Union assurances that, without regard to race or colour, Her Majesty's sailors will be received with that courtesy to which they are entitled in every port of the world.

609
I regret that I do not feel I can properly accede to this application. I do not believe the Motion to be within the Standing Order.
Mr. Thorpe: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I make a submission to you which, I hope, will commend itself? It is that I would wish to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, on a somewhat narrower point which, I submit, is a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the action of the Board of Admiralty in ordering the disem- barkation from H.M.S. "Victorious" at Gibraltar of six members of Her Majesty's Navy on the around of their colour.
Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman will bring his Motion to me I will rule upon it, but there is manifestly some difficulty.
Copy of Motion handed in.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman asks, under the terms of Standing Order No. 9, for leave to move the Adjournment of the House. In his case, the proposition urged is the action of the Board of Admiralty in ordering the disembarkation from H.M.S. "Victorious" of six members of Her Majesty's Navy on the ground of their colour.
I regret that I do not think that this falls within the Standing Order.
Mr. Thorpe: On a point of order. May I ask for your guidance on a matter relating to Private Notice Questions? On this particular subject of H.M.S. "Victorious", it so happened that the Liberal Party was a somewhat earlier riser than the Labour Party, and that I tabled a Private Notice Question first today. I appreciate that the selection of appropriate Questions is entirely a matter within your discretion. In this case it so happened that the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr Paget) and I are ad idem,but I am apprehending a situation in which the tone of the Question tabled could be highly material to the Answer received.
May I ask you, therefore, to give me guidance as to whether priority in submission is a relevant factor in assisting you to make up your mind as to which Question to select? Can you also say whether we may be assured that back
610
benchers are given equal priority in this matter with official Front Bench Members who submit such questions, even at a later stage? Could we have some guidance about the exercise of your discretion?
Mr. Speaker: I am glad that the hon. Member has raised this matter. In this instance, there was a rather odd series of events, and I was put into some difficulty in deciding, upon the factor of priority, whose, in natural justice, it was. There are a number of factors to be taken into account on these occasions. One of them certainly would be the hon. Member who first let us know he wanted to ask a Private Notice Question.
It would probably be better in the general interest, by and large, if I did not lay down a string of general principles, but held firmly to the discretion in my hands, hoping that the House will trust me to exercise natural justice between all hon. Members, according to my discretion.
Mr. Shinwell: While I accept your discretion in a matter of this kind, Mr. Speaker, you will observe that the Civil Lord, in the course of his replies, seemed to imply that this is a matter for a debate. As the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House has now appeared. would it be in order to ask him whether, in view of the Civil Lord's statement, a debate could be arranged?
Mr. Speaker: No doubt an opportunity may arise later this week, but I cannot answer the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) by saying that it would be in order, because that would not be so.
Mr. Shinwell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. In referring to later this week, I presume you mean Thursday afternoon, when questions may be asked about a debate during Questions to the Leader of the House about next week's business. By that time, however, this visit will have become a fait accompli and there will be no advantage in a debate. Could we not ascertain from the Leader of the House whether he would agree to a debate in the next two days?
Mr. Speaker: If the right hon. Gentleman asks if he would be in order in asking his question now the answer is

611
"No", but I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman's observations have been heard.
Mr. J. Griffiths: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Civil Lord said that this was a matter for debate. It is clear from the exchanges that have taken place that there is deep feeling about this matter on both sides of the House. Will you permit the Leader of the House to tell us now that he will take this matter up with his noble Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty, in order to ensure that this ship does not sail for South Africa until the House has had an opportunity for debating the matter?
Mr. Speaker: I would not prevent the Leader of the House doing so if he so wished.
Mr. Griffiths: May I put my question to the Leader of the House, who has heard the exchanges? May I ask him whether he will have consultations with his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and with the First Lord of the Admiralty to ensure that this ship does not sail to South African ports until the House has had an opportunity to debate the matter?
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler): The ship has already sailed, and, therefore, I must address myself to the questions put by the right hon. Members for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) and Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths).
Naturally, every time there is an interest to the extent shown in the House today it is a matter for deliberation as to how opportunities can be taken for the matter to be further ventilated and discussed. I certainly will discuss with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister the situation created in the House today, but I must make it clear that business for the forthcoming week has already been announced and that I can give no undertaking about the result of my consultation.
Mr. Paget: Could not the right hon. Gentleman assure us that this ship will put into Freetown rather than into one of the South African ports unless we can get an assurance that the coloured ratings which she is still carrying will receive the
612
courtesies which we are entitled to expect? The "Victorious" is passing Freetown and could perfectly well put in there.
Mr. Butler: I listened to a previous question by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) in which he said that he attached no importance to the statement made by the Civil Lord that there was precedence behind this, namely, that this had been the practice in the past. We must bear in mind that there would not have been such practices unless there had been good reason. I do not want to give any assurance, either to the hon. and learned Gentleman or to the House, which would mislead them about the likelihood of the Government either diverting or stopping this ship, but, as I have said, I will discuss with my colleagues principally concerned the incident as it has arisen in the House of Commons today.
Mrs. Castle: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Callaghan: May I put a point—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) is rising to a point of order.
Mrs. Castle: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the failure of the Leader of the House to give an undertaking, I now ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, in order to discuss a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the refusal of Her Majesty's Government to cancel the courtesy visit of H,M.S. "Victorious" to South Africa, despite the fears of ill-treatment of certain members of the crew on arrival in that country and the consequent necessity to disembark them.
Copy of Motion handed in.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Lady asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9. for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the refusal of Her Majesty's Government to cancel the courtesy visit of H.M.S. "Victorious" to South Africa, despite the fears of ill-treatment of certain members of the crew on arrival in that country and the consequent necessity to disembark them.

613
In my view, the same considerations apply. I cannot hold the Motion to be within the Standing Order.
Mr. S. Silverman: In the interests of non-official Members, may I revert to the answer which, Mr. Speaker, you were good enough to give to the hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) about priorities when more than one Member desires to put a Private Notice Question on the same subject.
Many of us believe that when notice has been given by any hon. Member that he desires to raise a certain matter which is in order, any subsequent notice by another Member to raise the same subject would normally not be entertained by the Chair, or be regarded as being in order. Would not this appear to mean that priority is really the decisive factor in this matter, rather than any consideration about in which part of the House a Member 'happens to sit?
Mr. Speaker: I do not quarrel with what the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) says about what normally happens. I do not want to discuss what were the particular, odd circumstances in this case. I do not think that anybody will doubt that this is a just way of dealing with what was a somewhat odd instance.
Mr. Bellenger: As one who was involved in a similar matter before the war, am I right in assuming that, when a Private Notice Question is presented to Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker has to rule only that it is in order, and whether he will allow it to be put, and the hon. Member concerned forthwith then puts his Question to the Minister, the normal procedure then being followed, that is to say, the Question being put at the end of Questions, as was the case today?
Mr. Speaker: No, I think that the Standing Order leaves discretion in the matter to Mr. Speaker. I think that we had better try that arrangement. I hope that I shall not do anything which anybody thinks unjust.
Mr. Callaghan: On a point of order. I wish to raise a point of order relating to what we have been discussing. Just before I came in to the Chamber, I was informed by one of the duly accredited delegates to the Northern Rhodesia Conference, Mr. Harry Nkumbula, that he had emplaned at Johannesburg in order to arrive at the conference, but had been arrested while in Johannesburg and put into a cell without charge. He had been imprisoned for 24 hours and had then been put on a plane to London. As the Leader of the House has agreed to consult his colleagues about the matter of the naval ratings going to South Africa, will you consider, Mr. Speaker, a Private Notice Question tomorrow in order to give the Leader of the House or the appropriate Minister, an opportunity to answer on this matter, too?
Mr. Speaker: I hope that these matters will not be handled under the guise of points of order. If the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) hands in a Private Notice Question, I will consider it with due care in the ordinary course.
Mr. Callaghan: This was not a case of trying to evade the rules of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not the concern of the whole House if a delegate appointed to attend a constitutional conference here is imprisoned?
Mr. Speaker: It is not a point of order. I have no doubt that it is a matter of great concern to many people, but that does not make it into a point of order.

BILL PRESENTED
  COURT OF CHANCERY OF LANCASTER (AMENDMENT)
  Bill to amend the Court of Chancery of Lancaster Act, 1952, presented by Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday and to be printed. [Bill 64.]

NATIONALISED TRANSPORT UNDERTAKINGS
4.14 p.m.
The Minister of Transport (Mr. Ernest Marpies): I beg to move,
That this House approves the proposals of Her Majesty's Government for the reorganisation of the Nationalised Transport Undertakings (Command Paper No. 1248).
I hope that we shall now be allowed to pass from ships to railways. I am sorry that three-quarters of an hour has been taken from this very important debate. Before beginning my speech, I ask the House to excuse me, first, if my voice is not as loud as usual, and, secondly, if I absent myself from the Chamber during the debate more than is customary. I ask that indulgence only because I have just got up today after having had influenza.
I propose to divide my speech into two parts. The first will deal with the actual White Paper proposals, the main principles and their underlying aims. The second will deal with some matters which were deliberately not dealt with in the White Paper. These include the future size and shape of the railways, railway modernisation, productivity and fares policy.
I turn, first, to the White Paper proposals. The Government propose an entirely new organisational structure, because our experience shows that the present structure is unsuitable. We believe that it is now outmoded and that it has been overtaken by events. However, I ask the House not to forget all that has been accomplished, not only on the railways, but also in various other matters which have been and will continue to be the responsibility of the British Transport Commission until legislation is passed.
I would, therefore, like to take this opportunity of expressing our gratitude to the Commission, whose members have given a great deal of their time, and to Sir Brian Robertson personally for the distinguished way in which, during these difficult years, he has presided over a vast range of activities, and for the cooperative help which he has always been so ready to give. I am also grateful to the Commission for its willingness to cooperate in introducing the new scheme.
616
The Commission's efforts have been spread over a considerable range of activities. As paragraph 9 of the White Paper says:
"The activities of the British Transport Commission as at present constituted are so large and so diverse that it is virtually impossible to run them effectively as a single undertaking."
Our underlying purpose is to separate the tasks and problems of operating the various nationalised transport undertakings, to define the responsibilities of management, and to provide management with clear objectives in set fields so that it can concentrate its efforts and energies. That is especially important for the railways.
As the Select Committee says in paragraphs 356–63 of its Report:
"It cannot have helped to achieve efficiency in the higher direction of British Railways that there should have been no one authority whose only duty in the field of transport was to ensure an efficient system of railways."
Our proposals recognise that.
The undertakings themselves can be grouped into two distinct categories. Some, because of their very nature, need to be conducted by a statutory authority. British Railways, London Transport, British Transport Docks and British Transport Waterways are all of that kind. Each needs an authority with special statutory powers and duties. Two of them for some time to come will need Exchequer assistance.
I now turn to the Holding Company and the commercial boards. The other activities of the Commission—buses, road haulage, hotels, road freight, shipping services, Thomas Cook and Son Ltd., and so on—operate alongside similar private enterprise undertakings and are generally in competition with them. They do not call for special statutory authorities. Also, they should depend entirely on their own commercial strength and they represent considerable and valuable public assets which ought to be used effectively for the public good and for the public purse.
To do that, they must be able to conduct their day-to-day business in exactly the same way as those commercial undertakings with which they compete. We propose a commercial framework for these activities. The Holding Company, by its support, advice and encouragement, without intervening in management

617
matters, will be able to ensure that the right standards of operation and financial judgment are applied.
The White Paper proposals are essential first steps, but a number of doors have been deliberately left open in some important matters. The White Paper does not set out to deal with detail, or to leave no room for fruitful consultation in the framing of the necessary legislation. In framing the White Paper we had regard to the views of the particular interests concerned and we are prepared to do likewise in framing the necessary legislation. We shall take account of points made in the debate today and we shall also consult those with responsibilities in the new structure, especially the chairmen-designate of new boards.
Arrangements for the practical preparation of the Bill have been put in hand and we shall discuss with the Commission and the trade unions how best they can help us with their knowledge and information. We aim to give managements full opportunity to give of their best. They will have the means and tools of good management and be able to feel and bear the weight of personal responsibility for their actions.
This is of particular importance as regards the railways. Nowhere is a single-minded direction needed more. Let us get this quite clear. There is no argument about the essential unity of British Railways. They must be run as an effective national system. The British Railways Board will be the employer of its own workpeople. The responsibility for negotiating national wage and other agreements will rest squarely with the Board. The functions of central importance to the railways as a whole will be its prime responsibility. The Board will have particularly important responsibilities in fruitful modernisation investment and in getting the best value for money.
But everything cannot be done at the centre. The art of good management, given the right tools, is to get the best response at all levels. This means sensible and adequate devolution of authority. The man on the spot does not give of his best looking over his shoulder and having to wait upon decisions relating to his own job taken at levels remote from him.
618
The regional railways boards will, therefore, be an important new feature in the railway organisation. Unlike the present area boards, they will have a strong, full-time membership. They will be a living part of railway management and operation. Their job will be to translate into regional practice and operation the national railway policy. Above all, they will play a part in that national policy through their representation on the British Railways Board.
A new structure and reorganisation can do a great deal to make railway problems manageable, but of equal importance is the quality of the men who will provide leadership, and the morale of staff and workers. The railways must have the best leadership available. There must be opportunities in all parts of the railways for those with ability to get to the top. At the start it may be necessary to bring in a few new people. The task is challenging, and I believe that the time is crucial. The task is no; only running one of the biggest industries in the country, if not the biggest; it is the task of transforming its structure, its outlook and its finances. The Government will have to have regard to these special needs in their search for the best available talent and in considering the terms on which it can be obtained.
Now for the composition of the new boards. As the preparation for the Bill goes forward, the exact composition of each board will have to be worked out with those most closely concerned, including the chairmen-designate. In particular, paragraph 32 of the White Paper refers to the special contribution which can be made by those with trade union experience.
Then there are industrial relations and the madhinery of negotiation. There is nothing in our proposals which should interfere with the present system of national negotiations and agreements. I am already examining some points put to me at a long meeting I had with the Trades Union Congress, and if other proposals are advanced I will be ready to examine them.
I now turn to co-ordination, using that word in the sense given in the Shorter Oxford Dictionary. I have done this because in political life words take on certain rigid meanings and are used as

619
incantations instead of with proper reference to their meaning. "Co-ordination" means
"To place (things) in a proper position relatively to each other and to the system of which they form parts."
I cannot praise the Opposition more than by using the Oxford Dictionary. Coordination in transport can take two forms: co-ordination of investment and co-ordination of operation.
The allocation of investment is becoming increasingly a matter on which the Minister must form a judgment, because he has responsibilities to Parliament, and also because 'he oversees a wider field and has functions that go beyond the nationalised transport sector alone. For example, they include roads. Paragraph 28 of the White Paper gives the Minister an effective influence in this field, and I would like to inform the House that my Department is developing improved methods of investment allocation to meet this need. One example is the five-year rolling programme for classified roads instead of a yearly financial allocation. That is a great step forward. Another is our interest in a long-term programme for railway investment, on which I shall say more later.
Mr. Ernest Popplewell: Long overdue.
Mr. Marples: It may be long overdue, but as it has been introduced I am sure that it will be welcomed by the hon. Gentleman.
Another example is our interest in the operational field, because co-ordination over a wide range of activities can and should exist at different levels. For example, working arrangements existed between London Transport and the London lines of British Railways long before the Transport Commission came on the scene, and they will be continued, as paragraph 20 of the White Paper indicates.
Another very interesting question is the relationship between the railways and British Road Services. They are living in a competitive world dominated by neither. They will both have to consider the effects of competition from private enterprise road hauliers and the C licence vehicles. Where co-ordination is sensible, however, the White Paper provides for it.
620
Problems of co-ordination of both kinds, operational and investment, will arise and will need to be referred to the Nationalised Transport Advisory Council. Its advice will be based on full knowledge of nationalised transport undertakings plus the wider experience which will be available through independent members. The new structure and organisation will also provide for the usual indices of success or failure. If there are profits in one section the Exchequer will benefit as at present and they will offset deficits elsewhere.
I now turn to the financial proposals, which have been generally welcomed. The main feature is the reconstruction of railway finances. We must scale down the capital burden in one way or another. The scaling down must be properly related to the effective contribution which the assets they represent can make to the railways' financial recovery. Obviously, these assets should be in the hands of the Railways Board, and that is one of the ways in which it differs from the old Railways Executive.
The Railways Board will have the responsibility of operating them and securing the best financial results. We believe that the corresponding capital debt should also be the liability of the Board. This fosters financial discipline and provides the set task and clear objectives for which the new structure is designed. The figures I now mention are not intended to be exact: the precise figures will be determined when the details are worked out.
The total capital liability of the Transport Commission is £2,000 million. Of this, £1,600 million is attributable to railways. Of the £1,600 million, we would write off £400 million finally as a bad debt. This represents deficits mainly accumulated since 1955. That leaves £1,200 million. Of that, we consider that £400 million is sound, as it is money advanced for modernisation since 1955. That £400 million should be capable of yielding a return.
Of the remaining £800 million, we regard it all as doubtful and put it in a suspense account which is not subject to fixed interest or fixed repayment liabilities. In short, of the £1,600 million railway capital, £400 million is written off as a bad debt, £800 million is transferred to suspense account as a doubtful debt,

621
and the remaining £400 million remains as a capital liability.
These are drastic measures and involve sums of great magnitude. The interest liabilities, although removed from the railways, will fall on the taxpayer. The Treasury will become responsible for the existing British Transport stock.
But this is not all. Over the next two years, even allowing for reduced interest charges, large sums will have to be provided from the Exchequer to meet current deficits. The object, which is formidable, is to place the railways in a position where they will have a real hope of achieving solvency and the resolution to attain it. There should be known targets, which management and men should set out to attain. We are already tackling this problem. We have discussed with the Commission the provision necessary in the calendar year 1961 to cover its overall deficit. I have the Chancellor's agreement to inform the House that we have agreed a figure of £103 million for this. Parliament will be asked to authorise the necessary expenditure from the Vote.
This may look only a small reduction on the £105 million in the current financial year, but the two figures are not comparable. In fact, after taking into account certain non-recurring items the provision for 1961 is a reduction of £13 million in the railways' operating loss. I hope that the House will take this as an earnest of what is still to come.
This may be the right moment to say something about the pensions of the older railway superannuitants. We all recognise that there are cases of hardship. On three previous occasions the Commission has given pension supplements. The Commission is, however, in serious financial difficulty, requiring assistance from my Vote, and it is necessary to take this into account. The Commission proposed that the cost of supplementation should be borne by the Exchequer, and I have informed it that this is not possible, and that responsibility for the level and payment of railway pensions must remain with the Commission, as employers.
There have been discussions, and the Commission has now put to me a scheme for supplementing certain pensions. par-
622
titularly those of the older superannuitant whose sole pension is that provided by the railways. This scheme, which appears to hold the balance between relieving hardship and adding materially to the Commission's financial problems, will involve additional expenditure which will have to be taken into account in considering the future financial position of the railways. I have agreed that the Commission shall proceed with the scheme on that basis.
The total aditional cost in the first full year is expected to be £650,000. The Commission expects to be able to find the necessary sum from within the proposed Estimate of £103 million for 1961–62, and it will shortly announce the details of the scheme.
Mr. H. Hynd: What will the increase in pension be?
Mr. Marples: As it is a Transport Commission scheme the Commission will announce details in the near future, but I thought it right to inform the House that I have agreed to this scheme.
I now turn to commercial freedom and fares and charges policy. The railways should be given as free a hand as possible to conduct their commercial operations on a commercial basis. The days of general railway monopoly are long since over. Only in the London Passenger Transport area, where London Transport and British Railways together hold a virtual monopoly, will it be necessary to have a statutory control of fares. Elsewhere, the Government propose that the railways should be free to fix their own prices.
Railway revenues must make their due contribution towards railway solvency The public ought to know that railway fares and charges have not entirely kept in line with the general price level. As the Select Committee said, railway fares are lower, in real terms, than in 1938. We must support the railways when they pursue a realistic and purposeful fares policy.
There are also statutory restrictions in the interests of coastal shipping. The Government have to consider whether they should now be removed, so as to give the railways the competitive freedom they require. On the other hand, coastal shipping has its difficulties. the General Council of British Shipping has

623
recommended that the restrictions should riot be abolished, but should be made more effective and even strengthened. The Government are considering the problem and will consult both the General Council and the Commission.
So much for the main proposals in the White Paper. This is not the whole picture. We now come to the question of the future size and shape of the railway system. The present layout is not entirely suited to the modern age. Neither does it give railwaymen and railway management the best chance of efficient operation. There must be a purposeful slimming of the railways to concentrate both effort and modernisation. This matter is at present being studied by my Ministry and the Commission. The new Railways Board, in due course, must take an important part in this exercise.
I would point out to the House that this is not an exercise which can be done once and for all and of which we will then be rid. It is a continuing exercise. We have made the first decision because much will depend on other forms of transport. For example, what will happen in ten years' time with internal aircraft flying, say, between London and Manchester?—especially as in ten years' time there will be the equivalent of a motorway between the centre of London and London airport, as well as, perhaps, vertical take-off aircraft.
Mr. Thomas Steele: Are we to understand that the Ministry of Transport is really considering what will happen to transport in ten years' time? This is new information to the House.
Mr. Marples: I do not think so. I have mentioned it before. Quite clearly, the hon. Member was not in his place when I did so; I will send him the copy of HANSARD where it was mentioned. He can then write to me further if he wants to.
It is not only a question of the air. What will happen when the motorway network of the country has been completed? What has been the effect of M.1, between Birmingham and London, on the railways, and what will be the effect when there is a complete network?
Mr. Percy Collick Mr. Percy Collick (Birkenhead) rose—
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): If the right hon. Gentleman does not give way the hon. Member must resume his seat.
Mr. Marples: I do not wish to be discourteous, but we have lost three quarters of an hour, and I know that many other hon. Members wish to speak. Interruptions take up my time. If the hon. Gentleman catches your eye, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, no doubt my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will be able to give him a complete answer to the points that he raises in his speech.
I now turn to the question of uneconomic railway services. The Select Committee mentioned this in paragraphs 421 to 427 of its Report. I have now received the Commission's observations on the Report, and very shortly these will be sent to the Select Committee with my own observations. The railways are short, by well over £100 million a year, of meeting their full liabilities. The essential uneconomic services are masked and overlaid by this general situation. and it is difficult to evaluate the hard core problem. Services at present uneconomic may well become profitable as modernisation and rationalisation proceeds. But, as the Select Committee pointed out, there are uneconomic services which raise questions of social need. In the end these will be a matter for the Government to decide.
The problem goes wider than the rail ways, and affects other nationalised industries. The cost of uneconomic services has to be met somewhere, and in the present railway situation the burden falling on the taxpayer is very heavy indeed. The Government will consider the question of uneconomic services in the general context and in the light of the Select Committee's comments.
I now want to say a few words about modernisation. In 1959, the Commission submitted a reappraisal of modernisation which forecast a surplus on operating account by 1963. The Government did not endorse it, and I doubted the accuracy of its forecasts. How far these doubts were justified is shown in part by the financial section

625
of the White Paper. As I am accountable to the House for the very large sums of public money to be invested, and as I personally doubted the estimates on which modernisation was proceeding, it was my duty to take some action.
My first step was to see all schemes costing more than £250,000. This was to some extent a crash action, but I had before me no long-term programme; no overall order of priorities; no real knowledge of the future incidence and phasing of expenditure on individual projects or for railway modernisation as a whole; no statement of the accumulated effect of the commitments to be entered into, and no power of estimating systematically how far all the proposed public investment was capable of producing the financial results so badly needed by the railways. Finally, there was no relationship between the proposals for railway modernisation and developments elsewhere.
What did I do under those circumstances? I set up machinery with the Transport Commission for examining modernisation in its relationship to these other developments. There had to be some slowing down on new commitments, but no cancellation of old ones, until it was possible to see more clearly where we were going; and the Commission agreed that this should be done. There had to he a longer term programme. On 16th December last, I received the Commission's proposals for the next four years. These will need a lot of work yet, especially in relation to future financial results and the targets given in the White Paper. A satisfactory relationship for this work has been established between the Commission and my Department.
As I bear responsibility for moneys invested, and as I disagreed with the forecasts in the reappraisal which was the basis of the investment, it is my duty to see that realistic proposals are formulated. We are, therefore, conducting a thorough stocktaking and, in the meantime, we paused on new investment. But even with this temporary pause, the House should not underestimate the magnitude of current investment on railways. En 1961, it will be up to £140 million, which is £26 million more than Fords of U.S.A. paid to take over its British subsidiary. So it is a fairly big sum.
626
Political and Press controversy has tended to oversimplify modernisation arguments and seems to have labelled people into two camps—either those who are pro-modernisation, or those who are anti-modernisation. But it is not as simple as that. The Government want to see modernisation, but it should be carried out to bring certain advantages. First, technically, it should be of a high quality and so reliable that not only does it serve the public, but it promotes our exports. One or two things that have happened recently have not been to our advantage, and I will deal with those. Financially, the capital assets should give value for money and the estimated income should be realised. Priorities must be right and the moneys concentrated where they can bring immediate return.
Mr. G. R. Strauss: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in view of the strong criticism and the attack that he has made on the Minister of Transport of the time—now the Minister of Defence—he followed the usual Parliamentary custom of giving him notice of his intention to do so?
Mr. Marples: I do not think that that is worthy of the right hon. Gentleman. In point of fact, my predecessor, too, did not endorse the reappraisal. The reappraisal came before the Government just before the General Election and, therefore, he did not endorse it; and when I saw it I did not endorse it, so we are together in that respect.
This is an appropriate moment to refer to the electrification of the London-Midland main line from London to Crewe, Manchester and Liverpool. Many people have been worried about the future of this work, but it would have been wrong for the Government to let this scheme proceed on the information that they had before them last summer, especially when we remember the grave financial plight of the railways and the amount of public money involved.
The pause for reconsideration has been fully justified. The Commission has now made a firmer estimate than ever before of the result of electrification, both the new receipts and savings in costs. It has prepared a comprehensive scheme for carrying out the work, with proposals for phasing the investment, which it is satisfied that it can keep to. We now have a much clearer

627
picture about its relation to other proposals for railway investment.
The Government have decided that the London-Midland main line electrification Euston to Crewe, Manchester and Liverpool shall go ahead. It will also go ahead as quickly as is consistent with the best use of resources. I must make it clear that I shall keep the scheme under close review to see how the estimates of cost and the rate of completion are working out, and, also, that the Government approval of this electrification work does not mean that other major main line electrification works will necessarily be approved. The Government's approval of this—the largest scheme of all—should be taken as evidence of the Government's faith not only in modernisation, but in the British electrical manufacturing industry.
On productivity, let me make this clear. Reorganisation of management structure, financial reconstruction, commercial freedom, the continuing process of modernisation and rationalisation—none of these can succeed without a very considerable increase in railway productivity. This is crucial. The future of the railways and of the railwaymen will inevitably turn on this. Last year, railway wages were brought into line with general levels. We welcomed this. But only adequate and increasing productivity on the railways can maintain this position. The whole country will be anxiously watching the progress of the railways over the next few years to see how far we can increase productivity.
The British Railways Productivity Council has made progress, but it has still a very long way to go. There is the extension of work study to which both the Select Committee and the White Paper refer. There must be a reasonable and effective deployment of railway workers. The railway trade unions have a special responsibility and a great opportunity to help in this. Over a vast organisation like British Railways, small savings in innumerable places can produce considerable results. The Government and the taxpayer are contributing their share and effort, but without matching contribution from within the industry this can be of no avail.
I now come back to the White Paper. The Government's proposals are no
628
more than the essential first steps in a long haul. But they deal with essentials and embrace those main things on which legislation will be required. The Government intend to introduce the necessary Bill during the next Session. It was not possible to introduce it earlier. There is a lot of work to be done before the Bill will be ready. Much can, however, be accomplished in the interim once the Government's policies have been approved. In this work the Transport Commission has given an assurance of its full co-operation—and I am grateful to it—and all concerned, including the trade unions, will be consulted in the detailed preparation of the legislation.
The Government think that these proposals provide a firm and clear hope for the future of the nationalised transport industries, and particularly for the railways. They are certainly a token for all to see of the Government's faith that the railways will surmount their present difficulties and fulfil their proper role in our national life and economy. The Government are resolved to discharge their responsibilities in this matter and they rely on others to do the same. It is in this expectation that I commend these proposals to the House.
4.48 p.m.
Mr. G. R. Strauss: I beg to move, to leave out from House "to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
"while welcoming the measures for temporary financial relief regrets that Command Paper No. 1248 offers no solution for the basic problems confronting British Railways and that it proposes a scheme of reorganisation that will further disintegrate the publicly owned transport undertakings".
We are very glad indeed that the Minister of Transport has recovered from his recent illness sufficiently to enable him to explain the White Paper to us today. We feel sure that had he not been able to do so, his Joint Parliamentary Secretary, who made a very good show at Question Time last Wednesday, would have stepped into his shoes with great success. But, obviously, plainly, it is desirable that the Minister himself, with his authority, should come to the House to try to throw light on the many inconsistencies and imprecisions in the White Paper; to fry to justify some of its strange proposals and, in

629
particular, to explain why the Government are so intent on disintegrating the publicly-owned transport industry when that is so plainly contrary to the national interest.
I submit that the Minister has failed to do any of these things. That is not due to any lack of powers of exposition on his part. It is because it is not possible, even for the right hon. Gentleman, to defend the indefensible. The anxieties felt about the Government's approach to the transport industry are not confined to Her Majesty's Opposition. They are shared in many responsible quarters outside this House, by the trade unions, Conservative newspapers, large sections of British industry and by many high executives in the railway organisations. As those who have read the recent issue of Modern Transport will know, there is now added the strong criticism of Lord Hurcomb, who, I suppose, has had longer experience of transport problems than anybody else in the country, and who was for many years Chairman of the British Transport Commission.
The White Paper contains two entirely separate proposals, and it would be possible to put either into operation without the other. One is the reconstitution of the capital structure of the Transport Commission, and here there is a large measure of agreement. The finances of the railways have got into such an unhealthy state, as a result of past losses and the actuarial devices adopted from time to time by the Government to meet them, that the need for a drastic surgical operation has long been evident, and indeed urgent, as the heavy loss is bound to continue for some time. We therefore welcome the capital reconstruction set out in the White Paper, which is very much in line with the proposals put forward by Labour Party spokesmen.
Had the White Paper stopped there, it would have had our whole-hearted support. But it is no use thinking that even by this drastic reduction in the capital burden of the railways, and the payment out of taxation of the losses that will be incurred during the next five years, the problem will be solved. For a long time now the country has 'been lulled into a false sense of complacency by the optimistic forecasts of the Commission, about which the Minister spoke, and which, so far as anybody outside know, the Government had accepted.
630
Today, the Minister made a very strong attack on his predecessor. He recited a list of his right hon. Friend's deficiencies, and he told us many things Which his right hon. Friend ought to have done, but did not do. Presumably, he notified his predecessor that he intended to do this—I do not know. But one thing is quite certain. When the Commission's forecasts of the financial consequences of the modernisation plan were published there was never a word from the Government questioning the authenticity or the correctness of the forecasts. I challenge the hon. Member for Guildford (Sir R. Nugent), who was Joint Parliamentary Secretary at the time, to deny that not a word was spoken by his Minister or himself suggesting that the forecasts of the Transport Commission were in any way false.
Sir Richard Nugent: I gladly take up that challenge. Of course, I was not Joint Parliamentary-Secretary at that time in 1956. But that modernisation plan and its estimates were accepted by the Government of the day and were approved by Parliament and were accepted as being realistic and possible. The point made by my right hon. Friend was that the reappraisal in 1959, when the Transport Commission issued its present estimates, was not adopted by the Government of the day, by my right hon. Friend the then Minister, or myself. We said that we must study them in great detail and say what we thought about them.
Mr. Strauss: The hon. Gentleman has endorsed what I said. I am talking of the reappraisal of the Commission's modernisation plan published in July, 1959. I say that not a word was said by any Government spokesman thereafter suggesting that the estimate put forward by the Commission was in any way inaccurate. That is my challenge. The Minister of Transport says blandly that the Government did not accept those estimates. If that be so, a Government spokesman should have said so at the time, but nobody did.
Sir R. Nugent: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way again. Naturally, we accepted the reappraisal as being an honest and a thorough one by the Commission. All we said at the time was that we should have to study it in detail before we could give an opinion.
Mr. Strauss: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for once more endorsing the statement which I made.
We now repeat our warning and say that the Government still appear to be over-optimistic in thinking that in five years' time, even after taking into account the proposed relief on interest payments, the railways will be able to pay their way. The White Paper states that in 1965 the interest charges will be between £60 million and £70 million—shall we say, £65 million. The present operating loss is running at about £60 million a year. On that basis, there will be a total deficit of £125 million. What are the chances of this being met by increased revenue?
In its reappraisal of the modernisation plan, published in 1959, the Commission estimated that the improved earnings likely to accrue by 1963 would be between £45 million and £95 million. We are now told that this estimate was probably optimistic. Even then it was only made on the assumption that there would be no wage increases meanwhile or other unforeseen additional costs. If one takes the top figure of £95 million of possible improvement, which means a total increase in revenue of 22 per cent., at the end of a period of five years obviously there will still be a substantial deficit.
No mention is made in the White Paper—I understand the reluctance of the Government to do so—of the fact that a minor but not insignificant part of the heavy losses sustained by the railways in the past was deliberately caused by direct interference from the Government. The story is now well known and I do not propose to repeat it in detail. I will just say this in brief to remind the House. The Government first sold to private owners a great part of the highly profitable road haulage organisation. Then they refused to permit an increase in fare and freight rates, although this had been authorised by the Transport Tribunal. This brought about a loss which has been estimated at between £15 million and £30 million.
There were probably heavier losses resulting from the Government demand that the modernisation scheme should be curtailed in 1958 and 1959. Therefore,
632
in welcoming the present scheme for capital reconstruction, I cannot help remarking that the need for it is in some part due to the folly of the Government's own actions.
Today, when we are discussing the future of the railways, the question must be asked whether, in conditions of unrestricted road competition—conditions in which the Government believe—the railways can ever pay their way, or whether they will always have a deficit which the taxpayer will have to meet. The Government must face this question. Governments in other countries have already done so. In West Germany and in France decisions have been taken to restrict the free competition of road transport so as to induce certain traffics to go by rail. In those countries it is believed that such action, which is, as we know, contrary to the whole philosophy of the Conservative Party, is desirable in the general national interest.
In West Germany the number of vehicles permitted to ply for hire or reward outside a 50 kilometre radius has been limited to the number in operation in 1958. Long-distance road and rail charges are fixed by statute to prevent harmful competition and for some bulk traffic they are deliberately fixed to favour the railways. The French Government are now taking steps to co-ordinate road, rail and water transport and to fix freights on a basis which will make the most economical use of all transport. They propose to raise road freights in some cases where road transport is taking business away from the railways.
I do not say that identical action should be taken in this country, but I do say that if the Government persist in their belief that the national interest is best served by permitting unrestricted competition, they must make up their minds that the railways will have to be permanently subsidised out of public funds. From one source or another, either from its own revenues or from taxation, British Railways must have an annual income high enough to enable it to run an efficient national service and to pay attractive remunerations to its staff. So much for the financial changes proposed in the White Paper, which, with these observations, we welcome as affording a necessary temporary relief, but

633
which do not solve the fundamental problems of the railways.
We take a wholly different view of the proposed organisational changes. The entire present structure of the nationalised transport undertakings is to be scrapped, the central authority—the British Transport Commission—with its powers of supervision and co-ordination, is to disappear and the various services are to he fragmented into separate autonomous units responsible to no one who has effective authority over them. Before examining the consequences of this great upheaval, we must ask the Government why they have considered it necessary.
The Minister has not enlightened us. He told us it is thought to be necesary, but he has not said why. Is it really suggested that the British Transport Commission, due to its preoccupation with the railways, was neglecting the other services? I know of no evidence to support such a complaint. These services are operating profitably and, so far as I am aware, the executives responsible for their running do not desire any greater freedom. Or is it suggested that the railways losses—the cause of the proposed upheaval—are due to the incompetence of the B.T.C., or that they would have been avoided or lessened if the Commission had not been responsible for railway affairs?
Neither the Minister nor anyone has suggested this. Indeed, the Commission has frequently been commended by Ministers for its zeal and competence and, in particular, for the drive with which it launched the modernisation plan. What, then, is the reason for this proposed drastic change? Surely no one would lightly reorganise the structure of the nationalised transport industries with all the confusion inseparable from such a course. Did the Stedeford Committee recommend it? The Government refuses to tell us. We regard it as indefensible that the Government should deny Parliament the knowledge of the conclusions of that expert Committee. We have the Report of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries. That Committee, as we all know, made an admirably thorough and searching investigation into British Railways.
The more anyone studies that Committee's Report the more one commends
634
the Committee and its Chairman on their achievement and their conclusions. Some of these were critical of the B.T.C., but nowhere did the Committee suggest the break-up of the whole organisation. Indeed, it said in paragraph 360 of its conclusions, which was unanimous:
"Without committing themselves on details, and without discussing the past, Your Committee believe that the general lines on which the Commission are now working—both in central co-ordination and in decentralisation of managerial responsibility—are right."
Why then smash up the whole of the organisation and rebuild it on different lines?
Sir Toby Low: It is rather dangerous to put a gloss on a Committee Report, but I think it would be right to remind the right hon. Member and the House that we were reporting, not on the British Transport Commission, but only on the railways. I think it very important in quoting the Committee's observations that we should remember that.
Mr. Strauss: Of course I accept that completely, but all the troubles and the proposals in the White Paper arise from the railways' difficulties. In investigating the railways, the Committee said that it thought that the present set-up in centralisation and decentralisation was working well. That is the point I am making.
In the absence of any rational argument or supporting evidence for this disruptive action by the Government, one can only come to this conclusion. Even if the Government did desire to bring about some shift of responsibility from one of the executive bodies to another, I challenge the Minister to deny that any such shift of responsibility could have been brought about with the greatest ease within the existing framework. Therefore, it seems to us that the only tenable explanation of the Government's decision to proceed with these disruptive proposals is their anxiety to save the Prime Minister's face. Without any preliminary inquiry, before the Stedeford Committee had reported and before the Select 'Committee had reported, without any demand from any quarter, without any supporting evidence, the Prime Minister announced to the House on 10th March, last year:

635
"the Commission must accept a radical alteration of its structure, so as to secure a more effective distribution of functions and a better use of all its assets."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th March. 1960; Vol. 619, c. 644.]
What induced him to pledge himself and his Government to such a course, without even giving any reasons to show that it was desirable? The only reason we have been given by the Minister of Transport today is that the present setup is out of date. That is no reason at all; it is an expression of opinion. I suppose we shall never know what induced the Prime Minister to make that statement. But the national transport industry—and the railways in particular —now has to accept the serious consequence of what appeared to be his off-the-cuff decision.
Let us look at some of these consequences. First, the Commission itself, as we know it with its integrating function, will disappear and nothing will effectively take its place. Presumably, also, the common services it now runs so advantageously, research, legal, traffic, finance, costing, manpower, public relations and publicity, commercial advertising, police and films will be disintegrated at great loss of efficiency and at much greater expense. British Road Services is to be completely severed from the railways. I should have thought that no one nowadays would have questioned the desirability of road and rail services being closely integrated.
British Road Services is not even to have the status of a separate board. Surely, it is as important as the docks, which are to have such a board; but, no, British Road Services, together with Thomas Cook, the hotels and five other services, are to be lumped together into a separate holding company. Can we, by the way, have a guarantee from the Government that they will reject any take-over bid for any of these services, as we know that many of their back bench supporters have long been advocating their sale to private owners? I notice that some hon. Members opposite are nodding their heads in agreement.
We have been told today that these services are to operate in the same way as private companies. Are they to have the same powers as private companies?
636
Will they be entitled to enter into their businesses with the same unrestricted powers which a private company has today?
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. John Hay)The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. John Hay) indicated assent.
Mr. Strauss: I am delighted to see the Joint Parliamentary Secretary nod in agreement. We are looking forward to reading the terms of the Bill which will permit that to happen. It does not happen now.
When we come back to the question of disintegration of road and rail and other services, we find that there is generally—not scepticism, but—opposition among people who are aware of the railway and transport problems. Even staunch Conservative newspapers like The Times say that this is going too far.
Mr. Grant-Ferris: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he thinks that integration for the inland waterways has been beneficial?
Mr. Strauss: Certainly. I am amazed that the hon. Gentleman suggests that the waterways system and the other transport systems of this country should be separated. If he thinks that, we disagree with him entirely.
We find, for example, that The Times—I know that hon. Members opposite pay a great deal of attention to what The Times says—has been stirred to indignation about the Government's policy of disintegration. In its leader on 21st December, shortly after the proposals came out, it said:
"Decentralisation is being carried too far—in many respects there will be less integration than there was in the 1930s."
In today's edition The Times,as some hon. Members may have noticed, in rather milder but no less trenchant terms, makes this comment:
"Of this plan two broad criticisms can be made. The first is that it may isolate the railways too much from other transport operations. The second is that the decentralisation proposed is unreal and even within the terms of the White Paper natural forces will tend as the years go by to bring about centralisation one again,"
and so on. I will not quote the whole leader. I could quote much expert opinion outside the House.

637
I want now to ask the Minister and the House to consider this aspect of the problem. What is to happen on the periphery of the scheme for decentralisation? I am talking about the regions. At present, there are six, each with a general manager and a lines manager responsible for all local activities. They have full operating authority within their areas and considerable discretion even in fixing passenger fares and freight rates. It is a wholly successful scheme of devolution, and I doubt whether anyone concerned with it, either on the Commission or in the areas, wants any major change.
There is a board in each region consisting, with the exception of one or two Who are members of the Commission, of part-time members. There are conflicting opinions about whether these boards fulfil any worthwhile function. But one thing appears to us to be certain. There is no function for full-time members of the area boards, now to be called regional boards, to carry out. There is nothing for them to do. But it is proposed in the White Paper that such full-time members are to be appointed. What on earth can they do, except get in the way of the general managers? This is a thoroughly bad proposal, and although it is a key proposal I hope that it will be reconsidered.
It stems again, I suggest, from the Prime Minister's mind and his recollection of his activities as a member of the Great Western Railway Board long, long ago when conditions were very different. But I would remind him and the House that, as far as I am aware, when the railways were in private hands before nationalisation there were no full-time directors on any of the privately-owned railway companies except the managing directors. Therefore, neither precedent nor common sense suggests the desirability of having full-time directors on regional boards.
Moreover, in spite of the talk about the desirability of decentralisation, the regional boards are not, in fact, as far as we can see from the White Paper, to have any more power than the existing area boards. It would seem, therefore, that the Prime Minister's desires in this direction were found on examination to be wholly impracticable. The new Central British Railways Board,
638
we are told in paragraph 14 of the White Paper, will retain all the central functions which are now the responsibility of the Commission. In our view, the Government are absolutely right in ensuring that the British Railways Board should be fully in control and strong, but it does not square with the Prime Minister's desire for decentralisation of the regions. This really seems to have been one of the main motives in the right hon. Gentleman's mind for bringing about the whole of this reorganisation scheme.
I wish to ask the Minister two questions about the duties of the new British Railways Board. Is it to be responsible for standardisation and bulk purchase? These functions are not mentioned in paragraph 14 of the White Paper. Is this an oversight or is it intentional? The other question is this. We are told that the British Railways Board will be responsible for—and these are very specific words—
"the determination of the future size and shape of the railway system."
But we have also been told by the Minister previously—and it was repeated today—that it is he and his special study group who are going to decide the size and shape of the future system. We have had two contradictory statements. Which is it to be? Which is correct? If the right hon. Gentleman says that neither is to do it but that it is to be done in co-operation, that is intelligible. But at the moment we have been told (a) the Board is going to decide and (b) that the Minister is going to decide. We ought to know where the responsibility will lie.
Is it really the intention of the Government, as implied in the White Paper, to stop all railway services that do not pay? If so, there will be left a truncated railway system and the public and large sections of industry will be deprived of essential transport facilities.
We are told in paragraph 16 of the White Paper that each regional board is to have a separate trading account. Of course, it is desirable that all railway operations should be costed as accurately as possible, and an enormous amount of effort has been put into this by the Commission. It has already, with the help of its accountancy advisers, developed methods which, it claims, after comparing them with similar schemes in

639
other countries, give it more comprehensive and accurate results than any in the world. And the Commission is developing them further.
But the suggestion that there will be any value in comparing the profits or losses of one region with another is not shared by anyone with any knowledge of railway working. To carry out such a purpose would need hundreds, may be thousands, of people whose conclusions at the end of the day would be largely guesswork. They would in no way measure the efficiency of any regional management. They would have no worth while purpose whatever.
I come back to what to our minds is the fundamental defect of the White Paper proposals, and that is the threatened break-up of the integrated transport system under the authority of the Commission. It was, no doubt, to placate the hostile criticism which this was bound to create that the Government are proposing to set up a body called the Nationalised Transport Advisory Council. Integration is to be replaced by sham co-ordination. The total inadequacy of the proposed council to carry out effective co-ordination or planning is so obvious that it barely needs arguing. It is only necessary to ask this question. How can this important and difficult task be done by five gentlemen —maybe with a few others added—without staff, in the time that they can spare from their chairmanship of the five important new boards? And if they should by some miracle succeed, what is the use, as they will have advisory powers only and no executive authority whatsoever?
It has been suggested that the Minister, who is to be their chairman, will act on their advice and carry out such coordination as they may succeed in devising. But is that really the intention? We must be clear about this. Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to set up the large necessary staff in his Department to carry out such work? We must be clear about it. According to the terms of the White Paper this is not so. Paragraph 28 says:
"…the Government do not propose that the Minister's existing statutory powers and responsibilities in relation to the nationalised transport undertakings should be extended."
640
At present, the right hon. Gentleman has no effective power to interfere with the operational decisions of the transport services, but only broad powers on any large subject of national interest.
Last week his Parliamentary Secretary, in reply to a supplementary question in the House, said that under the White Paper provisions the Minister would actually be hiving off some of his existing responsibilities. He will therefore have less responsibility, or interfere less, in the future than he has done in the past, if that statement means anything at all. If that is so, in future neither the Council nor the Minister will be able to replace the Commission's coordinating authority.
I will give an example of what it appears to me is likely to happen in view of the decision to do away with an effective co-ordinating body such as the British Transport Commission is. Disagreement may arise between a regional board and British Road Services about the location of a new depot in some town. British Road Services, for reasons of convenience which may appear good to them, may want the new depot established at a distance instead of adjacent to the railway depot—a problem of disagreement where coordination is necessary.
At the moment the process is clear. The British Transport Commission can interfere and can make an effective decision. But what will happen now? The regional board will go to the British Railways Board. The British Railways Board will then go to the Nationalised Transport Advisory Council and, if that body has the time and the facilities for deciding such a local but important uestion—it can itself take no decision it will then go to the Minister who, poor man, has no authority to impose a solution. If the new set-up is introduced, it will prove to be an admirable administrative machine for obscuring responsibility and retarding decision.
As the Minister is aware, many urgent representations have been made to him by the shipping industry and others for some action to prevent the growing competition of road and rail which has done such damage to the shipping industry and has reduced its tonnage so immensely during recent years. I very much hope that the body over which he is now presiding—I do not know how authoritative

641
it is, except that he is chairman of it—will make early progress and will obtain the advice of all the expert opinion there is.
It is obvious that the main competition in transport today is not between the nationalised services but between them and the road, shipping and air services. One cannot help feeling that some of the hundreds of millions of pounds which are now being poured into road and rail may be lost in wasteful duplication. We thoroughly support the Minister in his desire to look at the transport problem as a whole, and we hope that his conclusions will be available at a time not too far distant.
I have one final comment to make on the White Paper. We have been told that legislation to implement its provisions will not be available until next Session. That means that the new scheme cannot be operative for two years at the earliest. During that period, whatever the Minister may say to the contrary, there is bound to be insecurity and uncertainty in the minds of the administrators and executives who have the responsible task of running the publicly-owned transport services. This cannot help having grave adverse effects, particularly when the modernisation plan is in such a critical stage. Having decided on this reorganisation, the Government should have determined, however difficult it may be, to introduce the necessary legislation in time for it to pass the House by the end of this summer. They could have done so if they had wanted to do so.
Meanwhile, may we have at least an assurance from the Government that there will not be any new interference in the affairs of British Railways which will have the same harmful effect as most of their interferences in the past. We know what those effects have been. They have all retarded the modernisation plan. I do not know what damage has been done not only to British Railways but also to the heavy electrical industry by the recent hold-up for over four months in the Crewe-London part of the London Midland electrification scheme. We now know that this was unnecessary, as the Minister has authorised its progress today. If the Government wanted to examine it, they should have examined it a long time ago. Why wait until October and then suddenly say, "We
642
must stop. No new contracts to be authorised. Everything to be held up while we look at the plan." If it needed to be looked at, that should have been done before.
We have been told by the Government today that at last they have agreed that this part of the work should proceed. I hope that the Minister has noted the strong criticisms which have been made of him and the Government as a result of all this. The strongest of all, oddly enough, came from Aims of Industry, the most staunchly Conservative body in the country, which circulated a document saying that it is
"a ludicrous state of affairs which, irrespective of the known difficulties, reflects discredit on Her Majesty's Government."
That sentiment will be warmly endorsed by everyone in the House who is not sitting on the Government Front Bench.
I mentioned this matter only because it appears to me to be an example, the latest and one of the worst, of the Government's attitude to British Railways. Ever since they came into power ten years ago they have never been able to desist from interfering with their operations and monkeying about with their structure, and nearly always to their detriment. Now they are engaged in another of these exercises and are today asking the House to endorse their view that if the structure of this nationalised industry is regrouped by disintegration, its services will be much better; although they are unable to produce any evidence or worthwhile arguments to support their contention.
Of course, there is much to be done to improve the railways: we on this side of the House are fully aware of that. Indeed, the Select Committee pointed out a number of improvements which the Commission should and no doubt would make. But there is nothing fundamentally wrong with the railways. Their greatest handicap since 1951 has been the existence of a Government who believe in competition as a panacea for all troubles, regard all national planning and integration as anathema and have consistently acted in accordance with this creed.
The present proposals are the Government's latest and most far-reaching move to achieve their end. They have met

643
with strong criticism from an impressive volume of informed opinion. We hope that before bringing their implementing Bill to Parliament, the Government will think again. Meanwhile, we must record our strong disapproval in the Division Lobbies.
5.29 p.m.
Mr. Aubrey Jones: I should like to begin by doing something which previous speakers have not done, although no doubt the omission is by inadvertence. I should like to express the gratitude of any rate one back bencher to the Stedeford Committee for the work that it has done. [HON. MEMBERS: "What has it done?"] The Stedeford Committee was called upon to tackle a job of formidable proportions in circumstances of great difficulty. It was, first, invited to help the Government with a problem which—I agree with the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) in this—the Government had allowed to grow upon them and to which they had themselves contributed. The statement of 10th March announcing the establishment of the Committee contained a very strong hint as to the findings which it should reach. However independent-minded the members of the Committee might have been, it is very difficult to believe that that hint did not keep on entangling their discussions.
Next, the Committee was invited to do its job in a hurry in order to catch the legislative Session. It did the job in six months, an interval of time which could not possibly have allowed much opportunity to do all the cross-examination necessary in an analysis of this kind. After all this, the legislative Session was missed.
Finally, when the Government put forward their proposals in the House we are not allowed to know what the Committee recommended. The world is allowed, to infer that what is proposed arises directly from the Crmmittee's Report. I do not know, but it is at least a fair possibility that the Government have run away from some of the Committee's recommendations and that some, if not all, the members of the Committee think that some of the decisions are downright erroneous. [HON.MEMBERS: "Oh."]
644
I repeat that I think that the entire House owes a debt of gratitude to the Stedeford Committee. I do not object to the Government calling in outside advisers. Indeed, I think that it is very necessary, because, as I see the problem, the Government find themselves implicated in industry much more so than formerly, but, as the war years have receded and the industrialists then recruited have departed, the Government contains people unversed in industry.
I, therefore, agree with the principle of calling in outside aid, but if the Government do call in outside help the least they can do is to respect its independence. That implies no hint being given to those called in as to what they should find. It also implies the publication of what they recommend—not because we have a right to know, but because on no other basis will the Government continue to get good independent outside advice. They will get people anxious to gratify authority, but on this basis they will not continue to get the best outside independent advice. We have been witnessing an unhappy demonstration in the formulation of policy and in the use of outside advisers. I hope that we shall not see a repetition of what has happened in this instance.
Mr. A. Woodburn: Is it not the case that. if the Stedeford Committee tendered advice which the Government did not propose to accept, it would be extremely embarrassing for the Government to publish the Committee's Report and then bring in contrary recommendations?
Mr. Jones: All I am suggesting is that it is invidious vis-à-vis the members of the Committee. I doubt very much whether they can be expected to serve again in an advisory capacity for the Government.
What strikes me most about the White Paper is that the important problems are not touched on in it, or in so far as they are touched on they are touched on very lightly. I concede immediately that some, though not all, were mentioned in my right hon. Friend's speech. I give as an instance one of the most important questions of all. What are to be the

645
Government's relations with the Railways Board? Are the Government to treat the Board as a public corporation with the degree of autonomy inherent in the concept of a public corporation? Or are they rather to move towards making the Railways Board a post office, part and parcel of the Government Department, or are we to have a relationship midway between the two—in other words, nominally a public corporation, but in practice treated as though it were part and parcel of a Government Department, with the Government uncertain in their own mind about which direction they should move? What we have at the moment is the last of these three states.
In transport more than anything else we have seen a great retreat from the concept of the public corporations. For years the British Transport Commission has had no latitude in the determination of its charges. I doubt very much whether in these days it has any latitude in the determination of wages. As my right hon. Friend said, it is one of the largest, if not the largest, industrial undertaking in the country. Yet in respect of capital expenditure it enjoys no more latitude than that of a subsidiary of a normal sized commercial undertaking.
Reasons can be given for all these things. One can plead inflation, one can plead the deficit of the railways to explain present control on capital expenditure. But the fact remains that the British Transport Commission is an organisation at the moment which is in a state of thraldom to the Minister of Transport. No organisation which is in a state of thraldom will be an efficient organisation. Whether an organisation is efficient depends, first and foremost, as my right hon. Friend implied, on its management.
One of the purposes of the whole concept of the public corporation was to allow the Government to recruit to the nationalised undertakings men of quality, naturally, but men of a background and experience not ordinarily found in a Government Department. Is there any hope of recruiting them to an organisation which is in thrall to the Ministry of Transport? I doubt very much whether my right hon. Friend can solve his problem of management so
646
long as he has the Commission in a state of subjugation. No hint has been given to us, either in the White Paper or in my right hon. Friend's speech, of any release from this state of subjugation.
There are other matters. I understood my right hon. Friend to imply that there was to be a revision of the terms and condition of appointment of board managers. I welcome that. It is very important.
Then there is the question of manpower. My right hon. Friend touched on this. I believe that the manpower on the railways has to contract, possibly by as much as 20 per cent. Finally, there is the question of charges. My right hon. Friend repeated what the White Paper says, namely, that the Railways Board would now be free from statutory control over charges. I welcome that, but what about the informal control hitherto exercised by the Government? Which of the two unpopularities do the Government prefer the unpopularity of seeing fares and charges rise, or the odium of so mismanaging the railways that they have permanently to subsidise them? I do not think that that is an exaggeration. This is the choice with which we are faced. Hitherto, the Government have chosen the second of these two unpopularities. Which is to be their future policy? Is their choice to be the same, or are we to infer from the brave words of my right hon. Friend this afternoon that there is now to be a change?
These are the important problems, and, compared with them, the organisational problems set out in the White Paper are of secondary, if not tertiary, importance. Nonetheless, I want to say a few words about them. First, the question of centralisation versus decentralisation. I regret that over the last few years, my party has attached itself, or has appeared to attach itself, without qualification to the principle of decentralisation. I find these matters much more complicated than that. I do not find these generalisations at all easy. In so far as one can generalise in these matters, whether a decentralised or a centralised structure is appropriate depends entirely on the time scale which one has in mind.

647
If one is thinking of planning far ahead, one requires quite a high degree of central power. Indeed, the whole trend of the time is mainly in this direction. This, I suggest, is indeed one of the most formidable strengths of the Soviet Union and a strength which we ought not to ignore by glib talk or glib generalisations about decentralisation.
If one is thinking of long-term planning, one requires a high degree of central power. For this reason, I welcome the reconstitution, in effect, of the Railways Executive. If, on the other hand, one is thinking of the flexibility of day-to-day operations, most certainly one requires freedom and latitude at the periphery. I am forced to say that the railways need this, too.
One of the problems of the railways is that they are a large organisation enjoying all the technical advantages of a large organisation. This technical advantage, however, is more than offset by the quickness and flexibility of the small operator with whom they are in competition. In other words, it is the juggernaut competing against the midget.
To achieve this flexibility, there must be latitude at the periphery. This requires, however, that the operating unit should be something much smaller than the region. Regionalisation does not begin to affect this issue. What is more, it requires a great change in our public expectations. Do we expect an organisation such as the Railways Board to be saddled with uniform charges, uniform wages and conditions of labour, a burden of uniformity from which the smaller operators do not in the least suffer?
Be that as it may, the essential point is that the proper distribution between central power and power at the periphery is something which we should leave entirely to the Railways Board. Do not let the Government appoint the Railways Board and in one and the same breath tell it how to do its job. Do not let them repeat the mistake which they made with the Stedeford Committee. If we are to recruit good men to the Railways Board, let them decide what the proper distribution of power should be.
On the question of the composition of the Railways Board, I would only note
648
that, if the proposal in the White Paper goes through, we are now departing from the decision which the Government and the House took following the recommendations of the Fleck Committee for the National Coal Board. The Fleck Committee recommended that there should be no geographical representation on the central board and that the central board should be utterly independent of geographical representation. What is now proposed is different. I think that the Fleck solution for the Coal Board was right and I am very doubtful about this new proposal.
Even so, I should like to call the attention of the House to paragraph 15 (b)of the White Paper on the question of regional representation on the central board. Paragraph 15 states that the Railways Board shall contain
"(b) A representative from each of the Regional Railway Boards."
I ask the House to note the use of the word "representative". Why not have the chairman? He is the obvious candidate. If the avoidance of the word "chairman" and the use of the word "representative" is to be construed as an intention to appoint to the central board someone other than the chairman of the regional board, I cannot imagine anything more calculated to destroy the corporate unity of any board. I can only hope that my suspicions are ill-founded.
I should like to say a word about the National Transport Advisory Council. There is a case for an outside advisory body in transport. I am not at all sure, however, that this is the right body or, indeed, that it is being given the right thing to do. The case which I would make for an outside body would be this. One of the most vital questions, as, indeed, my right hon. Friend the Minister conceded this afternoon, is the difficult question of relative investment in road and rail, and, I would add, air. This question is something which it may be that we can never answer rationally. The least we can do is to try to answer the question as objectively as we can.
At the moment, the authority charged with answering that difficult question is the Ministry of Transport. I suggest that the objectivity of the Ministry of Transport is open to question in at least two respects. First, that Ministry has inherited from the past a tradition of

649
supervision and of control over the railway monopoly. These traditions are never easily got rid of and this getting rid of a. tradition of suspicion has been made all the more difficult by the difficulties of the Transport Commission over the past few years.
Secondly, however, while being a controlling, supervising authority over the railways, the Ministry of Transport is also itself the road-making authority. It may well be—I am making no personal allusions—that from time to time a particular Minister of Transport sees his political future and his political reputation primarily in terms of road building. I am making no personal question of this. My remarks are applicable to any Minister of Transport.
There is a strong case for correcting that inherent bias in the Ministry of Transport, but I am not at all sure from the White Paper that the question of relative investment in road and rail is part of the terms of reference of the Nationalised Transport Advisory Council. The White Paper is not clear about this. Even if it is part of its terms of reference, surely, this advisory council is the wrong body. It does not comprise people who are objective and independent vis-à-vis one form of transport and another. This advisory council is a collection of sectional interests and, what is more, it is to be chaired—again, I make no personal imputation—by, I suggest, the least objective person of all, the Minister of Transport. This repeats the very defect from which we are now suffering.
It surely must be without precedent for us to have put before us a proposal that the advisory body to a Minister should be chaired by the Minister himself. In these circumstances, there must be a temptation for the Minister to endeavour to colour advice with preconceived policy. In so far as he did that, he would frustrate the whole purpose of the advisory council. In so far as he fails, he might well be faced with mass resignations from his advisory council I ask the Government to think again on this, if on nothing else. This proposal appears to me ill-conceived.
I should like to say a brief word about the breaking up of the Commission. If
650
I understood my right hon. Friend aright, the principle which the Government have endeavoured to follow is to create units of manageable size. This is an admirable principle and I entirely endorse it. We ought, however, to ask ourselves some questions about the manner in which the Government have endeavoured to carry out their principle, in particular about the severance of road and rail.
I would suggest that by the severance of road and rail certain advantages which are now enjoyed are going to be forfeited. Under the new arrangements I would suggest that it will be extremely difficult to bring about any cross-fertilisation of experience between road and rail. It is most important that people with the flexibility of road experience should play a part in railway operations. This is made more difficult by the proposals now before us.
Then again, the old road and rail problem has been superseded by a newer problem: the competition of both public road and public rail vehicles against the private vehicles. Both public road and public railway vehicles are duplicating and ruining each other, in competition with private vehicles. Surely the elimination of the surplus capacity between them is made more difficult by the proposals now before us. A joint effort by both to meet their common competitor is made more difficult by the proposals now before us. It may well be that we are entering a time when the future may belong to a vehicle adaptable to either road or rail and, if that is so, the development and introduction of such a vehicle is made more difficult by the proposals now before us.
The question is whether one could have avoided these disadvantages consistently with the Government's principle of making units more manageable in size. Had the Government thought differently I believe we could have had they thought of constructing regional or sub-regional units comprising both roads and railways.
If we look at the transport legislation of the last quarter century, if not longer, each enactment has been behind the event. The Railways Act, 1921, amalgamating the railways, was behind the event, because it was based on the assumption of the continuing monopoly

651
of the railways when in fact road competition was round the corner. The Transport Act, 1947, dealt with the prewar problem of road versus rail and not the newer problem of road and rail versus the private vehicle. I think that posterity may pass the same judgment on the White Paper; it is behind the event.
On the financial proposals before us I do not think it is too great a misconstruction to say that what the White Paper does is to give the railways relief in respect of their capital liabilities except those connected with the modernisation programme. That is a rough and ready statement but I do not think it is far from the truth. The Government have gone to the furthest limits. I do not see how they could have done more and I do not object to it. However, I would agree with the right hon. Member for Vauxhall that they are still left with a formidable revenue problem. The revenue relief is £40 million a year and current losses are of the order of £100 million a year. I will not express any opinion as to whether or not that gap can be bridged. I will only say that it may be possible to bridge it provided two requisites are observed. The first requisite is one upon which my right hon. Friend rightly laid emphasis, namely, financial control. I would only add that the proper seat of financial control is in the Railways Board and not in the Ministry of Transport.
The second requisite, upon which I do not think my right hon. Friend placed as much emphasis, is the speedy execution of the modernisation programme. The most effective way of wasting money, I suggest, is to spin out investment over some time, because by spinning it out one not only delays the return, but one diminishes the return too. Without this I am afraid that the new deal we are discussing, like other new deals before it, may prove to be ineffective.
5.55 p.m.
Mr. Ernest Popplewell: I shall commence my remarks this afternoon by paying a tribute to the British Transport Commission. In effect, this White Paper could be called, "For whom the bell tolls." In the White Paper, the bell is tolling for the British Transnort Commission. I sincerely hope that by the time the debate ends and the Government have another
652
think it may end in the cremation of this White Paper.
One can quarrel with the B.T.C. from time to time on various aspects, but the B.T.C. as a co-ordinating body under the present Chairman and, with Sir John Benstead as Vice-Chairman, has done a wonderful job of work in spite of very adverse circumstances brought about by the Government. It was a wonderful achievement that the British Transport Commission could integrate transport services and make a profit in 1951, 1952 and 1953. It is only since the advent of this Government in 1951 that the deficit commenced to rise and to continue until it has reached these staggering proportions. With the Alice in Wonderland finances of this Government, as has been said in this House on more than one occasion, it is astounding that the members of the Commission have made the Commission work as successfully as it has. As this is the burial of the Commission, I think we should pay tribute to that. I hope that if the Commission goes some other structure will be established in its place which will have executive power instead of the loosely nonsensical type of thing suggested in the White Paper.
Before I deal with the White Paper itself, I wish to compliment the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Aubrey Jones). I think he has indicated a change of climate, a change of opinion, in Conservative thought which we have seen gradually unfolding over a period of time. I wish that the speech he made today had been made some years ago and that due note had been taken of its contents by Members of his party. If it had, I do no; think transport would be in the deplorable mess that it is today. I commend him for his line of approach and his thought in this direction.
Let us face it. The debate today is a debate on the complete failure of the Government's policy. The White Paper indicts nearly every action of the Government in transport from 1951 onwards, and the present Minister is not absolved from that indictment. It is no use—and I think it is deplorable—for the Minister to say, as he frequently does in this House, that he has been Minister only for a short period of time and as such cannot accept continuing responsibility. That is very discourteous indeed, to say the least.

653
Each paragraph of the White Paper, as I say, indicts Government policy. But, unlike the right hon. Member for Hall Green, the Government have not learned any lessons from their past misdemeanours. The White Paper perpetuates and accentuates the great problems which have brought British Railways and the British Transport Commission to their present difficult state. We on this side of the House welcome, as a temporary measure, this financial easement to which so much reference has been made. It is, indeed, on the lines of our policy, but it is only a temporary measure.
What does it mean? If anyone thinks that it means that the British Transport Commission or the British Railways Board who now have to shoulder this burden of interest charges will be relieved of this burden to any great extent, he is Jiving in cloud-cuolcoo-land. It will not be done under this White Paper. The White Paper states that the assets of the British Transport Commission amount to £2,000 million. It suggests that £400 million will be offset against the holding companies. I shall return to that matter a little later. It also suggests that another £400 million shall be wiped off as a bad debt. The remaining £800 million is to go into the suspense account.
A sum of £1,200 million is going to be wiped out or transferred somewhere. Most of this £1,200 million is in British Transport Stock, which is paying 3¼ per cent. or 3½ per cent. interest. The Railways Board will be left with a problem concerning £400 million on which they have to pay current market rates of interest which, as we all know, are in the region of 5½ per cent. to 6 per cent. Therefore, in spite of this sudden wiping out of liabilities, if the interest charges are doubled on the remaining £400 million, the problem will not be any less realistic.
The White Paper itself states that the Railways Board will be left with an interest charge of £30 million a year. In addition, there will be a sum of £280 million in respeot of superannuation funds and bank deposit account, on which the Railways Board will have to pay interest. I would assume from paragraph 41 that the interest will be at current rates—that is, from 5½ per cent.
654
to 6 per cent. In other words, that is another £19 million, making a total of £49 million.
The White Paper then says that modernisation will continue at the rate of about £100 million a year. Incidentally, it is not very gratifying to those interested in the railways to learn that the Government have set a target of £100 million per annum for modernisation. This is a considerable shortfull on what has been spent in 1960. It means a considerable retardation in modernisation. Whenever modernisation has taken place, there has been an increase in railway receipts. But the Government intend to retard modernisation compered with the case in 1960.
This £100 million a year to be spent on modernisation will involve another 5½ per cent. to 6 per cent. in interest charges. The White Paper says that by 1965 these interest charges will be in the region of £60 million to £70 million. I suggest that is a gross under-estimate. The interest charges alone will be well over £70 million. Not only that, but another £400 million is to be passed over to the holding companies and that will carry interest charges at current market rates. That is another £30 million per year in interest charges. It means that the present assets of the British Transport Commission will bear interest charges amounting to the astronomical figure of £100 million a year. This talk of financial easement is just a shibboleth. It will be purely of a short-term duration.
The Government refuse to face reality. They, prefer to live in cloud-cuckoo-land. What is all this talk about the Railways Board paying its way or even paying its operating costs? It is problematical whether it will be able to do so. The Government are assisting the present trend of diverting traffic from rail to road, and in this I agree with the hon. Member for Hall Green. We should consider the problem of road and rail. In fact, I would go a little further and say that we should consider road, rail, inland waterways, air and coastwise shipping.
However, to take the hon. Gentleman's analogy, let us consider the general pattern of road and rail trans-part. Last year 56 per cent. of freight traffic in this country was carried by road as against 44 per cent. carried by rail. This is the reverse of the position

655
that obtained in 1952 when 46 per cent. of freight traffic was carried by road and 54 per cent. by rail. Since that time there has been a growing deficiency in the British Transport Commission's operations, combined with Government interference in the form of directives and so on. The White Paper will do absolutely nothing to ease the situation.
A circular was issued by the Council of British Shipping. In one voice this welcomes the greater freedom which is to be given, and then it asks the Government to curtail the Railways Board's policy on charges. The Council of British Shipping points out that coastwise shipping is getting into a very serious position, and challenges the greater freedom given to the railways. But it says nothing of where the real source of the trouble is. The real source of the trouble is the diversion of goods traffic from rail to road. We witness this in the tremendous growth that has taken place in long-distance C-licence traffic. Since 1948 there has been a growth of nearly 200,000 long-distance vehicles of 2½ tons unladen weight. I am not speaking of short-distance vehicles; I am not interested in the butcher, baker and retail man's delivery van. I am speaking of the long-distance haulage traffic. In addition, the number of vehicles of 6 tons unladen weight has increased from 2,500 to 8,800. Nothing has been said in the White Paper to deal with the real source of the problems of transport.
If the policy enunciated in this White Paper is followed, it will not be long before we are faced with another crisis. The White Paper in its references to hiving off and in its lack of integration. is asking the nation to accept the prewar position. It hives off road services. It takes the five companies, as it were, and makes them into limited liability companies under a holding company. It is given a complete commercial freedom and, as was suggested earlier, they can he liable to take-over bids. British Road Services are not even to be honoured with a separate board. With all these things, we shall face ruthless competition in freight and transport rates which will not be in the nation's interest.
There has been reference to the Government's previous refusal to allow
656
the Commission to implement charges to pay its way. This was a gross blunder on the part of the Government. They have done it by directives to the Commission even after the Tribunal had agreed that the charges should be implemented. Even after a good case had been made out, the Government stepped in to say "No ". It was the height of hypocrisy for the Minister, when taunting the Commission with the Reappraisal of 1959, to say that he did not agree with the Commission's findings and he had no knowledge of the schemes returned. I thought that that was one of the most hypocritical statements ever made in the House.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. John Hay)The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. John Hay) indicated dissent.
Mr. Popplewell: It is no use the hon. Gentleman shaking his head. He should look at the evidence given before the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries by his Permanent Secretary. That civil servant indicated that day-to-day consultations had been taking place between the Minister and the Commission all along. Are we to assume that the schemes embraced in the reappraisal and the new look at modernisation had not been discussed? It is just nonsense, and no one will believe it. In evidence before the Select Committee, the permanent civil servant said that, in addition to the directives given to the Commission from time to time, there had also been day-to-day consultations. What were the consultations about?—the state of the weather? Certainly not. The very things about which the Minister says he has no particular knowledge must have been discussed. It is really shocking to suggest anything else.
I turn now to the regional railways boards. What are these regional railway boards to be? We are told that there will be a large element of full-time personnel. We all know that the part-time posts were simply jobs for the boys which wasted cash. Not much was wasted—I agree that they did not get much—but what there was was wasted, and, in the evidence before the Select Committee, it was extremely difficult to ascertain what the part-time members did. Without being asked to express any opinion on the merits or otherwise of the boards, the Select Committee made its findings.

657
What is expected from these full-time regional railway boards? Who will the members be? What will the boards do? Are they to perform the same functions as were performed by the part-time members of the area boards? It is very difficult to ascertain from the wording of the White Paper what their functions are to be. Will they be people brought from outside industry? Will the boards be separate entities, as it were, like a board of directors on a full-time basis? Will they be effective in their functions? Will they be in charge of departments, or what?
Will the regional boards act, as it were, with the regional manager sitting as chairman over the heads of his departments in a managerial, operational function? If that be the idea, that might help towards a better system of operation in the regions under men engaged in the industry who know the job and who can get on with it. I should welcome something of that sort. The right hon. Member for Hall Green, I think, supports that type of arrangement. I made a suggestion of that kind when the area boards were established in the first place, and I urged that we should use the men on the spot who understood the railways and who knew the job, giving them an opportunity to run the railways without another body superimposed. There is certainly an argument there. If what is proposed is anything different from that, I shall look askance at it and want to examine it very closely.
Coming, up the ladder, we reach the British Railways Board. How will the British Railways Board actually operate? A representative from each of the regional railway boards will sit on the Railways Board. What will their functions be? We are told that they are to he responsible for investment, for high finance, as it were, for wages, for discussions on staff arrangements and so forth. I presume that they will be responsible for the police. If that be so, what will the regional railway boards do in that respect? What does the proposal in the White Paper mean? The Minister himself does not know, and we are put in additional difficulties.
Again, on the subject of the British Railways Board, let us assume that a dispute takes place involving the trade unions in the railways world. The trade
658
union representative discusses the matter with the Railways Board. Where do they go next? As far as I can judge, finality is reached when he reaches the Railway Board. There is the Railways National Staff Tribunal—I think that is its name—and we all know that there have been disputes galore within that body and appeal has had to be made to a higher body with executive power to work out a settlement. In London, the London Transport Executive is now to be the London Transport Board, which will be autonomous. There have been disputes galore between the trade unions and the London Transport Executive, but there has always been the power to appeal to the British Transport Commission as the executive body. Under the proposed new structure, finality is reached at the British Railways Board, at the London Transport Board, at the British Waterways Board, and all the rest of the bag of tricks.
There is no further provision in the scheme except for the National Advisory Council. That is a very high-sounding name, but the whole structure is really nonsensical. Who will be the National Advisory Council? What will be their interest in the whole thing? The Minister tries to ride off by saying that the body which will be responsible for coordination and integration will be the National Advisory Council.
The Parliamentary Secretary told my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) at Question Time last week that the responsibility of the Minister will be smaller, not greater, under the new structure. If he is to have less responsibility, not more, who will really be responsible for co-ordination? If, in the analogy which has already been used, British Road Services want to establish a new depôt well away from the railways, who will be responsible? Ostensibly, it will be the National Advisory Council, of which the Minister or his nominee will be the chairman. In the main, the Minister will take the chair or, if he is not there, probably the Parliamentary Secretary will.
Mr. Hay: No.
Mr. Popplewell: It is obvious from the White Paper that one of those two gentlemen will occupy the chair. If that is not so, what is meant by the words

659
of the White Paper? This is another indication of how nonsensical the whole thing is. It states:
"The Nationalised Transport Advisory Council will consist of the Chairmen of"
certain boards.
"Other members will be added, drawn from outside the nationalised transport undertakings. The Minister will ordinarily act as Chairman of the Council."
We should like to know whether it is the intention to appoint someone outside Parliament to act as Chairman of the Council. If that is so, the White Paper is grossly misleading. The White Paper indicates that the Minister or his Parliamentary Secretary will be responsible in Parliament. If that is so, how can the Minister co-ordinate matters? It is not possible to do so.
Instead of there being an advisory council, there should be established an executive body with full power to determine matters of co-ordination, integration and many other things which are bound to arise in an industry such as this. These are important points.
In conclusion, I wish to refer to the opening paragraph of the White Paper, which states:
"In reaching their conclusions, the Government have been assisted by the advice they have received from the Special Advisory Group on the British Transport Commission."
The House is being asked to approve a White Paper with a premise like that. Apparently, some group has given advice to the Minister and we are asked to approve the White Paper, because, it is claimed, it is based on that advice. That is the logical inference To be drawn. I hope that hon. Members opposite will rise up in revolt against it. An important body has been set up, but no one outside the Government knows its findings. Possibly the Commission knows them, but it is pledged to secrecy. This Advisory Group was forced on it. It was a little less than generous when either the Parliamentary Secretary or the Minister said that the trade unions had been consulted by the Stedeford Advisory Group. That was just playing with words.
Let us see what happened. The trade unions were called to meet the Stedeford Group in order to introduce themselves. Then there was another meeting. The
660
trade unions were not asked for their observations, but there were a few questions across the table. According to the Minister, that constitutes consultation. That is merely playing with words, to say the least. We cannot trust the Minister if this is the result of his considerations based on certain information. Instead of it being a case of "for whom the bell tolls" concerning the British Transport Commission, we should cremate this damned offensive White Paper, which is not in the best interests of the industry or transport as a whole.
6.25 p.m.
Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: I will deal with a number of the remarks of the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Popplewell) in the course of my speech.
I support the White Paper and welcome it for many of the reasons which the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) gave for opposing it. May I say, in passing, that I disagreed with almost every word of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Aubrey Jones), except when he said that the conflict in transport now was no longer between road and rail transport but between public and private transport. I thought that he was adrift on many other points, including his criticism of the Stedeford Advisory Group.
Here the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West seemed to be under a misapprehension. It was not a committee. It was a group.
Mr. Popplewell: I did not refer to it as a committee.
Mr. Aubrey Jones: I did not criticise the Stedeford Advisory Group. I merely complained that we were not paying sufficient respect to that body.
Mr. Wilson: Perhaps I have put it rather badly. I have not misunderstood my right hon. Friend. He said that what it thought had not been reported. But an express condition of its appointment was that what it said should not be reported. It was to advise not only the Ministry, but also the British Transport Commission. It would have been a breach of confidence if anything which it said had been reported. In those

661
circumstances, it is not valid to criticise the Government for failing to report what that body said. The hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West complained that Questions were asked across the table. But what the group was asked to do was to give professional advice on specific points, and it tried to find out from all quarters what the answers should be.
I welcome the White Paper principally because I think that it introduces an atmosphere of reality into our transport debates which has been absent for too long. It is realistic because it starts by stating bluntly that the railways are still a vital basic industry. Several hon. Members have taken it for granted that that is so. It is quite commonly assumed that must be so, but the time has passed when we can assume as a matter of course that a railway is a vital necessity. They no longer have the same dominant position in the transport of the world which they formerly had.
In considering British transport, we must take British Railways on their merits and not assume that they are vital to the transport services. In this country, at least, I think that the railways are still an important factor. It is worth while stressing that point because, apart from the extremists of the Railway Conversion League who want to pull up all the railways and to convert them into roads, a large number of people—far more than some hon. Members think—are beginning to doubt whether the railways are obsolete, or at least obsolescent, and whether we are spending too much on modernisation and trying to bring our railways up to date.
I will not spend time in arguing whether it is correct that a properly run railway can carry more passengers and goods on a given space of land and in a given time than the same space of land could carry as a road. The recent report of the Channel Tunnel Study Group gave some very interesting facts and figures on that point. Nor will I enlarge on the proposition that there would be considerable engineering difficulties in converting many of the railways into roads. However, I should like those people who are enthusiastic road supporters—there are many of
662
them—and are rather doubtful about the money we are spending on the railways to remember three points.
First, we now have 209,000 route miles of all forms of track. Of these, 190,000, roughly nine-tenths, are ordinary roads and 19,000, roughly one-tenth, are specialised railway track. The one-tenth railway carries, as the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West pointed out, just under half the total goods of the country and also 1,000 million passengers, which is about one-fifth of all passengers. Therefore, one-tenth of our total routes is carrying one-half of our goods and one-fifth of our passengers. In other words, it is carrying much more than its proportionate share and it should not be lightly considered as obsolescent or grudged money to be kept up-to-date. We should be in serious difficulties if the one-fifth of all passengers and one-half of all goods had to be transferred to any other means of transport.
I should also like to urge road enthusiasts to remember that the British transport problem should not be compared with continental transport problems. First, we are not dealing with continents and the wide spaces of the Black Forest, of the ruins of Berlin, or the prairies, or the ever-changing cities of America. We are dealing with a small overcrowded island, heavily built up and industrialised, with agricultural land of exceptionally high value, a country thickly sprinkled with ancient monuments and places of special scenic beauty. All these things make it important for us to be particularly careful in planning how we should evolve new forms of transport which occupy land, roads, airfields, and so on. While we are ping that, it is inevitable, or, at least, it is desirable, that we should make the best use of existing facilities.
Incidentally, there was a reference in the Press this morning to how much better our domestic air services have been doing lately, but there is a distinction here between our country and America or Europe in that our domestic air services are much less likely to be serious competitors to surface forms of transport. On the short haul the disadvantage of not having an airfield close to the centre of the town is much greater

663
than in the long haul in America and Europe. Until we have a really good commercial development of the helicopter, the vertical take-off aircraft, the Rotodyne or something of that sort, the competition of domestic air services with other forms of transport in this country will be considerably limited.
The third point that we should all remember is that planning takes a great deal longer here than in either Europe or America because of the British temperament. [An HON. MEMBER: "Rot."] Yes, I have referred before in the House to the fact that some years ago I inquired from officials in Germany, Holland and this country why it was that when Germans planned a new road it took them a maximum of twelve months to obtain possession of the land. The Dutch took an average of twelve months, but our Ministry a minimum of two years.
I asked the Germans, "When you plan a road from A to B, do not local landowners tell you to make it from X to Y?" Their answer was, "Who would question the route of a road once it is official?" In other words, they do not have to deal with the same amount of argument that we have to deal with. We must respect public opinion in these matters. It is inevitable that we should take rather longer over these things than people do in some other countries.
The second reason why I think that the White Paper is realistic is that, inevitably, there must be some financial reconstruction of the railways and it is clear that some of the outstanding debt must be written off. I leave it to others to argue whether the right proportion is being written off and how the matter should be dealt with, but I think that hon. Members are making a mistake if they try to spend too much time in debating the apportionment of blame for the losses.
The right hon. Member for Vauxhall referred to two incidents, to which reference was also made by the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries, where the Government had caused delay in the application of increased charges by the Transport Commission. But these two occasions together accounted for only £14·9 million, which is not a very large
664
proportion of the total amount of the indebtedness. It is correct that there should be some degree of criticism of the Transport Commission itself for being rather optimistic in some of its estimates. A good deal of blame is also attachable to the party opposite in that in 1947 it set up an elaborate structure, the British Transport Commission, and imposed upon it a task which, from the start, it was clearly impossible for it to perform.
It is because I think that the White Paper topples over that rather clumsy structure that I particularly welcome it. The Transport Commission, from the time that it was set up in 1947, was asked to produce a properly integrated service of inland transport for passengers and goods. It could not do that with the facilities placed at its disposal, that is, all railways, about one-third of the buses and about one-hundredth of the lorries. One cannot integrate a minority. The Commission was given an impossible task.
This scheme of nationalisation arose from the idea which gained prevalence in the 1930s, that we were suffering from too much transport and that the only way to deal with it was by regulation to prevent wasteful competition. Phrases such as "Creaming the traffic", which have been so frequently used ever since, were invented in those days. I suspect that they were invented by the advertising agents who initiated the "Square Deal Campaign" for the railways. But it is only a step from co-ordination by licensing authorities to integration by nationalisation and I think that that is how the position arose.
But even if all the public services were nationalised—and we have already had a threat from hon. Members opposite that if they are returned to power they will take rather more drastic steps to deal with privately-owned public service vehicles—it would not get over competition from the private vehicles of "do-it-yourself" individuals, the C-licence holders and the private-car owners. Measures taken by the party opposite to deal with such vehicles would have to be very drastic indeed to be effective, and so drastic that they would cause a great deal of hardship and monstrous anomalies. Only in a strict Communist State, where only the commissar has a private car and nobody

665
has a private lorry service, is it possible, though with great hardship and inconvenience, to produce an integrated service by central control. It is not possible to do so in a mixed free-enterprise and nationalised society.
If an elaborate structure is set up to carry out a task which it is quite impossible to perform, it is much better to abandon the attempt and dismantle the structure and make it something of a more handy size, and I believe that that is what the White Paper sets out to do. Much of the existing structure was quite unnecessary unless one was intending to produce an integrated service, and there is still a degree of Government control of these various services left in Government hands.
For those reasons, there is much to be said for the White Paper, and I support it as a very good beginning. It is certainly not intended to be a blueprint of what future legislation will be, but it is an indication of a new look at our transport problems, getting away from the policy of integration and thinking of control of the various nationalised industries in more manageable form, and for those reasons I support it.
6.42 p.m.
Mr. Thomas Steele: During the speech of the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. G. Wilson), I took a considerable number of notes but, as a number of my colleagues are anxious to make contributions to the debate, I feel that I should not comment too fully or too long on what the hon. Gentleman had to say. However, there was an interesting interjection about the Stedeford Group, and I was surprised that the Parliamentary Secretary agreed with the hon. Gentleman that its recommendations were mostly of a verbal character.
Mr. Hay: My hon. Friend said that he understood that some of the advice, or all of it, which was given by the Special Advisory Group was verbal. I agreed that that was perfectly true. Some of the recommendations and advice were in written form, but much of it was oral.
Mr. Steele: My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) was engaged in an inter-
666
change, and I thought from that that the Parliamentary Secretary had more or less agreed that most of it was verbal. In any case, I got the impression that it was all done over a cup of tea, and if it was done over something more than a cup of tea I can understand why those concerned do not want to publish it.
Our argument about this is not that we should have the evidence on which the Stedeford Group made its recommendations but that what we should have is the recommendations themselves. There is no reason why the Stedeford Group should not have intimated to us what the recommendations were, without giving reasons or indicating who had given the information, so that we might at least know whether the recommendations put forward by the Government are their own or the result of the Stedeford Group's inquiry.
The most significant thing about today's debate has been the speech of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Aubrey Jones). It was a remarkable performance. I was impressed not only by the quality of his speech but by the humility with which he approached the House. Also, it seemed to me that he made the Minister look just like a little schoolboy in his approach to this matter.
The right hon. Gentleman posed some very pertinent questions to the Minister, and I hope that we shall have some answers to them. These questions regarding the position of the Railway Board and the Minister are substantial ones, and if we do not receive answers we shall have evidence that all is not right on the benches opposite in this matter.
The right hon. Gentleman asked what the position was between the Railways Board and the Minister. I can tell him that the Minister himself does not know. In producing the White Paper, the Minister is telling us that there will be further reorganisation, but he has not made up his mind about it yet. I joined the railways in 1920, and reorganisation has been going on practically every year since that time. Every time proposals are brought forward, the Government say that, no matter what happens, there must be more reorganisation. Reorganisation seems to be the cure for all their ills.

667
In the Third Reading debate on the Transport Act, 1953, I ended my speech by saying that the Government;
"…are determined to get this Bill through. but once the effects of it are seen in operation it is quite clear that another Bill will have to be presented to this House."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th February, 1953; Vol. 511. c. 960.]
Here we have another Bill.
During the proceedings on the 1953 Measure, we said that the main purpose of the Bill was to sell off the profitable undertakings and that the railway reorganisation Clauses were merely to cover up the aims and objectives of the Government. We said that any reorganisation which was necessary could have been done with the powers already held by the Minister, and it is also true that any reorganisation which is necessary at the moment could still be done with the powers held by the Minister.
We said in 1953 that it was a mistake to abolish the Railway Executive. Now the Government are reintroducing the Railway Executive and calling it the Railways Board.
Mr. Hay: It is entirely different.
Mr. Steele: The hon. Gentleman says that it is entirely different. If there is a difference in the functions of the new Railways Board, let him tell us what it is. The Railway Executive was responsible to the then Commission. Will the Railways Board be different from the Railway Executive in that respect? If so, we should like to know.
Actually, we are not discussing the failure of nationalisation today; we are discussing the failure of the Tory Government in transport over the past ten years. They have had this problem since they came to office in 1951, and the position in transport today is very much worse than it was then. It is evident from the speech made by the Minister today that the Government are determined to go on making the same mistakes that they made in 1953.
What is the general philosophy and approach of the Government. in November, 1952, the then Minister of Transport, now Viscount Boyd, said:
" … competition gives a better service than monopoly.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th November 1952; Vol. 507, c. 1,405.]
Do hon. Gentlemen opposite agree?
Mr. R. Gresham Cooke: By and large.
Mr. Steele: The trouble is that hon. Gentlemen opposite do not really believe in it themselves. What is happening outside at the present time shows what they believe. They believe in monopoly and not in competition at all. However, in transport competition means waste and extravagance which the country cannot afford. The boards responsible for the coal, gas and electricity nationalised industries are responsible for estimating what the public will need ten years ahead, and they put their programmes to the Government accordingly; but in transport the Government muddle through from day to day.
I was surprised when the Minister today tried to tell us that the Government were looking ten years ahead. I and my hon. Friends who sat with me on the Select Committee tried to elicit from the witnesses what was happening in this respect. We could 'get no information. We asked the Ministry of Transport witnesses what machinery it had, and who was responsible for looking at transport as a whole, for estimating public need in the next ten years and for advising the Minister. The answer was, "No one." Yet the Minister boldly tells us today that this is what it does and what the Government propose to do. But the Ministry has no machinery for it.
For years we have been saying that we cannot look at railways or roads, or aviation, or coastal shipping, each in isolation. Living on a small island needing to look after its resources, we must regard transport with a capital T, and we must have some powerful advisory body considering what we can do to use the resources at our disposal and to advise the Ministry accordingly.
Does the right hon. Gentleman's speech today indicate that he is looking for an answer? The White Paper only pushes the problem off for another five years. A great deal has been said about the financial provisions, and I shall not repeat it. Those provisions are, however, only a lifeline for the railways. They will keep the railways going only for the next five years.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) expressed a view

669
about the Nationalised Transport Advisory Council, as did the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green and my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Mr. Popplowell). I do not wish to take up the time of the House on that, but I should like to deal at the moment with the regional railway boards which are now being proposed to replace area boards. I quote two sentences:
"… the best way to have a good service is through- decentralisation… in the case of the railways, regional enterprise."—[OFFCIAL REPORT, 17th November, 1952; Vol. 507, c. 1405.]
" …the principles which we should try to establish … as follows: a substantial measure of regional railway autonomy sufficient to give genuine reality to regional railway control of matters proper to regional responsibility."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th November, 1952; Vol. 507. c. 1414.]
What does all that mean? Those quotations are from what the then Minister of Transport—now Viscount Boyd—said when be brought forward the 1953 Act. That was what the Government wanted to do. Viscount Boyd used rather flowery language, but that was what they wanted to do. What does the White Paper say, however?
" Each will he autonomous in all matters which concern its region alone."
So we have not got very much further. Therefore, I want the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to tell us what new responsibilities will be given to these new regional boards which they do not have at the present time. We dealt with this in detail in the Select Committee, but obviously the regional boards will not have the responsibility of capital investment—that is to be left to the railways board, or indeed, more probably, to the Minister; they will not have responsibility for salary and wage negotiations; nor will they be responsible for commercial policy, despite what Members opposite may say, because I cannot see how local boards can apply separate rates and fare structures not in keeping with the general policy of the Railways Board as a whole.
The regional boards will not be in control of research on the design of rolling stock and locomotives, including safety. That must all be responsibility of the Railways Board. It may be that
670
each region will have the right to select the colour of its own coaches, but that does not matter very much.
What is left to these local boards? I see no change in their functions, and it is because I see no change that I question whether their members should be full time. Unlike some of my hon. Friends, I am not too critical of part-time members of the boards of the nationalised industries. I believe it to be right and proper that men with experience in other matters should come in and be helpful, even if only in a critical fashion, to jog along people who are perhaps tending to get in a groove. These members have a function to perform. However, I do not see how that function can be provided by making these people full-time, because then the Minister will be denied the opportunity of getting the right kind of person with ability to do the job.
Evidence was given before the Select Committee by Sir Philip Warter, Chairman of the Southern Area Board. I was impressed with his evidence. Here was a man who gave much more time to the job than could reasonably be expected in a part-time capacity. He was questioned by the Chairman of the Select Committee about his views on whether he should be a full-time or part-time member, and he replied:
"I do not think myself the fact that we are part time is a bad thing, provided we can give enough time to it. I think myself it would be a very bad thing if the Chairman was full time, because I cannot conceive a situation where the Chairman would be sitting in the office at Waterloo eight hours a day, with the General Manager, and both of them trying to run the railway. It would be stupid."
Has the Minister read the Select Committee's Report? Has he read the evidence given before it? If he believes in taking the advice of business men, then here in Sir Philip Warter is a man of knowledge.
I could also say quite a lot about regional accounts and the decentralisation of accounts, but again, in deference to colleagues in the House, I shall pass on to a much more intimate matter to Scotland. Speaking on behalf of Scotland, I ask whether we can have any faith in what any Minister of Transport has to say. Can we have any confidence in any speeches or promises which they

671
make? Hon Members opposite may recall that my right hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan and East Stirling-shire (Mr. Woodburn) and some of my hon. Friends and I conducted a campaign to take Scotland out of the 1953 legislation. The Scottish Press showed a great deal of concern about the matter. The Conservatives, too, were concerned, and they sent a deputation to the then Minister of Transport because they were worried about what would happen in Scotland with the denationalisation of road haulage. It was recognised that Scotland had a special case and had to have something different since her problems were entirely different from those South of the Border and co-ordination was essential.
The Government were so worried about the attitude of Scottish Conservative Members and the Scottish Press that they decided in the 1953 Act, to set up a completely new body, called the Scottish Transport Council. My right hon. Friend and I criticised the Council, saying that it could not function and had no executive powers, but the then Minister pooh-poohed that idea and said that the Government would not set up a body of that kind. He said in answer to our criticisms:
"He asked me who is to see that this new body meets, and questions of that kind. It is our intention, of course, to see that there are appointed to that body people who would not for a moment consider serving on it if it did not get effective powers of a co-ordinating character. They would meet regularly. Naturally, the arrangements for their meetings would have to be in their own hands. Of course, we have every intention of seeing that the people who are appointed are such that they would not consent to serve on a body which was hopelessly ineffective…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th February, 1953; Vol. 511, c.949.]
The Minister's statement was hailed in the Scotsman and in the Glasgow Herald as a great victory for Scotland.
May I ask the present Minister how often that Council has met? Has it ever reported? What has it done? What has it ever attempted to do? I can tell him. This "effective body", these "men of great character" who would not consent to be appointed by the Minister to an ineffective body, were appointed and did meet—and they decided that they had no useful function to perform. That is all that has happened.
672
That kind of thing is only window-dressing, and it was callous window-dressing because of Scotland's special needs. There is a grave threat to Scotland in the White Paper proposals, because the Government do not seem to realise that even before the 1947 Nationalisation Act railway companies in Scotland already controlled docks, hotels, road transport and buses. The S.M.T. and other bodies were owned by the railway companies. A great deal of co-ordination had taken place in Scotland before the 1947 Act, and the present proposals now go back not to 1953 or 1947 but to thirty years ago.
The Minister does not seem to appreciate what has happened, and I hope that he will appreciate the importance of the speech of his right hon. Friend the Member for Hall Green. Scotland would welcome being taken out of these new proposals. We want, not a Scottish Transport Council as a bit of window-dressing, but a new executive body which will enable us to have a proper system of co-ordinated transport.
I said that the White Paper contained a grave threat to Scotland. Paragraph 7 says:
"The practical test for the railways, as for other transport, is how far the users are prepared to pay economic prices for the services provided. Broadly, this will in the end settle the size and pattern of the railway system."
What does that mean? Does it mean no railways north of Perth? The railways north of Perth do not pay, never have paid and are never likely to pay. The same is true of the West Highland line. Are the people in those areas to be told that unless they pay economic prices for their transport, they will have none? Those are questions to which we want answers. Those are the reasons why there is general alarm in Scotland about these proposals. Will the Minister answer those questions? Does paragraph 7 mean that if a service is not economic it will be withdrawn? Does it mean that no area north of Perth will have a railway service if these proposals are brought in? [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."]
It is clear that the Minister does not know. Perhaps he thinks that the railway line from Perth to Aberdeen is a branch line. The Scottish people will not appreciate that, but that is what his proposals mean. If they do not mean that,

673
then the people of the South will have to pay for those services. I hope that the Government recognise that many of the services, begun by the railway companies at the end of the last century, were subsidised because the Government recognised that they could not pay.
McBrayne's Steamers are subsidised. What is the present relationship between McBrayne's and the Commission? Scottish Members have put legislation on the Statute Book to enable subsidies to be given to the Orkney and Shetland services. That was more nationalisation, and it was done because the difficulties of the situation were recognised. The Government must face up to the problem of Scotland's transport, and they will not be doing that unless they accept the Select Committee's proposals about uneconomic services.
I could say much more about this subject, but I will conclude with this last topic. Scotland has been the Cinderella of transport. We all welcome the modernisation proposals and the new diesel services, especially the new electrification between Airdrie and Helens-burgh. That passes through my constituency, and no one was more concerned, worried and depressed than I about the accident at Renton, which resulted in the services having to be withdrawn. The withdrawal has been a big disappointment, not only to the railwaymen but to my constituents, and I hope that a solution will shortly be found.
In this incident there is grave criticism of the British electrical industry, and my constituents have shown great sympathy with British Railways and how they have been dealt with in this matter. If this were an isolated incident, the failure of the British electrical industry would not be too bad, but I understand from other sources that private industry itself has been having similar trouble and similar problems. I should like to have an assurance that this trouble will not hold up the proposals for the electrification of the line from Glasgow to Motherwell, on the south bank of the River Clyde, and the Cathcart Circle.
I end as I began. These proposals are only playing with the problem. This idea of continually reorganising the railways is not the answer. We must deal with transport with a capital T and find
674
an answer to the problem as a whole instead of sub-dividing it in the way that we are doing at the moment.
7.10 p.m.
Sir Toby Low: The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Steele) has been talking, as he has a right to do, about the special position of Scotland. As he reminded us, this raises the question of uneconomic services, and I shall have something to say about that in a few moments.
I do not think that the hon. Gentleman was being fair to the Government when he said that they had paid no regard to the recommendations of the Select Committee of which he was a prominent member. If he looks at paragraph 50 of the White Paper he will see that the Government state why they have not yet made a statement on this matter. However, as I attach every bit as much importance as he does to the implementations of the recommendations which we all joined I hope that when I come to it in the latter half of my speech he will give me the support on this matter that he did in the past.
Hon. Members who have spoken today have touched on two main matters raised in the White Paper, and those are the two matters raised in the Opposition Amendment. The first one on which I would like to touch for a moment relates to coordination. The Amendment refers to further disintegration of the publicly owned transport undertakings, whatever that extraordinarily charming phrase may mean. What does it mean? Surely we all know that for many years these undertakings have been run very largely separately by the British Transport Commission? Furthermore, as hon Members of the Select Committee will remember, we were told by the Commission that its buses competed with its railway trains, and that its lorries were encouraged to compete with its freght trains. There is nothing wrong with that. It can continue. and I hope that it will.
However, there is a place for coordination in transport policy. When right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite talk about co-ordination in transport, I never quite understand whether they mean that those who co-ordinate transport policy should be directly responsible to this House, as is the Minister, or whether they should be a nationalised

675
undertaking removed at least by one degree from the House which is armed with some powers of interfering not only in the doings of the public sector of industry but also in the doings of the private seotor of industry. Do hon. Gentlemen mean that they want a public authority to have power to restrict road transport, or to add to the cost of road transport? That might be right sometimes, but I very much doubt whether such a policy would be right at a time when we all agree that exports must come first. We do not want to add to the costs of our exporters. if such a policy were right, surely this House would want direct control over the man or authority who was responsible for it.
It therefore seems to me absolute sense that the Minister of Transport should say openly, "I am the man who, with his responsibility to the House of Commons, should have full responsibility for, and authority over, the co-ordination of transport policy." As I am talking to the Minister, may I say that I am glad to see him back after his bout of influenza. After listening to his speech, my only reaction was that if after a bout of 'flu I had as much energy as he showed, I should indeed be proud of myself. It is clear from our discussions on the railways that he will need every bit of his remarkable energy.
As I understand it, the first and main objective of the White Paper is that it should lead to a more efficiently run railway system. The problems of the railways are summarised in the early paragraphs of the White Paper. In paragraph 7 it is said, and I think rightly said, that the practical test for the railways, as for other transport, is how far the users are prepared to pay economic prices for the services provided. I do not exclude the observations of the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West about uneconomic services. I will deal with them later. The White Paper goes on to say:
" Broadly, this will in the end settle the size and pattern of the railway system ".
It is on the economics, the finances and the size and shape of the railway system that I want to concentrate my remarks.
676
I welcome all the steps of reorganisation and other matters outlined in the White Paper. It is not surprising that I welcome them, because they are, in the main, the steps recommended in the Select Committee's Report. I welcome the sensible organisation structure that is proposed, subject to this comment. I find myself in agreement with those who ask the Minister not to throw overboard the idea of part-time members of regional boards. They are extremely useful people. The Minister has not said that he will throw them completely overboard. The area boards as they are at present organised are run quite efficiently, and I hope that he will not do away with the services of a reasonable number of part-time members.
I welcome the introduction of the Railways Board and I welcome what the Minister said, that we shall now have single-minded direction of the railways. I also welcome the commercial freedom promised to the railways, and the emphasis that is now laid on financial control. However, all these things are right only as a first step. They are, as the Minister said, the first essential step. They are not the be-all and end-all of the solution to the problem of the railways.
I do not know whether the Opposition think that one wave of the Socialist wand, even if it is broken in two from time to time, is enough to solve these railway problems. By the terms of the Amendment it would seem that hon. Gentlemen think that the Government ought to have been able to come here and say, "Here we are again and we have the final solution to the problem". I welcome the attitude of the Minister. He is proceeding step by step.
I might remind the House, it so happens that yesterday was Old Moore's birthday. I think that we should beware of Old Moore.
Mr. Steele: Surely the right hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that the Minister should be hanged.
Sir T. Low: I was talking of Almanack Moore. I was suggesting that in seeking a complete once-and-for-all cure for this serious problem the Opposition should beware of that.
I now turn to the financial and economic problem, and the problem of

677
the size and shape of the railways. As The Times and the Financial Times remind us, those are the main problems. In the last eight paragraphs of the Select Committee's Report there are set out very shortly—perhaps almost too concisely—certain comments and recommendations as to the way in which decisions should be taken about the future size and shape of British Railways. Those comments and recommendations also cover the provision of Government money to pay for those parts of the newly constituted railway system which would not be justified on purely commercial grounds.
In paragraph 9 the White Paper takes up the background to these considerations. It refers, as did paragraph 417 of the Select Committee's Report, to the confusion in judging between what is economically right and what is socially desirable. Later, in paragraph 50 of the White Paper, there is a direct reference to the closing paragraphs of the Select Committee's Report and the problem of the uneconomic services. It is said that since this question must affect other nationalised undertakings the Government must have time to consider it in that general context. I do not think that anyone can quarrel with that; that is what we should expect and what we think right.
Mr. Collick: This is very important. If the right hon. Member will read on in the White Paper he will find that under the new set-up it will be the responsibility of the Railways Board to decide that question. The point arises that if the Commission were open to such criticism as this, in what way would the Railways Board not be faced with the same sort of criticism?
Sir T. Low: I am sorry that I have led the hon. Member to interrupt. He has asked me to read on from the Report. If he will listen on to my speech he will find that I am about to refer to that exact point, which is an important one.
There must indeed be a definition of responsibility. Although this point has been made in the Select Committee's Report, I hope that, at a time when the House will accept and give full support to the first steps the Minister has taken, it will forgive me if I rub home the
678
recommendations about the importance of economic and financial control, and of getting that control right as soon as possible.
The White Paper defines the responsibility of the Railways Board and the regional boards. I have much sympathy with the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Aubrey Jones), that the Minister and Parliament in any Bill laying down these matters should not be too rigid in defining who does what. As the Select Committee said, the devolution required of regional boards is one of management and operations, and the exact degree of devolution may depend upon personalities and changing circumstances. We should be making a mistake if we were too rigid about that.
What the White Paper does not touch upon—and, here again, I agree with my right hon. Friend—is the division of responsibility between the Minister and the Railways Board. If one thing has been brought home to me in my three and a half years on the Select Committee, dealing with various industries—during which time we covered three main industries—it is that the House, including Ministers, must define much more clearly than has been the practice in the past the distinct responsibilities of the Minister, on the one hand, and those operating nationalised industries, on the other. I think that the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West and others on the Select Committee agree that this responsibility must be defined in financial terms as well, and that the financial arrangements between Government and industry must be compatible with these separate responsibilities.
What is the present position? There can be no doubt in anyone's mind that the British railway system covers services that cannot be justified in modern conditions purely on commercial grounds, however much they may have been justified in old times, when we could have a far greater degree of cross-subsidisation. Now, when competition is rife in transport, not only between road and rail but between rail and air, who can say what part of the deficit of the railways is due to shortcomings on the commercial side and what part is due to social necessities, or to national economics?
Mr. Walter Monslow: Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that we should cut out all uneconomic units within the railway industry although they may be socially desirable in many instances?
Sir T. Low: I am sorry to be impatient with the hon. Member, but if he will read the Select Committee's Report, which has now been published for eight months, and if he will listen more carefully to what I am saying, he will understand the point that I am making.
I am saying that so long as there is doubt about the division of responsibilities, and about where the loss comes from and why, it is impossible for financial control by the Government or the House to play any part in the business. How can a Committee of Members, or an individual Member, come to any conclusion about the efficiency of the operation or the rightness of decisions simply by looking at the accounts or the Report? Some Members are troubled about the difficulty of knowing whether the coastal shipping interests are right or wrong in what they say. All we can now do is to ask Sir Brian Robertson, the Commission, or the Minister what the position is. We have no other test. How can modernisation proposals involving large amounts of capital be properly adjudicated upon by the Treasury, the Ministry or the House, when approval is asked for, until there is a clear division of financial and economic responsibility?
I would go one step further: how can we ask responsible men to take over the great burden of running the railway system if we do not let them have in their hands a reasonably sharp financial weapon to test their own operations and the operations of those working under them? The Select Committee and the White Paper noted the confusion in the minds of the Commission as to what was economically and what was socially desirable. All the members of the Select Committee were conscious that that confusion was also present in the House. We must not blame the Commission alone for that. On the question of uneconomic services, we await the Commission's observations on the Select Committee's Report, and I hope that we shall also have the Minister's comments. I thought
680
that I detected a certain amount of reservation by the Minister, but I hope that that will not be visible in the comments he makes.
I know that reservations exist in the minds of many people who study these matters, outside the Government machine and outside the transport world. One hears it argued in the "clubs and pubs" that the test the Select Committee suggests is really impracticable, and too theoretical.
I am told that it is really not a practical thing to ask the Commission—or it will be the Railways Board—to work out and delineate a railway system that is justifiable commercially. I am also told that to establish as a principle that uneconomic services will be paid for by the Government is to play into the hands of unscrupulous men in charge of the nationalised industries. I do not believe that the men in charge of the nationalised industries are unscrupulous in this respect or in any other. I do not think that the Government are so stupid that they would agree to pay for an uneconomic service put up to them if they knew it was not really uneconomic.
What do we mean by the phrase "uneconomic services"? We do not mean that part of the railways which is at present making a loss, any more than when dealing with the airways—the Select Committee had the same point in the Report dealing with the Air Corporations—we said that B.E.A. services in the British Isles were uneconomic just because they were losing money at present. That is not true. What we meant were those services that are bound to be run at a loss, and we said so in paragraph 416. We know full well that in any transport system there are many parts of it which are justifiable not on the direct profit that they earn, but because they perform an activity that is good for the rest of the system, such as a feeder service; and I am told that many lines are valuable as feeder services. What we were referring to were those parts of the railway system that could never be justified on any commercial ground.
Let me put to the Minister this point. How do the Government propose that the future size and shape of the railway system shall be settled? I cannot but

681
think that the arguments that will precede any settlement of that matter must include an analysis of those parts of the system that are commercially justifiable, those parts of the system that are justifiable on wider national economic grounds, and those parts of the system which are justifiable in the Government's view on social grounds. That is bound to be done and that is what we recommended should he done. If I am right in saying that, then I entreat the Minister that in making the financial arrangements he should then act on the lines set out in the Select Committee's report.
In particular, the Minister should agree in advance each year or period of years how much the Exchequer will pay to those running the British Railways for the services which would not be run on purely commercial grounds. It will then be quite clear for what these payments are made. Parliament will have control over the payments and the reasons for making them. Both those reasons, on national economic grounds and social grounds, are grounds for spending public money over which Parliament should have control and which should not be left to even such a body as the Transport Commission to define.
There is one other point with which we close the Select Committee's Report:
"If this were done, there would be one important consequential advantage—the advantage that both the Commission and the Minister would become much more clearly accountable to Parliament for their separate railway responsibilities".
I make no apology, except to my colleagues who wish to speak, for having stressed this so much.
I must now refer to one important financial decision on this matter which the Government have taken—that is the decision to write off a large part of the captial. I seemed to deteot in the speech of the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) not only some of the tones that we heard when he was talking to us on the steel denationalisation decision, but a ringing of the bells of joy that so much capital had been written off. I am rather old-Fashioned about these matters. I cannot welcome, although I can understand and support, the writing-off of these past debts on capital.
Mr. Strauss: In case the right hon. Member misunderstood me. may I
682
say that I was not pleased about the necessity for writing off this big capital debt? I said that I welcomed this. I thought that I had made quite clear that I welcomed the fact that the Government were at last prepared to face reality in this matter.
Sir T. Low: Perhaps I misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman. On balance, I support the writing off of the accumulated losses. I think that that is a sensible and realistic thing to do in the present circumstances. I am less certain. but I have decided that I also support the putting into suspense account of the £800 million. I am less certain because, frankly, I do not think that we can ever get strict financial control when we are slipshod about writing off large chunks of capital represented by working assets. I accept that at the present time it is wise to put a sum in suspense account, and if things go as I think they will go, and I know they can go, then, certainly, this capital could be properly serviced, as indeed the White Paper makes clear.
I am not so apprehensive about the future ability of the Railways Board to pay interest on new capital as the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Popplewell) seemed to be. All this modernisation will make it much easier for the railways to earn more, to spend less, and to pay high and proper wages at the proper time. Do not let us overlook the great gains that the railway system will have by expenditure of this capital.
I am not so able to welcome the last statement in paragraph 50 of the White Paper about uneconomic services. In referring to the financial arranaement, these words are used:
"For the time being, railway losses on any such services"—
that is, the uneconomic services
"will, in practice, be covered by the contributions proposed from public funds."
I can see that that may be so, but who can be certain? Surely that is rather a slipshod way of getting at the truth and trying to get full control over the finances of our great railway system.
I use the expression "slipshod". It may be the only way that at present the Government can tackle this problem. until they have worked out how they are

683
to deal with uneconomic services. But, in returning once more to the recommendations and comments of the Select Committee at the end of its Report, I wish to stress to the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, as well as to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport, that one of the great advantages of the recommendations, from the point of view of Parliamentary and Treasury control over money, is that there is no need to be slipshod. We can find out why losses are incurred. We do not have to express the hope that arrangements will cover those losses after they are incurred.
I suppose that some of my comments may seem to be unduly critical of my right hon. Friend. But I know full well the work he has done and the energy he has put into getting his first move in the reform of the railways system. What I am saying amounts to no more than an entreaty to him that his next step should be to tighten up financial control and adopt a system of economic and financial control, as recommended unanimously by his colleagues, and by hon. Members opposite, who have studied the difficult problem in respect of which he at present bears the burden.
In my last speech on the subject of railways I said I sensed that this was a crisis not only of money, but of morale. I think that that was right. I think that there is still that crisis. But I detect a change among those on the railways to whom I have talked. I think that now they believe that my right hon. Friend and the Government have faith in the future of the railway system. Now they know that modernisation will be proceeded with on a sensible basis. But there is yet a long way to go. It is not enough just for us here to have faith, that kind of blind sporting faith on which The Times comments today. I believe that success can be achieved only by the vigorous use of every instrument of management and of science known to man, and if we in the House of Commons face some of the very difficult and inconvenient problems still involved in getting the railway system right.
7.41 p.m.
Mr. Francis Noel-Baker: Like hon. Members on both sides of the House, I listened with the greatest attention and respect to the speech of the
684
right hon. Member for Blackpool, North (Sir T. Low). None of us on this side of the House would wish to express any sentiment other than approval and appreciation for the way in which he chaired the Select Committee, and for the Report which he and his colleagues produced. We all feel that it is the best piece of work on this subject which has been done for a very long time.
After listening to most of the speeches made today, including that of the Minister, my comment is that from time to time I find myself feeling astonished that we do not recognise more often that almost every other major industrial country in the world, certainly in our part of the world, has been through exactly the same experience that we are going through at the present time, and that most of them have solved their railway and transport problems in an effective and efficient manner.
Last week, I was in France and, among other people, I talked to the head of the French National Railway Company. Listening to their experiences and discussing our problems with them, I am bound to say that one sometimes wonders why we are making such very heavy weather over the difficulties which face us at present. I found the speech of the Minister depressing in many ways, as I believe will my constituents in Swindon. This is principally because we still have no Government expression of opinion on two basic questions. The first is: what size and shape shall be the future railway system of this country? Goodness knows, the Conservative Party has had long enough to consider it. At the beginning of his speech the Minister told us that he would reveal his thoughts on this matter, but he did nothing of the kind.
Secondly, we can detect no real determination to spend such money as is required for speeding up the modernisation of our railway system and then to face the fact that to have an up-to-date and efficient railway system we must subsidise it for a period of years until, by its efficiency and by the contrasting congestion on the roads, traffic comes back to the railways and the system begins to pay its way—as happened in France. There, capital investment was speeded up by the fact that the system was crippled by the war. They had to spend vast sums in introducing a modern

685
system. They were also helped by the fact that they started nationalisation in 1937 instead of ten years later, as we did.
Now the French have produced a first-class system. Their trunk routes are electrified and their freight is being hauled with less than 50 per cent. of steam. By 1970 steam traction will have disappeared altogether. Although these big sums of money were spent immediately after the war and the taxpayer has been required to contribute large subsidies during the years since, the interesting thing is that the subsidies are beginning to disappear and the annual equilibrium grant, as it is euphemistically called by the French Government, has been reduced to a quarter of what it was in 1955. I have no doubt that we should take bold financial decisions now. We should be prepared to face the fact that we cannot have an efficient railway system without an annual subsidy for perhaps ten or fifteen years; otherwise, we shall be left with the most derelict, antiquated, inefficient and expensive system in any modern industrial country.
At this stage in the debate, I have jettisoned a large part of my notes, for which I hope I shall be applauded by some of my hon. Friends who are anxious to speak, although I may disappoint some of my constituents. However, I wish to ask one specific question on a matter not yet raised and which I consider of importance. Paragraph 59 of the White Paper refers to pipelines. I wish to ask the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to give an explanation of Government policy on this matter. I am very apprehensive at the spectacle of a proliferation of privately-owned competing pipelines which, I am afraid, may lead to a situation similar to that which arose eighty years ago when there was a proliferation of privately-owned railway systems. In paragraph 59 there is a reference to
"…general legislation on pipelines which the Government may wish to promote.…"
I should like the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to tell us something about that intention and what is the meaning of the phrase that
"… it is proposed to give certain of the new undertakings, particularly the railways, powers to lease, provide and operate pipelines on their property."
686
If one thing is certain, it is that with the growth of a pipeline system many of the types of freight now carried by train or road will be more efficiently and cheaply carried by pipeline. I believe the railway system can play an important part in the development of new pipelines on its property.
I come now to the main point to which I wish to draw attention, the position of the British Railways workshops, a subject which is mentioned only in three or four words inside brackets in line 3 of paragraph 14 of the White Paper. As the Minister knows, the British Railways workshops now employ about 110,000 men, of whom nearly 8,500 are at Swindon. Nearly 5,000 of them are in the locomotive works and 3,500 employed on the maintenance and repair of carriages and wagons. This is an important constituency point for me, and I believe it is also important for many of my hon. Friends.
Among most of these workers there is a clear recognition that they are in a declining industry. Many of them recognise frankly that most of the factories will contract during the coming years and that some will probably close down altogether in the not too distant future. If things remain as they are and the Government are allowed to carry out what I believe to be their long-term intentions, I have very little doubt that in the end the only choice will be that British Railways will either have to close down their railway factories altogether or sell them to private-profit firms. A number of the men in the workshops in Swindon believe that to be the intention.
Ever since 1947 the railway workshops have been hampered by two very difficult handicaps. One has been inefficient and top-heavy management. I think that the Labour Government, when they took the industry into public ownership in 1947, made a mistake by leaving far too many active and violent opponents of public ownership in key positions on the railways and many in important positions in railway works. We made a second mistake in accepting a Conservative Amendment to the 1947 Act whereby we changed Section 2 (3), so that publicly-owned railway factories were allowed to manufacture for no one except the domestic railway systems. We excluded export work and prevented

687
them doing any other manufacturing work for which they were qualified and had a first-class labour force.
Since 1951 a third handicap has been added to railway workshops. That has been Government prejudice and favouritism towards private firms. There is no doubt whatever among my friends in the Swindon factory that the Government, and the British Transport Commission under Government pressure, have been leaning over backwards to give work to private firms whenever they could do so. My Swindon friends feel particularly jaundiced about this at present when they look at the results of some of the electrical and other equipment which has recently been supplied to British Railways with rather disastrous results.
I wish to say a few words about the detailed position in my constituency. I had a meeting yesterday with the works committee of the Swindon British Railways factory. The members of the committee told me that they were very worried about the programme for 1961, particularly on the carriage and wagon side. Apparently, not a single new diesel car is to be built in Swindon this year. The only cheering factor on the scene is that the 1961 figures are to be slightly inflated by work carried over from 1960, and the men and management believe that this year they will get by. The real trouble is likely to arise in 1962.
The men feel the greatest anxiety about the future. They told me that, in theory, from 1962 onwards they are to get new carriage work at Swindon at the rate of about 100 vehicles a year. From the continuity of the employment point of view, it makes a great difference what type of vehicle they are to make. Some of my hon Friends will know that there is much more work in a restaurant car or a diesel unit than in ordinary carriage stock. So far, of the promised 100 vehicles, all that is known about the 1962 programme is that 31 first-class corridor coaches are to be carried over from 1961 —the men tell me that this will mean only a few weeks' work for some finishers and those in associated trades—and there is some possibility of 40 diesel cars. There is no certainty about that, and there has been no authorisation. Mystery surrounds these diesel units.
688
An official statement put out by the management last November, brought the total to the notional figure of 100 carriages by the extraordinary device of including the figure "X". The men are desperately worried about the future. There is not a single item of new work which they expect to be available in the carriage and wagon department at the beginning of 1962, and at present there are 3,500 workers involved.
This brings me to the more general ipoint that if work in the British Railways factories and for the modernisation programme itself is to proceed in an orderly and planned way, it is essential that the Commission, while responsible, and the new Board, when it comes into office, should be able to plan ahead. The Minister has mentioned this on one or two occasions, and I think he made a passing reference to it today.
To take Swindon as an example, for continuity of work it is necessary to have eighteen months' warning before new work can begin in order to give time for preparing plans and specifications and to get materials for which they have to place outside contracts. Incidentally, they have been held up very badly recently by delays in outside contracts. There has been particular trouble about copper tubing and other piping on the locomotive side. The men have a suspicion that supplies are going to private enterprise firms faster than they are coming to British Railways works. They and the management say that they cannot plan for the future unless they have adequate warning of what is to happen next.
This brings me to a general point regarding finance. In the White Paper on Public Investment, there is a column on page 16 referring to money going to the British Transport Commission. For 1961 there is a firm figure of £125 million, and then a figure, subject to review of £15 million. The fact is that neither the management in Swindon, nor the Commission, nor perhaps the Minister himself, have the faintest idea of what is to happen in 1962. So it is, perhaps, not surprising, although very regrettable, that when the men in Swindon asked to see the General Manager at Paddington to discuss the future outlook in railway workshops he

689
refused to see them. I suspect that it was because he had not the faintest idea either.
I make a strong appeal to the Minister to do whatever he can to see that information about future spending is passed on to the B.T.C. and regions and that the Western Region is taken out of the impossible position of having no idea of what money will be available in 1962, although it has to have at least eighteen months' notice.
I add to that appeal a plea to the Minister to look very carefully at relations between management and labour in the regions, particularly in the factories. I do not want to make any invidio8s comment about individuals, but the Minister may perhaps remember a quite unnecessary strike, preceded and followed by a great deal of unnecessary friction, in November, 1957. That, in my opinion, arose very largely from a refusal by the general manager at that time to meet the men to discuss their reasonable point of view, which was amply justified by results. They were, in fact, asking to do more work than the management said they were capable of doing. They struck and got the extra work, which they carried out more quickly than they had predicted. It would be a tragedy if that kind of thing were to happen again.
These men came to see me yesterday morning and said that they were very worried. They had asked to see the general manager. They had been through all the proper channels—
Mr. Ellis Smith: Is there not workshop machinery and trade union machinery which caters for this kind of thing? Cannot the workshops committee get to know what is happening?
Mr. Noel-Baker: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. There is that machinery, and these men have been very meticulous in going through every stage of the machinery. I have been meticulous in keeping out until they had done so. they had a session with the chief mechanical and electrical engineer and, when everything else failed, they appealed to go to the general manager. In a letter which they showed me, they were told that it would not be proper for him to see
690
the works committee. My immediate reaction was, what on earth is the general manager for if not to see the men on an occasion of this kind? Indeed, so remote does the general manager appear to be from Swindon that the men refer to him as Mr. Hammond, the chairman of the Western Area Board." I had to explain to them the difference between the chairman and the general manager. This happened when I was talking to them yesterday. At all events, there may be a good reason for the general manager being in difficulties about seeing the men, for I believe that he does not know any more than they do about future plans. But I appeal to the Minister to consider relations between management and labour and, if he can use his influence in this case, to 'use it so that the men are kept in the picture and this kind of situation does not arise again.
In the interests of others of my hon. Friends, I have jettisoned many of the points I wished to make. I finish by saying only that we deplore the point of view and the state of mind that is reflected by the White Paper. This is not simply an expression of party political feeling. We are worried that the whole attitude of the Government towards the railway system is old-fashioned and out of date. It is humiliating to come back to this country and see the condition of our railways when one has been to countries like France, Italy, Germany or Sweden, where they have been through all this and solved the problem many years ago. Let the Minister now take the railway service, men and managements, into his confidence and let them know what his intentions for the future really are.
8.2 p.m.
Colonel C. G. Lancaster: The hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. F. Noel-Baker) will not expect me to follow him in matters which concern most particularly his constituency. I should like for a few moments to refer to certain matters which have come out of the debate, many of which were considered in great detail by the Select Committee, of which I was a member.
The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Steele) regretted—I was entirely with him in that respect—that we are discussing the Government's

691
policy today without having the opportunity of knowing anything about the Stedeford recommendations, or—I go further than the hon. Member—of knowing what were the arguments which led up to those recommendations. Undoubtedly, what is being proposed by the Government this evening must, in part, have originated from what Sir Ivan Stedeford and his Advisory Group recommended. We find ourselves in something of a vacuum if we are debating the matter without knowing on what premises they came to those conclusions.
It was no part of the business of the Select Committee either to initiate or to propagate policy, but it is impossible to spend the time that we individually spent on that Committee and not to come to certain opinions and views on the policy that should emanate. We are debating and considering the situation without the benefit of those conclusions which must, in great measure, have influenced the mind of my right hon. Friend when setting out his views in the White Paper.
Having said that, there is one other matter to which the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West referred and to which, equally, I give my support. The hon. Member, as well as my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North (Sir T. Low), referred to the benefit which could, and I feel will, accrue from having part-time members on the regional boards.
I want now to refer to something which may appear to be controversial, although I do not put it forward in any controversial manner. It became evident from the evidence which was forthcoming from the Transport Commission that not only the old pre-nationalisation railway companies, but, indeed, the post-nationalisation Commission itself had done little to recruit for the railways men who had had the advantage of the sort of education which is available both in the older universities and in the technical universities.
If I may use an analogy, I would say that that was an error which was not committed in the mining industry. Both before nationalisation and, to the credit of the Coal Board, since nationalisation, there have been a variety of schemes by which university candidates from the
692
older universities, in certain cases, and from other parts of the educational system received grants to go to technical universities—Leeds, Birmingham and the like—and then to play their part in that industry.
I am not saying that those men, and those alone, are the sort of men one wants to see coming up within an industry. If, however, an industry denies to itself the advantage of getting men from that strata of higher education, it is handicapping itself unnecessarily. In that respect, the railways have been, and are continuing to be, remiss in the directions in which they are recruiting men who should, in course of time, take up the higher technical and administrative posts within that organisation.
What we are discussing this evening is the inevitable evolution of nationalisation. I am not saying this in a critical approach to nationalisation, but if we look at this matter objectively we must recognise that in every nationalised concern there is this process of evolution. In the first instance, there is immense concentration at the centre, the idea being that power should rest at the centre and that the scheme, which embraces the whole of the interests of the industry concerned, should be a tidy one and should be so concentrated that every decision can be made at that point.
This process, however, has in it seeds of its own decay. The more we centralise, the less responsibility and initiative there will be at the periphery. In due course, that loss of responsibility and initiative will have its inevitable effect on the centre. That we should today be considering a degree of devolution is all to the good. To what extent that devolution should be hurried on, I am not so certain. I am not very happy, for example, that the docks should be withdrawn from the control of the central board. I am not sufficiently versed in these matters to say whether it is wise to have London Transport operated as a separate section divorced from the main railway interests.
That we should go too far too fast is something I am not happy about, partly because I am not certain that we have all the men available to take on these immense responsibilities which too great a degree of devolution would bring

693
about, and partly because, if we go too far from a single integrated system, we shall run the risk at some future time of having further recourse to centralisation. I hope, therefore, that in considering the problems that lie ahead of him, and before he has worked out the legislation which in due course will appear before the House, my right hon. Friend will bear in mind that there is a necessity, even at this stage, to face this matter, and to face it within the reasonable scope of what is practicable in the first instance. That does not mean I am not wholly in favour of devolution as a principle. I merely put in the reminder that we would be wise to approach this matter in a phased and orderly manner.
One matter occurred in the evidence before the Select Committee which has not been referred to today and I will dwell on that for a moment. That is the matter of time and motion study which had been applied in certain directions within the railway industry, It seemed a million pities that it had been done on only such a very limited scale. I speak from some experience in this matter. Almost a generation ago time and motion study was applied to the industry in which at that time I was interested and after a short while it was accepted by men and management as being something in both their interests. It showed itself in almost every way to be in the interests of that industry. I have not the slightest doubt that the same principles hold good in the railway industry. As I say, in the very few examples where it has been applied to that industry it has been shown to have brought about some remarkable results.
Mr. Ellis Smith: Like the men working without their coats.
Colonel Lancaster: I had hoped that there would be an extension of that throughout the industry. I am certain that it would be as much in the interests of the men as of management.
I have certain reservations about the approach of my right hon. Friend to these problems. It is not on the score that the principle of what he has in mind is an unsound one—I do not think that that is so—but in the course of our investigation into the problems of this
694
industry I was impressed not only with the size and the complexity of the industry, but with the fact that if we go too far too fast we may deny ourselves the eventual chance of bringing about a solution to these problems. I hope, therefore, that my right hon. Friend will consider what was reported on by the Select Committee and the conclusions to which we came.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North has set out very clearly the problems of uneconomic sections of the industry. I agree entirely with what he said. Until we know what is the size of the industry to which we are to apply our economic approach, we shall be floundering in our approach to the whole problem of what lies ahead. We must have that clear as soon as possible and if the Minister is able to give his conclusions on that matter before even he puts legislation before the House it will enable many of us to make up our minds on the benefits or otherwise of what he has in mind. I think that that is essential.
So long as the Minister is prepared to recognise that a policy of this sort must be tempered by a good deal of caution, I am in restrained agreement with the proposals that have been placed before the House.
8.15 p.m.
Mr. Frank McLeavy: British transport in all its forms, whether it be by road, rail, sea or air, is now vital to the economy of the nation. All these forms of transport have been built up without any real thought on how they should be planned to serve the best interests of the community. By the ordinary process of success or failure, we have arrived at a position today of wasteful competition, each section fighting for traffic regardless of the overriding needs of the country. There is no controlling national body authorised to plan and co-ordinate all forms of transport to obtain the maximum benefits in both service and lower rates. There is a mixture of State-owned and privately-owned undertakings, each in keen competition for available traffic. Parliament is confronted with pressure groups from all sides; each concern is trying to get some advantage for itself regardless of the national need.

695
We are today faced with a trade and export crisis which is far more serious than the Government will admit. British exporting concerns are facing increased competition in the markets of the world, and some of their competitors are being subsidised by their Governments to an alarming degree. What is Britain's answer to these developing tendencies? The first thing the Government should do is to set up a National Transport Board to make a national survey of existing transport facilities and keep the Government informed as to the best ways of obtaining a cheap and integrated national service. It is only by wise integration of all forms of transport that we can hope to reduce rates and fares and at the same time find at least part of the solution to our export problems.
Mr. Gresham Cooke: We have had integration of transport in London for thirty years.
Mr. Leslie Spriggs: And the party opposite destroyed it.
Mr. Gresham Cooke: It still exists in London. but it has not solved London's transport problem.
Mr. McLeavy: If the hon. Member had been listening to what I was saying, he would have realised that I was speaking of the broad basis of national transport and not to any particular section. It is all right to try to side-track the issue, but unless we solve this problem of adequate, co-ordinated and cheap transport our industry is going to suffer in consequence.
My main criticism of the White Paper is that it deals with the nationalised sector in isolation. There is a complete rejection by the Government of the principles of integration and no indication at all that the Government recognise the tragic failure of the Tory Government since 1951. I am more concerned about finding the right solution to our great transport problems than in indulging in political recriminations, but I am bound to say that out of the very mouth of the Government came a remarkable admission of deplorable failure over the last ten years. The Government say boldly in the White Paper:
"The heart of the problem is in the railways. They are a great national enterprise and a vital basic industry."
696
I only wish they had thought that ten years ago.
Speaking of the financial problem of the railways, the White Paper says that it is
"so serious that they cannot now carry on without large-scale support from the Exchequer."
This position is presented today to Parliament as though it had suddenly happened, was unforeseen and did not result from the folly of Government policy. So we have to have a face-saving device in the White Paper which is before the House today. Then we have to have a scapegoat, so the British Transport Commission must be sacrificed.
Even now, the Government have not learned the lessons of the follies of the last ten years. The Minister talks about this new set-up and about a Bill being introduced next Session. I do not think it is an unreasonable estimate to say that it may take two years before the proposed changes in the White Paper can take effect. Meanwhile, waiting for the impending changes, There will be stagnation. Men under sentence of death are not likely to be interested in the things that surround them. The next two years, in my opinion, will be vital to the industrial prosperity of Britain. Is it really wise for the Government to add this disturbance at the present time?
It is not difficult to set out the causes of this unfortunate crisis. They are quite clear to anyone who has been in this House for the past fifteen years: first, the lack of a real national transport policy; second, since 1951 the Tory Government's indifference and, indeed, hostility to the integration of road and rail; third, the valuable time wasted between 1951 and 1959 in attempts to weaken the progressive development of the British Transport Commission, interference with the fare structure and retardation of modernisation; fourth, a complete lack of vision as to the future needs of industry and the travelling public; fifth, a total disregard for the over-riding needs of the nation. These are five main points of criticism which require a direct answer from the Government.
On the question of forcing traffic on to the railways, the Minister of Transport, in a television interview, said that it would be wrong of him to attempt to

697
force traffic on to the railways and that we must not interfere with the freedom of industry to choose the form of transport it should use, although this is done in many continental countries with benefic al results to industry and to the economy of those countries. Yet the Minister and the House must realise that unless by force of law or by persuasion we can get substantially increased traffic on the railways, no amount of subsidy will save it from financial distress in the end.
I do not think that anyone would wish to see a rigid enforcement of traffic on to the railways, but, in view of the successful practices abroad, there is a strong case for the Minister to take legal powers to do so if only to strengthen his hand in persuading industry to use the railways, provided the powers are used as a last resort.
I reject the White Paper as totally inadequate to meet the needs of our times. It is more urgent than ever that the British Transport Commission and industry should be brought together to find a way by which the railways can serve the industries of the country. The Minister could render a real national service by bringing this about. Above all, having regard to the sad experience that we have had over the past ten years, let us at least start off the New Year with a determination to place the national interest above petty political personal considerations.
8.27 p.m.
Mr. John Peyton: It is very easy indeed to follow the hon. Member for Bradford, East (Mr. McLeavy) and to agree with the last sentiments that he uttered. I do so most warmly.
Perhaps he will forgive me if I do not follow him in any detail, though perhaps this is not irrelevant to what he has been saying. The treatment of the railways on a rather piecemeal basis by Parliament is nothing new. Just about a hundred years of railway legislation is available for examination, and, if one looks at it, it is strange how clear it becomes that Parliament has been consistent alone in the building up of a tradition of tampering with this industry and never really attempting at any one time to deal with the problems both of
698
its structure and size and at the same time with its obligations.
I do not believe that since the war Parliament has helped at all in dealing with these problems. we have had, of course, as one would expect, a vigorous argument on the merits of nationalisation or otherwise. I believe that the nationalisation of the railways is with us forever. It would be both helpful and refreshing if we could all stop arguing about it and try to make the present system work. I believe that a great deal of the trouble—we ought to admit this as Members of Parliament—is that far too often we expect from the railways satisfactory financial results and, at the same time, press upon them a policy of low fares and uneconomic services. This will not and cannot work.
There is another reason why I, for one, accord a rather chilly welcome to the White Paper. The main question on which any discussion of organisation must hinge has been shirked. There is no indication at all of what the Government's intentions are about the size of the railways or their eventual role. For my part, I reject as barren any discussion of railway problems until that question has been answered. It is not possible to judge the merits of proposals until we have the answer to that main question set out clearly before us.
I appreciate that these proposals are only skeleton, hut in viewing them I ask myself this question: has there been any change of circumstances or change of heart on the part of anyone who will take part in running the railways which entitles us to suppose that these proposals carry within them the seed of hope? For myself, I see none. Have we any reason to suppose that the new Railways Board will be more successful than the old Railway Executive? Have we any reason to suppose that it will be more successful than the Commission? Again, I think that the answer is "No".
Do these proposals give any indication that the obstacles to decentralisation will in some magic way be removed? No. Have we—let us have this quite clear—any hope arising from this White Paper for better and more effective union co-operation? Again, I think that the answer is "No ". At present work study covers only 6 per cent. of the field. That is a lamentable fact. The

699
mere mouthing of pious hopes will not get us anywhere. I do not believe that there is any change in organisation which gives ground for hope. I do not believe that the new Advisory Council will bring some magic effect with it.
We in the House of Commons should pause for a moment—I absolve the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) on any charge of levity in his approach to the matter—and seriously consider what we are doing in writing off, at least putting into suspense about £800 million of public money. In the White Paper, Proposals for the Railways, Cmd. 9880 of 1956, Sir Brian Robertson is recorded, in paragraph 100, on page 28, as saying that
"…the replacement costs of the total investment, in terms of current money values, can be put at well over £4,000 million ".
That is true for the Commission as a whole. Nevertheless, it is probably fair to say that £3,000 million, or at least three times as much as is now being placed into suspense, is being forgotten. This is taxpayers' money. It is a serious matter, and Parliament would be failing in its duty if it did not high-light the fact that this really involves the British taxpayer in the loss of £2,500 million worth of property.
I believe that there are no grounds for giving this White Paper even the most general blessing. It is full of pious hopes, but it brings with it very little evidence that those hopes will bear much fruit. The aim, of course, is unexceptionable. I do not think that anyone could challenge the aim and policy stated quite clearly in paragraph 2. We are told that sweeping changes are to follow. Here I must express rather more criticism because I find it impossible to believe that the Government have really assessed the effect during the interregnum of such a statement as that. What will happen in the intervening period to those who carry heavy resonsibilities? What sort of feelings will they have in the future, and what will be the effect upon the stability of the industry on which so much depends.
I cannot refrain from uttering the suspicion that we have here change for the sake of change. We are told that the system must be made more compact. If this is really the line of thought, we
700
should have been told more, and told it very much earlier. We are told, also, with commendable modesty on the part of the Government, that the answers to the many problems of the railways will not be found overnight. But I do not think that it is entirely unfair to ask the Government how they find themselves so unprepared to produce some answers and a general picture of the railway problems. One did not need the gift of prophecy to be able to anticipate at least some of the Guillebaud recommendations and their results. The writing has been on the wall for a very long time, and I think that the Government stand Charged, and reasonably so, with being so inexcusably unprepared.
Reference is made in the White Paper to the fact that the activities of the Commission are large and diverse. Hon. Members, particularly on this side, have been making this point for years but nothing has been done about it. I am glad that cognisance has now been taken of it, but I beg my right hon. Friend to realise that, while these functions are huge and diverse, and the old empire has been far too big, the mere business of isolating the railways will not amount to the same thing as genuine decentralisation.
I am also slightly nervous of the reference in paragraph 13 to direct responsibility to the Minister. Will this be so different from the position under the old scheme of things? If so, what will it achieve? It is fairly clear to me that the net result, if anything, will be to bring the Minister and the State closer into touch with the business of running the railways. There are many people who do not have a 100 per cent. faith in the efficiency of the State. A number of them believe that the State, particularly as an industrialist, is apt to be ponderously inefficient. Parliament does not entirely share the rather amiable belief of Ministers that they are good representatives of Parliament. Parliament still has some sort of slumbrous desire to safeguard taxpayers' money. I do not believe that it is true that Parliament is always willing to accept Ministers as adequate representatives for it in the discharge of this function, one of its most important.
Apparently, the Advisory Council, which, we are told, will be set up, will have no executive functions. It will

701
advise my right hon. Friend or the Minister of the day on how to co-ordinate the nationalised transport activities. I have no idea how effective co-ordination can be carried out as a result of the machinations of such a body. I have a good deal of sympathy with my right hon. Friend, who will find himself right in the thick of the transport melee and who is considerably adding to his difficulties concerning other transport interests, such as road haulage and the much neglected shipping industry, which will all be out on a limb.
I do not wish to refer at length to the financial provisions. I have mentioned them briefly. However, I should like to refer for a moment to productivity and manpower, which receive only a cursory mention in paragraph 49 of the White Paper. This is the nub of the whole matter. The pith of my complaint is that I do not see in the White Paper a sign of anything which will change any of the distressing features of manpower and productivity.
I want to finish with two or three short points. First, I hope very much that, instead of a statutory board controlling the British Transport docks, consideration might be given to the possibility of setting up ordinary dock and harbour authorities in which users, local authorities and all those interested might have some direct influence.
The vexed question of coastal shipping deserves far more time and consideration than it receives in the House. This is a vital and economic industry which finds itself in a great deal of difficulty when there are quoted against it rates from a subsidised industry which on the whole must be quite uneconomic. My right hon. Friend has one of the most difficult roles to play and he has a great deal on his plate, but I beg him to realise that the shipping industry has had a very difficult time and that the coastal shipping industry has special problems of its own quite apart from the general ones which warrant his attention. On mere grounds of strategy, defence and national security this industry has a strong claim to attention. I hope that it will receive it and that the Government will realise the nervousness and anxiety in the industry because it is threatened by subsidised, unfair competition.
702
All sorts of difficulties arise when one starts to deal with a concealed and Ill-defined subsidy. There is a wagon manufacturing and repairing industry in this country. It is a privately-owned industry in which many people earn their living. I hope that my right hon. Friend will get to grips with this problem and that someone will say clearly whether or not it is the Government's intention that this private industry should survive. My right hon. Friend should bear in mind that over many years this industry has made a valuable contribution to our export trade.
To sum up, it is urgent that the Government should decide what sort of size of railway system they want. Until they do so, talk of organisation is a waste of time. I am certainly not prepared to give any sort of welcome to the proposed financial provisions and, therefore, I cannot vote for the Opposition Amendment, but I find myself also unable to support the Government's proposals in the Lobby tonight.
8.42 p.m.
Mr. Charles Mapp: The general tone of the arguments by hon. Members opposite has been, in the main, unfriendly to the Minister, but I have always understood that hon. Members opposite regarded two principles as their prerogative. One was financial discipline and the other organisational genius. In respect of both these heads the White Paper falls down lamentably.
I should like to quote one or two figures which touch upon the manpower issue that has already been mentioned In the debate. I left the railways in 1959 to come to the House and I should like to compare 1952 with 1959. The overall surplus of the British Transport Commission in 1952 was £8 million. Year by year afterwards, until 1959, there was a deficit which grew to £73·8 million. It consistently got worse and worse in the period of office of a Government who were consistently interfering with the normal transport operations of the industry. In terms of manpower, do hon. Members fully realise that in 1952 there were just over 600,000 railwaymen while in 1959 that figure had gone down to 519,000? I take it that that would be conceded as quite a handsome reduction in manpower. I have had personal experience of how this reduction was brought about.

703
Also, I have had some experience of productivity and work study. If hon. Members opposite go to Willesden Yard wishing to carry out time and motion study with a shunter, or in connection with many of the other phases of railway operation, such as the attaching and detaching of stock, they will find that it is not like a belt system in a factory. When hon. Members opposite think in terms of railways, I beg them to think of traffic yards and the movement of wagons. I have had considerable experience of the routine operations of a goods shed where bonus arrangements can be applied, but there are many railway operations which in themselves are unique to the industry and depend mainly on the character and good will of the railway servant involved.
The railway carryings are not as bad as the House might be led to believe. In 1959. the number of passenger miles was 22,000 million. In 1952, it was 20,000 million. Consequently, one can say that the volume of passenger miles has increased by one-tenth, which is not bad if one acknowledges that during the same period the railway labour force has been reduced in the proportion of six to five.
To come to the root of the problem, there has been in those years a 25 per cent. drop in the railway goods merchandise, a 17 per cent. drop in minerals traffic and a 16 per cent. drop in coal traffic. Incidentally, the average wagonload has been improved from about 8frac12; tons to 9¾. Consequently, inferences that the Commission or the railways, in particular, are dragging their heels are not sustained by the facts. Indeed, I am inclined to the view that the White Paper is a face-saving operation on the part of the Minister.
If one examines carefully what has been happening during the last few years, not least the Stedeford Group or the Minister's constant jumping into positions without the back-room staff to equip him for the chairmanships which he continues to take over, one is led to the conclusion that the White Paper will accentuate that the Minister's rights of direction to the Commission have become daily and constant interference.
The Minister has at his disposal in a staff of, presumably, some thousands,
704
one professional and technical member and 12 administrative staff engaged on railway work, making, with clerical staff, a total of 41, engaged on railway problems, against a figure of well over 1,000 engaged on road transport matters. If any of us think that the Minister is completely and constantly informed on this very big set-up, why should he have to go outside his own Department to find the brain-box to equip him with the knowledge that he wants? In this case, the Minister admits that he is in the hands of the Commission's professional and technical personnel. Having been fed by that agency, he then proceeds, with complete abandon, and sometimes apparently with jubilation. to criticise the Commission for its forthcomingness.
I frequently meet railway people, and travelled with some administrative officers this morning, and I can tell the Minister that his stock is rather poor, not only with the railway unions, but with a very large number of railway officers at the middle level of management. There is not much confidence in him and not much faith. It is for him to recover that loss of confidence. I know that the trade unions are willing and anxious, provided that they are given reasonable opportunities, to endeavour, as far as possible, to rebuild the bridge that has been, to some extent, blown away during this last year or so.
I now come to what I call the two essentials of this problem—essentials, that is to say, provided that we can, for the moment, take politics out of this immediate consideration. Many railwaymen, including myself, consider that the problems of the railways are more important than the political arguments that might follow. The White Paper—and hon. Members—have again under-lined that, provided that the financial arrangements are adjusted, the railways will be viable—assuming fair competition.
I imagine that many hon. Members have discussed, as I have, with businessmen and railwaymen, the factors which constitute fair competition, and I hope that the Minister is in a position to state, or has an objective analysis, of what constitutes fair competition between road and rail. I suggest to him—and in this I agree with the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton)—that we cannot go

705
very far in transport policy without having an idea of the required size of British Railways. But it is equally necessary that the Minister should have a yardstick, a definition, of what constitutes fair competition.
Having said that, I hope that all railwaymen—and, I hope, the travelling public, too—will be reassured by the fact that the railways will be relieved of their tribunal responsibilities. But the White Paper does not say all that a railwayman would like it to say. There are very many other charges and rates of a special character which do not normally fall within this heading. For instance, to what extent do the promises in the White Paper cover many of the miscellaneous charges, such as warehousing and demurrage?
British Road Services is now to pass to a holding company. If I remember rightly, it is still confined to a limited fleet which was, I believe, specified in recent legislation. If that is the case, and in the light of what the Minister said today—that there would be a free and open, fully commercial responsibility—then I take it that this statutory limitation on B.R.S. will be lifted. If the statutory figure is maintained, then he will be doing B.R.S. what the railways have been used to for centuries —pinning one arm behind their back. I hope that the Minister will be able to clear up that matter this evening.
Many hon. Members opposite say—and it is a fair argument—that these proposals will make the railways viable. If that argument is accepted, why are the railways not made a State service, like the Post Office? Equally, the contrasting argument is that if they are viable, surely there are men in the City who would be prepared to buy British Railways.
Mr. Ellis Smith: Thomson.
Mr. Mapp: The test of the political philosophy of hon. Members opposite lies in this sort of case. For totally different reasons, my hon. Friends and I would not pretend to lay our hands to taking out of the social conscience a valuable entity of this kind, but if hon. Members opposite have as their basic political philosophy the sort of view at which the hon. Member for Yeovil
706
hinted, why do they not face the consequences?
Mr. Peyton: The hon. Member is putting into my mouth—
Mr. Mapp: I gather that the hon. Member was making reservations about nationalisation as such.
Mr. Peyton: Let me make it absolutely clear that I have no use whatever for nationalisation, but that I regard railway nationalisation as something which is here to stay.
Mr. Mapp: That shows the complete illogicality of the argument.
The Minister resurrected the Railway Executive Committee. I am among those who know of the direct consequences of the central control of the old Railway Executive Committee, which dealt with matters of stock, and so on. I beg the Minister not to include in his proposals any detailed instructions for the new body, but to seek the advice of railwaymen, railway management personnel and to find out what is happening on the Continent.
I do not believe that the Advisory Council will be able to study the national problem of transport. I notice that the White Paper uses the expression "Nationalised Transport Advisory Council". That is there deliberately, of course, but the general content of the commercial element of the country can never be decided if we isolate public service utilities from the other and
Generally unrestricted side of the economy.
9.0 p.m.
Mr. John Howard: I wish to draw attention to the position of the coastal shipping industry. I agree with the main theme of the White Paper, with the proposals for placing the main activities of the British Transport Commission under private boards, and also with the realistic decision to write off the capital which has been lost. on the lines of a capital reconstruction under the Companies Acts.
However, we cannot regard the reorganisation of the British Transport-Commission in a vacuum. I do not accept the point. implicit in the White

707
Paper, that if the taxpayer remits the debts of the railways, the remission of those debts should be the means of permitting the railways to expand their scope for unfair competition with coastal shipping. Coastal shipping has already paid its share of subsidising the railways.
The position of coastal shipping is dismissed in about five lines in paragraph 60 of the White Paper, but it refers to the fact that various road and rail traffic Acts contain provisions protecting coastal shipping from competition from inland transport. The industry certainly needs that protection. It is inadequate already in certain directions, and it will be an absolute disaster if the position of coastal shipping is not strengthened in any legislation which my right hon. Friend might bring in.
We are indebted to a recent Report prepared by the General Council of British Shipping which refers at some length to the troubles which beset the coastal shipping industry at the moment. We in this House too frequently pay lip-service to the shipping industry and only too infrequently pay attention to its problems. We spend a great deal of money on defence, yet the coastal shipping industry provides a ready-made reservoir of ships and coasters for use in the event of war or in an emergency.
Predecessors of my right hon. Friend have from time to time given categorical assurances upon the essential nature of coastal shipping. If the present Minister of Transport wishes to preserve the coastal shipping industry, he must take prompt action. He must not even wait for legislation. I was glad to hear that he is shortly to consult the General Council of British Shipping on this problem.
In the last three years the number of ships in the coastal trade dwindled from 634 in June, 1957, to 506 in June, 1960, a loss of 128 ships amounting to about 212,000 tons deadweight. The coastal trade has taken a battering, first, from foreign flag competition round our coasts; secondly, from the conversion of waterside power stations from coal to oil and, thirdly, from the current competition from the railways carrying goods at cut rates. We fear that all restraint will be thrown overboard if the reorgani-
708
sation proposals set out in the White Paper are put into practice.
Coastal shipping competes with both road and rail. Road transport has a distinct advantage because of the door-to-door services it can provide. Rail transport competes largely artificially by flat rates and cut rates for the carriage of bulk cargoes over long distances which coastal shipping is ideally suited to carry. One example of this is that a coaster can carry a load equivalent to eight trainloads of coal.
Rates at present being quoted by the British Transport Commission are designed to lure freights from shipping. In the opinion of the shipping industry those rates are completely uneconomic and unrealistic. It is difficult to prove this fact, but I have instances which I am prepared to give to my right hon. Friend. Paragraph 7 of the White Paper talks about practical economic tests which will settle the size and pattern of the industry. Those tests mask the true nature of the cost of the services, and unless a right to "cost" exists coastal shipping will decline still further because of this form of competition.
I ask my right hon. Friend to give the friends of shipping in this House a positive assurance on the position of coastal shipping. In particular, I ask that no legislation be passed until the role of coastal shipping in relation to the transport system has been defined.
There are other and more immediate requirements. I will not instance them now, but will merely refer my right hon. Friend to paragraph 135 of the Report of the Council of Shipping in which those immediate requirements for the survival of coastal shipping are outlined.
9.5 p.m.
Mr. James Callaghan: I am very glad that the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. J. Howard) managed to talk about the plight of the coastal shipping industry, because it is significant that the General Council of British Shipping should, for the first time within my experience, have taken to lobbying Members actively and publicly about the state of its industry. It has always yielded to the view, which is prevalent in the Ministry of Transport, that the only way to deal with the problems of the shipping industry is behind

709
the closed doors of the Ministry, and that it could get a much better bargain that way than by approaching Members of Parliament. I have never believed that to be true, and the General Council of British Shipping is now finding out that it is not.
The hon. Member is right in what he says; the Report of the General Council of British Shipping tells us that 110 ships have been scrapped in the last three years. That represents about 200,000 tons of shiping. I may be wrong, but I understand that only three new tramp ships are building to replace that 110. Over 40 per cent. of shipping in the coastwise trades at the moment is more than twenty years old. There are no major programmes for replacement. I agree with the hon. Member, and I ask what the Government propose to do about it. Are they willing to let that industry bleed to death? That is what is happening.
When I remember what took place during the war, and the way in which merchant seamen plied their trade down through the North Sea to the Thames and through the English Channel; when I remember the part they played in the winter of 1947, when coal was frozen on the railways, and the way in which they brought it through all the weather of that winter, I say that if the Government let this industry bleed to death they will be betraying the nation.
It is this example which betrays the dichotomy in the thinking of Government supporters. Coastwise shipping will not pay its way unless there is a measure of protection. The hon. Member for Test said that, and he is right. But the Government—and they will soon be the Opposition if we go on having the kind of debate we have had today —think that the making of a profit is the test of what transport facilities ought to be provided.
That is not the view of the General Council of Shipping. The hon. Member gave us only part of the remedy proposed by the Council. What the General Council says is in line with what has been said in every speech in the House today except one and a half from the right hon. Member for Blackpool, North (Sir Toby Low) and one from the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. G. Wilson). Like a stranded leviathan, the hon.
710
Member for Truro can always be relied upon to support the Government, no matter how many plans they bring in and how contradictory they may be, and the right hon. Member for Blackpool, North always spoils his case, because after criticising the Government he thinks that he must distribute his blows equally, and so goes on to attack the Opposition, refraining from charging his hon. Friends with incompetence.
In paragraph 127 of its Report the General Council says:
"It is essential… that, in considering the future structure of the railways and the relationship between rail and road, the Government should look at the transport needs of the country as a whole, including the part that coastal shipping should properly play."
Shipping replacement today in the coastwise trades is virtually impossible as the Minister's policy is working itself out, and I warn him that he will be held responsible by many people outside this House as well as those of us in it who care about the coastwise shipping industry if he does not produce a policy which will save this industry from the straits into which it has fallen.
Another instance of the dichotomy of thinking of hon. Members opposite was to be found in the speech of the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton), who produced accusations against the Minister and used ferocity of language which, if I were to use it, would be called quite immoderate. The Minister will soon have to return to his sick bed if he gets many more attacks like that. But, having launched his fiercest bolts against the Minister, he said that he did not believe in nationalisation. He did not believe that it solves the problem.
Dame Irene Ward: It does not.
Mr. Callaghan: I am sure that the hon. Member is very glad to have the hon. Lady's support.
I am looking at the document produced by the National Union of Railwaymen, which I do not suppose the Minister has deigned to read, called "Planning Transport for You ". The prices of British Railways stock over the years before nationalisation are surely some idea of what the market and the Stock Exchange thought about the prospects of British railways at that time. The prices per

711
£100 of the London and North-Eastern Railway preference stock ranged from £11 10s., £7 10s., £21, £14 10s., £10, £12 and £8 10s. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about Daltons?"] Daltons have never got down to that, not even despite the credit policy of the Government.
Great Western Railway prices were £50, £51, £64, £42, £30. Southern Railway preference, which were the cream, were £24, £64, £79. They climbed to £97 in one year and then started to fall back again. The average over the whole period was £77 5s. So one could go on with the deferred stock. This was the view which the market took about this stock. [HON. MEMBERS: "When was this?"] I am quoting a whole series of years—anything between 1924 and 1938. Those are the years immediately before the war and, of course, before nationalisation.
I say to the hon. Member for Yeovil—and I agree with much of his criticism that if he does not accept nationalisation, if he cannot feel any enthusiasm for it. and if his own private enterprise system failed—what is the solution? The hon. Member has arrived a little too late to answer, so he will have to get it from his hon. Friends. I am paying him a compliment with one hand and taking it back with the other.
Mr. Peyton: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for a compliment under any circumstances.
Mr. Callaghan: I have a feeling that the Minister of Transport hopes that because of the way in which the Press reports our debates what will get the headlines tomorrow is that London-Midland Region electrification is going on, and that all the other criticisms will disappear beneath that statement. I think that we all welcome that. We are all glad to know that, having held it up since last June. the Government have decided to proceed with it.
I wish to ask the Joint Parliamentary Secretary a question to which I shall be glad to have an answer. I understand that it was the intention of the Commission to complete this electrification by 1964. Of course, the hon. Gentleman will realise that it is important to know over how many years the Government are proposing to extend the electrification and modernisation. Can the hon.
712
Gentleman tell the House whether it is the intention of the Government to keep within the original proposal of 1964 for the completion of the electrification? Perhaps I may have an answer to that, because, clearly, it is of great importance.
I come now to some of the other questions which have concerned us. Anyone who has listened to the debate will have reached the conclusion that what the Minister has said is this, "I cannot tell you what the size and shape of the industry will be. I do not know what form road transport will take. I shall fry to keen a little control over road building and by that means I shall be able to co-ordinate to some extent between road and rail. About coastwise shipping I have nothing to say, but what I can say to you, members of the public, is that you are going to have to pay either higher fares or higher taxes to support the railway system." I do not think that an unfair summary of what the Minister told the House this afternoon. For that reason, I think, every one of his hon. Friends—except one-and-a-half —attacked him so bitterly this afternoon.
The House and the people are entitled to know what is to be the future of the railway system. It is not good enough for the right hon. Gentleman to ask us to vote hundreds of millions of pounds—because that is what it will amount to before we have finished it will certainly be well over £100 million—if he cannot tell us that this money is not to be poured down the drain because the Government refuse to perform the elementary function of integrating the transport system. This is where, I think, there is the great divide between us.
The Government affect to believe that it is through competition that we shall get the best results in transport, and that it is through profits, of course, in the second place. It is through profits that the efficiency of the system will be determined. Anyone looking at transport knows that neither of these things is true. Let us take one example, which has been referred to before, the Victoria tube. In 1957. the Transport Commission asked the Minister for his views about the Victoria tube. It has been regarded by everyone who has examined the situation as essential.
Millions of Londoners who travel every day to work have to put up with

713
intolerable conditions, if they have to get from Victoria across either to the West End or further to Arsenal, Highbury and Waltha mstow, by the inadequacy—I do not say the failure—of the present system. It will cost £55 million to build the Victoria tube. What does the Minister tell us? He has had four years to make up his mind about it, but we still do not know what the right hon. Gentleman is proposing to do.
Four years ago he was asked to decide whether the Victoria tube should go through. It is in the 1957 Annual Report of the Commission—not the right hon. Gentleman, his predecessor, I beg the pardon of the right hon. Gentleman. Of course, he was most careful this afternoon to dissociate himself from anything that happened before in the Ministry. It would be unfair to saddle him with any responsibility for what happened under the régime of his predecessor. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would be the last to want to throw any blame on his predecessor. He made that clear to us this afternoon. He did not want to say that his predecessor had done anything wrong at all, but if it was not the right hon. Gentleman or his predecessor, who was it?
Does not the doctrine of collective responsibility still apply to this Government? They are all in it so long as they sit on the Treasury Bench. I say to the Minister of Transport that although he may not be personally responsible for the failure to come to a decision on the question of the Victoria tube, it is the Government who are responsible. and the people of London are suffering today for this four-year delay.
The tube will cost £55 million. Is that to be added on to the fares? The right hon. Member for Blackpool, North had a long passage about this in his speech. It is said that it will be uneconomic. I do not know what uneconomic "means in this sense. I know that it will bring a great deal more convenience to millions of people in London. I should have thought that the real test in this case was a social test, which is one that could be applied to a publicly-owned transport system. Then, we do not necessarily employ the test of profitability—
Mr. Cyril Osborne: Somebody has to pay for it.
Mr. Callaghan: Yes, somebody has to pay for it. The hon. Gentleman is "on the ball" as usual. Of course we have to pay for it. But it is he and his hon. Friends and, indeed, the Government, who say that the test of a system is whether it makes a profit. It is no use looking pained. We have to sit and listen to this day after day. It is a lot of rubbish, but it is no use at this late stage protesting about it. Everyone knows that the Victoria tube, the cost of which will be the equivalent of one day's operation at Suez, ought to have been got on with years ago.
What appals me about the situation is that, while the Government have taken four years to consider the matter and still have not been able to make up their mind about the Victoria tube, the Minister is now proposing to take more powers. As I understand the White Paper, he proposes to do Sir Brian Robertson's job in his spare time. He is to do it when he has finished neglecting coastwise shipping, when he has finished with shipping, and not looking after the road programme, and not doing anything about road hauliers, and when he has finished inspecting coastguard stations. Then he is to do the job of Sir Brian Robertson.
I do not know what the Minister's role is in this set-up. I agree very much with the right hon. Member for Blackpool, North and the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Aubrey Jones) that the Minister has to take some very important decisions as to how far he is to meddle in these affairs. He is giving himself immense powers, whether he intends to use them or not. Is he to start to meddle in wage negotiations? He has the responsibility here if he cares to use it. I do not think that he will do very much. I do not think that he will do Sir Brian Robertson's job. I think that it will be left undone.
The real weakness will be that the Minister will start to meddle in affairs when he is subjected to Parliamentary or public pressure, quite arbitrarily and without reference to their importance. This seems the danger the Minister is in in taking these great powers. It is no use him or anyone else arguing that he has not got them, because the White Paper sets out the genealogical table. I would not care to say who is illegitimate

715
in it, but he is at the top. He is the father of the lot. All of them are fathered on him.
The House ought to know, and certainly the railwaymen ought to know, how the Minister envisages his responsibilities and his powers in this matter. Is he to meddle from day to day as the whim takes him? If not, what self-denying ordinance is he to pass upon himself about what he is to interest himself in and what not? He said in a moment of frivolous effrontery that, of course, he would do all the co-ordination that is necessary. Does he really mean that he has not got the machinery and staff to do it? Of course, he cannot do it.
The basis of our criticism is that the Minister, in the words of the Amendment, has done nothing to solve the basic problems of the railways. He has done nothing to place them in their proper relationship with the other items and matters of our transport system and —what is worse—he is, in fact, tearing apart that which should be put together. The surprising thing—though perhaps it is not surprising in this light—is that this is at the moment when most of the Governments of Europe are pursuing a policy of integrating transport. At the very moment when they are endeavouring to gather transport together, the Minister and his Joint Parliamentary Secretary are preparing to tear it asunder even so far as it is together.
Is there anything so very different between our economic situation and that which characterises the countries of Europe such as France and Germany? I do not think so.
Mr. Alan Green: There is a deficit on the French railways.
Mr. Callaghan: Of course there is a deficit on the French railways, as there is on the English railways. It is not that which makes us different. The real trouble is this, and hon. Members opposite much pause and consider where they are getting transport to in this country. It is their idea of approach to the problem of transport and their desperate belief in the virtues of private enterprise, competition and the profit motive which is destroying our railways and is responsible for a great deal of waste in our transport system.
716
I agree that there must be some duplication of our transport resources. Indeed, I have argued for it in the case of coastwise shipping. I would certainly have duplication of coastwise shipping routes and of the railways down the main spine from the North-East Coast, but I want those decisions to be taken positively by people who have studied the problem and know what the additions and subtractions are, and who have reached a conclusion about them. To leave them to the blind chances of whether one lot makes a profit and the other lot makes a loss, and to allow a strategic industry like coastwise shipping to be destroyed on that basis, is sheer folly. It is with that that we tax the Government in this matter.
What is necessary, above all, is this. It is time that the Minister or someone should take a look at transport as a whole. Everybody is looking at it from his own point of view. In this House, we have a succession of the most powerful lobbies that I have ever known. We have the British Road Federation busy lobbying the whole time. We have the General Council of Shipping, which has now embarked on its new career. We have the road hauliers, who are always ready to leap at any moment when their rights seem to be challenged.
Mr. C. Osborne: Who is lobbying now?
Mr. Callaghan: In a modest way, we have the Transport Commission, which is at least as much entitled to lobby as anybody else.
We do not get a transport policy by a series of groups each of them prosecuting its own interest in the matter. We get a transport policy only if there is somebody or a group ready to sit back and view the problem as a whole.
I am sorry to say this, because I welcome the financial provisions, but one cannot honestly conclude, on the basis of the White Paper, that the railways have a fair chance of making a success of the responsibilities that are being placed upon them. The Minister should not be content to leave the situation there. Certainly, I am not alone in thinking this. The Minister's hon. Friends behind him join with me in saying the same thing.

717
What the Government have done is to buy five years' time with their financial proposals. They have proceeded from plunder to blunder. They plundered British Road Services and they are now blundering about British Railways. They bought their five years. They will not solve the problems in five years. I have a feeling that they will be coming back to us, if they have not already disappeared before then, with further proposals for financial help before the end of that time. That being so, we have no confidence in what they are doing and we ask the House to vote against the Government's Motion.
9.28 p.m.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. John Hay): When I heard that this debate was to be opened by the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) and closed by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), both speaking on behalf of the Opposition, I was quite elated. I thought that at last we would have experts in transport speaking to us, because both the right hon. Gentleman and the h on. Gentleman at different times have held office in the Ministry of Transport.
I have been gravely disappointed, however, because I expected speeches from both of them that would rise more to the level of the importance of the subject we have been discussing. At least, we were spared from the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East some of the funny jokes and cheap cracks with which he so often entertains us. We had a little more light from him this evening and a little less heat. For that, at least, we are grateful. One point in the hon. Gentleman's speech with which I entirely agree is that it is time that we in this country took a look at transport as a whole. That is precisely the purpose of my right hon. Friend and of the policy which he has been following in these last months.
The hon. Gentleman asked me a specific question about the London-Midland electrification scheme. He said that he understood that the British Transport Commission had wished to complete this scheme by 1964. It is true that in the re-appraisal it was suggested that the scheme, if then started, might well be completed by that date. How-
718
ever, that was only an estimate. The latest position is that we believe that the scheme can be completed by 1966. This additional two-year period is due to two factors which I must at once announce. The first factor is that for the first time the reconstruction of Euston Station is included, which as the House will appreciate, is a big undertaking. The second factor is that it is assumed that work on the whole scheme can proceed at the optimum rate at which the Commission can do it having regard to the resources available. I hope that has answered the question.
Mr. Callaghan: Does the Commission agree that that is a reasonable estimate of the optimum pace at which they can proceed?
Mr. Hay: Yes. This is one of the results of the comprehensive reexamination of this scheme, about which we have been so much criticised, which has been carried out by my right hon. Friend and his Department with the Commission in recent months. This is a date that the Commission itself put forward now. [An HON. MEMBER: "Now?"] Yes, now. This is what they say they think they can now do.
The reception which the White Paper has received in the House today has been mixed. May I say at once that a number of hon. Members who have offered contributions to the debate would, perhaps, not have been so credulous and argumentative about some of the points raised had they more thoroughly studied what is said in the White Paper. The fact is that there have been a good many misunderstandings about what the White Paper says.
I wish it were possible for me tonight, in the course of what must obviously be a speech of limited duration, to clear up all the misunderstandings and points which have been raised. The House will appreciate that there is so much material that I am faced with the problem of selection. There are a number of matters referred to in the White Paper on which final decisions have still to be made, and I can only promise hon. Members who have raised individual points on questions, that if I cannot answer them in my closing speech tonight I will see that they receive an answer by letter within the next few days.

719
The broad outline of what we are doing is clear. We have approached the problem of the Commission with one aim in view, and that is to make the thing work. We have sought to provide practical answers to practical problems. We have not sought to be guided or to allow ourselves to be swayed by doctrinaire approaches for or against nationalisation, because, quite honestly, however much this issue may tear the party opposite, so far as this Government are concerned nationalisation is a dead issue. We are concerned now with making those industries that were nationalised work.
No one would imagine that the White Paper is a set of detailed working drawings of what we are trying to do. At this stage it can only be a sketch plan. It does, however, at least give the House, the country and the Commission and its workpeople a pretty clear idea of the way in which we would like to go. If the House approves the White Paper, the preparation of the Bill will proceed and we shall bring in the Bill during the next Session of Parliament.
A number of people in the Press and elsewhere have criticised us, the initial reaction of many newspapers to this White Paper being that it is a shame we could not do something more quickly. I think hon. Members, who are well acquainted with the procedure of legislation, should realise that, although we should naturally have preferred to have moved much more quickly than the Parliamentary process permits, nevertheless Parliamentary time for a major Bill of this kind—because it will be a very big Bill, indeed —will have to be found, and that is not possible at this stage of the Session. Also, there is a great deal of drafting to be done. A large number of interests will have to be consulted and the detailed and numerous points that have been raised in the debate show that there are still many points of detail to be resolved. We shall press on with this during the months that lie ahead.
At least I can claim that the White Paper means that there is an end to the uncertainty that has hung over the Commission and the industries that it controls in recent months. I do not agree with the right hon. Member for Vauxhall, who said that uncertainty would be perpetuated. On the contrary,
720
I think that already morale in the Commission's industries and particularly on the railways has begun to improve because at last the railwaymen in particular know what is happening.
I go about the railway system perhaps not quite as much as some hon. Members, but certainly quite a bit, and I often talk to individual railwaymen. The one thing that I have heard since the White Paper was published is that they are glad to know that at last the uncertainty has been ended. They may have doubts. They often voice doubts as to whether what we are doing is right, but at least they know what is happening. This, of course, is of great importance.
Comparatively few hon. Members in this debate have referred to the morale, particularly of the railwaymen. The railway service, as the House knows, has always had something about it which one does not find in many other industries—a pride in the job and in the responsibility of the task of carrying the public in safety. Of recent years much of this morale and pride has been lost. It is due to a number of factors. There is the long tale of constantly mounting deficits. There are the constant public criticism and complaint. There is the disheartening effect of working with worn-out and obsolete tools. Another factor which I think has had a great effect here has been the knowledge of the working railwaymen in particular that the old and retired railway servants were living on inadequate pensions, and I am glad, as I am sure every hon. Member is, to know that at last the Commission is in a position to do something to help these people. I have had to stand at this Box on a number of occasions in recent months to deal with the situation to which reference has been made by hon. Members, and I assure the House that I am delighted that this action can at last be taken.
We have not been indifferent to all this. No Minister enjoys being responsible for an industry which is struggling with difficulties of this kind, but it must be borne in mind that Ministers have a responsibility to Parliament and to the public, as well as to the industries over which they have some control. What they can do to help must be decided in the light of that knowledge.

721
A balance has got to be struck between, on the one hand, the desire of a particular industry such as the railway industry for assistance and protection, and, on the other hand, the ability and the readiness of the public to bear the additional burdens which will be imposed. As ultimately these things so frequently come down to the question of money, we have got to strike a balance between what the industry says it must have and what the taxpayer considers it would be legitimate to pay. I think the acceptance by the House of the financial proposals shows that we have struck that balance correctly, although nobody should be in any doubt that the price which we have to pay to correct the financial difficulties of the Commission is indeed heavy.
To get rid of £1,200 million of capital by writing off £400 million as a bad debt, as irrecoverable, and placing another £800 million to suspense is drastic action by any standards, but it is only realistic to face the facts and to do so. But we still leave the railways with a heavy load to carry. Several hon. Members have pointed out that, although they will be left with about £400 million capital, there will in addition be the obligation to carry the £280 million liabilities for the Savings Bank deposits and superannuation funds, and this makes a total of nearly £700 million in capital, a figure which will increase and which will all have to be serviced as modernisation proceeds.
Moreover, as we say in paragraph 47, the railways will be set a target over five years of turning an operating deficit of about £60 million a year into a surplus of £60 million a year to meet their charges for interest on this new capital structure; This is a turnover of £120 million. Several hon. Members have expresed doubt as to the ability of the railways to do this.
I assure the House that we did not fix this figure without a great deal of thought and most careful consideration and estimation of whether or not it would be possible. It is a formidable task, but there are three points to be borne in mind in connection with it. The first is that this target is by no means more optimistic than what the British Transport Commission itself, in the reappraisal document, stated would
722
be possible, and that without the capital reconstruction which we propose. The Commission then said that on operating account it thought that by 1963 it would be able to reach a surplus between £17 million and £69 million. That is the first observation.
The second point is that, in carrying out their obligation to meet this target, they will be assisted, as we say in the White Paper, by the special grants from the Government, which means, in effect, that the taxpayer will be helping the railways to carry a large part of their burden.
Finally, as we say in paragraph 48 of the White Paper,
"increases in railway fares and charges must, where and when appropriate, make their due contribution towards meeting railway costs."
There is no doubt that at the moment they do not. It is interesting to look at the comparative figures of fares and other indices of prices and wages since 1938. Between 1938 and 1959, the average level of fares of the railways went up by 150 per cent. The cost of living in those years went up by 181 per cent. The index of weekly wage rates went up by 208 per cent. The inference is absolutely inescapable, that the nation is not paying the full economic price for its transport. Whatever the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East may say, it is absolutely clear that we must reach a position where the railways in fact pay their way. That is our objective.
Mr. Callaghan: This is a very important matter, and I am following the hon. Gentleman with great care. If charges or prices are to be raised, what part will the Minister himself play in the new set up? Will he take the initiative in recommending higher fares, or will he leave it to the Railways Board?
Mr. Hay: This is one of the points for further consideration. It is a difficult matter—[HON. MEMBERS: "Dodging."] I am not trying to dodge the point. I assure the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East that it is a difficult point to bear in mind in the drafting of the Bill, and we shall be interested to know what people like the trade unions and the British Transport Commission have to say about the procedure. Certainly, our intention, which is made clear enough in the White Paper, is to give the railways

723
the maximum degree of commercial freedom, except, of course, in the London Transport area, in respect of their fares and freight charges. I come now to coastal shipping, which, rather unexpectedly—
Mr. Arthur Holt: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the other point—
Mr. Hay: I am sorry. I have not time. I wish to say a word now about coastal shipping, which, rather unexpectedly, ranked high in the debate. It is for decision now by Ministers whether the strategic and economic advantages mentioned by many hon. Members which are possessed by the coastal shipping industry in fact outweigh the need for railway solvency to such an extent as to justify special protection for the coastal shipping industry. It is necessary to bear in mind that one of the reasons why coastal shipping has been in decline in recent years is not only competition from the railways but the growth of road transport as well. This is another aspect of the problem which we will have to take into account in our discussions with the Commission and the General Council of British Shipping.
We believe that the major contribution to meeting the target for the railways is by modernisation. There has not been a full stop in connection with the modernisation programme recently, as is frequently said. There has not been an end to modernisation. There has been a pause for reassessment of the future commitments which we are asked to undertake. I believe that this was perfectly reasonable.
May I briefly go over the recent history of the modernisation programme? First, the Commission put forward its plan in 1956 estimating a total figure of £1,240 million. It said then that this would mean that it could break even by 1961 or 1962. The Government endorsed the plan and told the Commission that it could go ahead and began to provide the money. Then came the recession of 1958. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Hon. Members had better wait for it. The recession of 1958 led to a decline in the coal traffics which are the staple commodity of the railways. The Commission indicated to us that the estimates
724
contained in its original modernisation programme would be adversely affected.
We therefore called for a reappraisal of the plan, and this was produced in 1959. It was received in July of that year. It showed that the cost of the modernisation plan had risen from £1,240 million to £1,660 million, a fairly big rise, and also that the prospects of a break-even by 1961 or 1962 had fallen to an anticipated overall surplus of £15 million or an anticipated overall deficit of £40 million by 1963. These estimates alone gave us reason to pause.
This was in the summer. The General Election followed, and my right hon. Friend's predecessor made it perfectly clear—I think that he made a statement in the House—that, while the Government were prepared to publish the reappraisal, they should not be accepted as having approved it; it would require a good deal of consideration. It was, however, obvious by the end of 1959 that the financial out-turn would be disappointing, and this caused more doubt to be cast on the figures. We then had the Guillebaud recommendation for 'higher wages, which the Government accepted. We provided £40 million of additional capital to enable the better wages to be paid. The result is that we now have an accumulated deficit of £500 million for the Commission.
That is the history of the modernisation plan as briefly as I can put it. It is only right to say that, when we were faced with this situation, we had to take some action. We began by saying that projects costing more than £250,000 would have to be submitted to the Minister for examination, whether they related to major matters or part of a major scheme, or to isolated major schemes on their own. Secondly, we provided a subsidy of £105 million above the line, a direct charge on the taxpayer.
Thirdly, we set up the Special Advisory Group—the Stedeford Committee, as it is so often and inaccurately called. This group was intended to do no more nor less than advise the Minister on the way In which the Commission's activities could be streamlined to deal with modern problems. It was made perfectly clear to the House and to the country that its investigations and the

725
advice which it gave would be confidential. The whole matter proceeded on that basis. We debated it in this House. The party opposite chose to divide the House on this issue, and it was defeated. In the light of that, we are entitled to say that we were quite right to continue with the procedure which we had laid down.
We then agreed with the Commission that there should be some slowing down in the rate of investment while a fresh look was taken at modernisation. I think that the House wants to know just how severe a brake this slow-down in the modernisation programme has been of recent months. I can give the figures in investment. In 1960 a total of £160 million is provided by the Treasury as investment in the railway industry. In 1961 the figure is £140 million. These are pretty big sums, as the House will see. As a result of these re-examinations, over 70 major projects have already been approved and, as my right hon. Friend announced this afternoon, we have given the Commission the green light for the London-Midland scheme which will cost £175 million in all. We have also just received the Commission's proposals for a phased four-year programme of investment. We got this on 16th December.
Mr. Holt Mr. Holt rose—
Hon. Members: Sit down.
Mr. Hay: There is always difficulty in getting this date out. Something always happens to interrupt the announcement, and it is important because my right hon. Friend has been accused of slowing things up. We received the proposals on 16th December and we are giving them the most urgent examination.
As for modernisation, we believe in good modernisation. We have the responsibility of the banker in this and our interest is to see that the taxpayers' money is properly invested. My right hon. Friend is often said to be anti-railway. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I can tell hon. Members who are making such a noise that my right hon. Friend is not anti-railway, but he is pro-taxpayer, and that is something which should commend itself to the House.
In helping the railways to reach this target, we are providing also a new structure for the various industries controlled
726
at present by the Commission. I find it frankly most piquant that the party opposite, which has always claimed to be the party of progress and reform, has in this context proved itself the most reactionary party that one could imagine. All the speeches that we have heard delivered from the benches opposite have been pleas for the continuation of the present situation while we on this side of the House, the reactionary party as we are sometimes called, are proving by our proposals to be truly progressive, because it has always been the philosophy and the policy of the Conservative Party to adapt, to improve and to alter existing institutions in the light of modern conditions and experience. That is what we are doing in relation to the Commission's undertakings.
It is quite obvious that the present structure just does not work. Our proposals in the White Paper are intended to try to make it work. There are a number of points upon which I should have liked to touch, but there is one of great importance to the decision that the House has to make. It is said by the Opposition, in the Amendment, that what we are doing in the White Paper is to disintegrate the transport system. This, frankly, is not true. What we are seeking to do and what our policy is aimed at is to try to get rid of this monolithic and cumbersome structure which has proved in the past 12 years to be unsuited to the purpose for which it was originally created.
It is perfectly true that one can look back and say that mistakes were made in the past. It is also equally true to say that certain decisions were taken in the past which have proved good ones now, but we have to face the practical realities of the situation. We have to face the fact that the taxpayers' money is being lost at an increasing rate in this organisation. What we have to do is to try to put things right.
Our actions and proposals have been guided throughout by nothing more nor less than the practical realities of the situation. We have sought to propound practical remedies for the problems. We have not been guided by doctrinaire prejudices for or against nationalisation. Our concern has been to find a new framework for these industries which is modern, consistent with their size and

727
importance, and which will work. The nation needs, as we all admit, an efficient and economic transport system, but there is a limit, and must be, to the price which we can ask the taxpayer to pay for it, and in our belief that limit has now been reached.
If there is a criticism which can be made of the Government, it is not, as some hon. Members have said, that we have interfered too much with the activities of the Commission but rather that we held off from taking this sort of decisive action for too long. This is a criticism which is made, and that is the answer to it. If we did hold off, it was because we were anxious not to interfere too much, to give the Commission every opportunity, which we have backed with £600 million of public money, to obtain results and to get itself on its own feet. It is obvious that our attempt has not been successful and the time has come for a new approach.
Hon. Members opposite really must know in their hearts that much of what they have been suggesting in this debate is either unworkable or unreal. I implore them to re-examine their own views on these matters. I do not, of course, claim that every detail of our proposals is perfect—of course it is not—and I do not pretend that we shall not be obliged to modify this or that point as we go forward, but I do claim that the White Paper in its broad outline provides a scheme which takes account of the realities—
Mr. Callaghan: No.
Mr. Hay: —-and tackles them honestly.
My last words in the debate must be these. I hope that out of our debate will come a feeling that the time has arrived for all concerned in these great transport industries to look to the future rather than to the past. This is true not least of the railways, and this applies from the members of the Commission itself right down to the chaps who work on the line. I urge them to put the past behind them and forget the troubles and acrimonies of recent years. After all, there is now an opportunity for a new and substantial co-operative effort to put things right once and for all.
We in the Government are determined to do our part. We have sought in the White Paper to provide a new deal for this great array of transport industries. I believe that, however much hon. Members opposite may jeer and enjoy themselves, and however much they may wish to divide the House, when it comes dawn to brass tacks the ordinary man working on the railway will be glad that at last he will be run by people who really care about the railways and who are much more closely in touch with him and his problems than is unfortunately now the case. I appeal to them and to the House to approve the White Paper in its broad outline and so institute the new deal which I believe is long overdue in our nationalised transport industry.
Question put,That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question: —
The House divided:Ayes 303, Noes 221.

Division No. 34.]

AYES

[10.0 p.m.

Agnew, Sir Peter

Black, Sir Cyril

Chichester-Clark, R.

Altken, W. T.

Bossom, Clive

Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)

Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)

Bourne- Arton, A.

Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

Alport, Rt. Hon. C. J. M.

Box, Donald

Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

Amery, Rt. Hon. Julian (Preston, N.)

Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John

Cleaver, Leonard

Arbuthnot, John

Boyle, Sir Edward

Cole, Norman

Ashton, Sir Hubert

Braine, Bernard

Cooper, A. E.

Balniel, Lord

Brawls, John

Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

Barber, Anthony

Bromley-Davenport,Lt.-Col.Sir Walter

Cordle, John

Barlow, Sir John

Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

Corfield, F. V.

Barter, John

Brooman-White, R.

Costain, A. P.

Botsford, Brian

Bryan, Paul

Coulson, J. M.

Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)

Bullard, Denys

Courtney, Cdr. Anthony

Bell, Ronald

Bullus, Wing Commander Eric

Craddock, Sir Beresford

Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

Burden, F. A.

Critchley, Julian

Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Cos & Fhm)

Butcher, Sir Herbert

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. 0. E.

Berkeley, Humphry

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

Crowder, F. P.

Resins, Rt. Hon. Reginald (Toxteth)

Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.)

Cunningham, Knox

Bidgood, John C.

Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

Curran, Charles

Biggs-Davison, John

Carr, Compton (Barons Court)

Currie, G. B. H.

Bingham, R. M.

Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

Dance, dames

Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

Channon, H. P. G

d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

Bishop, F. P.

Chataway, Christopher

Deedes, W. F.

de Ferranti, Basil

James, David

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Digby, Simon Wingfield

Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

Price, H. A. (Lewisham, W.)

Donaldson, Cmdr. C E. M.

Jennings, J. C.

Prior, J. M. L.

Doughty, Charles

Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho

Drayson, C B.

Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

Profumo, Rt. Hon. John

du Cann, Edward

Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

Proudtoot, Wilfred

Duncan, Sir James

Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hail Green)

Quennell, Miss J. M.

Duthie, Sir William

Joseph, Sir Keith

Ramsden, James

Eden, John

Kaherry, Sir Donald

Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

Kerans, Cdr J. S.

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Elliott, R. W.(Newcastle-on-Tyne,N.)

Kerby, Capt. Henry

Renton, David

Emery, Peter

Kerr, Sir Hamilton

Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

Kershaw, Anthony

Ritisdale, Julian

Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.

Kimball, Marcus

Rippon, Geoffrey

Farey-Jones, F. W.

Kitson, Timothy

Robson Brown, Sir William

Farr, John

Lagden, Godfrey

Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

Fell, Anthony

Lancaster, Col. C. G.

Roots, William

Finlay, Gramme

Langford-Holt, J

Rogner, Col. Sir Leonard

Fisher, Nigel

Leavey, J. A.

Boyle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)

Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Scott-Hopkins, James

Forrest, George

Lindsay, Martin

Seymour, Leslie

Fraser, Hn. Hugh (Stafford & Stone)

Linstead, Sir Hugh

Sharples, Richard

Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

Litchfield, Capt. John

Shaw, M.

Freeth, Denzil

Longhottom, Charles

Shepherd, William

Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby

Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir Jocelyn

Gammans, Lady

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

Skeet, T. H. H.

Gardner, Edward

MacArthur, Ian

Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)

George, J. C. (Pollok)

McLaren, Martin

Spearman, Sir Alexander

Gibson-Watt, David

McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia

Speir, Rupert

Glover, Sir Douglas

Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

Stanley, Hon. Richard

Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)

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

Stevens, Geoffrey

Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)

McLean, Neil (Inverness)

Stodart, J. A.

Godber, J. B.

Macleod, Rt. Hn, Ia'n (Enfield, W.)

Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

Goodhart, Philip

MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

Storey, Sir Samuel

Goodhew, Victor

McMaster, Stanley R.

Studholme, Sir Henry

Gough, Frederick

Macmillan,Rt.Hn.HaroldtBromley)

Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)

Gower, Raymond

Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)

Sumner, Donald (Orpington)

Grant, Rt. Hon. William

Maginnis, John E.

Tapsell, Peter

Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R.

Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

Green, Alan

Markham, Major Sir Frank

Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)

Gresham Cooke, R.

Marlowe, Anthony

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

Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest

Teeling, William

Gurden, Harold

Marten, Neil

Temple, John M.

Hall, John (Wycombe)

Mathew, Robert (Honiton)

Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

Hare, Rt. Hon. John

Maudjing, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Thomas, Peter (Conway)

Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

Mawby, Ray

Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

Harris, Reader (Heston)

Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)

Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

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

Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)

Mills, Stratton

Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)

Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

Montgomery, Fergus

Tilney, John (Wavertree)

Harvie Anderson, Miss

More, Jasper (Ludlow)

Tweedsmuir, Lady

Hastings, Stephen

Morgan, William

van Straubenzee, W. R.

Hay, John

Mott-Radclyffe. Sir Charles

Vane, W. M. F.

Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

Nabarro, Gerald

Vaughan-Morgan, Sir John

Henderson, John (Cathcart)

Neave, Airey

Vickers, Miss Joan

Henderson-Stewart, Sir James

Nicholls, Sir Harmar

Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)

Hendry, Forbes

Nicholson, Sir Godfrey

Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek

Hicks Beach, Maj. W.

Noble, Michael

Wall, Patrick

Miley, Joseph

Nugent, Sir Richard

Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

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

Oakshott, Sir Hendrie

Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold

Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)

Ormsby Gore, Rt. Hon. D.

Watts, James

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

Orr-Ewing, C. Ian

Webster, David

HirSt, Geoffrey

Osborn, John (Hallam)

Wells, John (Maidstone)

Hobson, John

Osborne, Cyril (Louth)

Whitelaw, William

Hooking, Philip N.

Page, John (Harrow, West)

Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

Holland, Philip

Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)

Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

Hollingworth, John

Partridge, E.

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John

Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

Wise, A. R.

Hopkins, Alan

Peel, John

Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

Hornby, R. P.

Percival, Ian

Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard

Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patricia

Peyton, John

Woodhouse, C. M.

Howard, Hon. G. R, (St. Ives)

Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

Woodnutt, Mark

Howard, John (Southampton, Test)

Pike, Miss Mervyn

Woollam, John

Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John

Pilkington, Capt. Sir Richard

Worsley, Marcus

Hughes-Young, Michael

Pitman, I. J.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Hurd, Sir Anthony

Pitt, Mies Edith

M. Edward Wakefield and

Hutchison, Michael Clark

Pott, Percivall

Colonel J. H. Harrison.

Irvine, Bryant Cadman (Rye)

Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch

Jackson, John

NOES

Abse, Leo

Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)

Ainsley, William

Awbery, Stan

Beaney, Alan

Aibu, Austen

Bacon, Miss Alice

Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

Altaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

Baird, John

Bence, Cyril (Dunbartonshire, E.)

Blackburn, F.

Howell, Charles A.

Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

Blyton, William

Hoy, James H.

Probert, Arthur

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

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

Proctor, W. T.

Bowles, Frank

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

Hunter, A. E.

Randall, Harry

Brockway, A. Fenner

Hynd, H. (Accrington)

Rankin, John

Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

Hynd, John (Atterotiffe)

Redhead, E. C.

Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

Reid, William

Brown, Thomas (Ince)

Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

Reynolds, G. W.

Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

Janner, Sir Bartlett

Rhodes, H.

Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Callaghan, James

Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

Castle, Mrs. Barbara

Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

Ross, William

Chetwynd, George

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

Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

Cliffs, Michael

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Silverman, Julius (Aston)

Collick, Percy

Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

Corbet, Mrs. Freda

Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

Skeffington, Arthur

Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

Kelley, Richard

Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

Cronin, John

Kenyon, Clifford

Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

Crosland, Anthony

Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

Small, William

Crossman, R. H. S.

King, Dr. Horace

Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

Cullen, Mrs. Alice

Lawson, George

Snow, Julian

Darling, George

Ledger, Ron

Sorensen, R. W.

Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

Lee, Frederick (Newton)

Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

Davies, Ifor (Gower)

Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

Spriggs, Leslie

Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)

Steele, Thomas

Deer, George

Lipton, Marcus

Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

de Freitag, Geoffrey

Logan, David

Storehouse, John

Delargy, Hugh

Loughlin, Charles

Stones, William

Dempsey, James

Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

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

Diamond, John

McCann, John

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

Donnelly, Desmond

MaoColl, James

Swain, Thomas

Driberg, Toni

Mclnnes, James

Swingler, Stephen

Ede, Rt. Hon. Chuter

McKay, John (Wallsend)

Sylvester, George

Edelman, Maurice

Mackie, John

Symonds, J. B..

Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

McLeavy, Frank

Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

Mallalieu, E. L. (Bragg)

Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)

Edwards, Walter (Stepney)

Malialieu,J.P.W.(Huddersfield,E.)

Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

Evans, Albert

Manuel, A. C.

Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)

Fernyhough, E.

Mapp, Charles

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

Finch, Harold

Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

Thornton, Ernest

Fitch, Alan

Mayhew, Christopher

Thorpe, Jeremy

Fletcher, Eric

Mendelson, J. J.

Timmons, John

Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)

Milian, Bruce

Tommy, Frank

Forman, J. C.

Milne, Edward J.

Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

Mitchison, G. R.

Wade, Donald

Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh

Monslow, Walter

Wainwright, Edwin

Galpern, Sir Myer

Moody, A. S.

Warbey, William

Ginsburg, David

Morris, John

Watkins, Tudor

Gooch, E. G.

Mort, D. L.

Weitzman, David

Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

Moyle, Arthur

Wells, Percy (Faversham)

Gourlay, Harry

Neal, Harold

Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

Greenwood, Anthony

Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

White, Mrs. Eirene

Grey, Charles

Oliver, G. H.

Whitlock, William

Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (LianaIly)

Dram, A. E.

wigg, George

Griffiths, W. (Exchange)

Oswald, Thomas

Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.

Grimorid, J.

Owen, Will

Willey, Frederick

Gunter, Ray

Padley, W. E.

Williams, D. J. (Neath)

Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

Paget, R. T.

Williams, LI. (Abertlliery)

Hamilton, William (West Fife)

Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

Hannan, William

Pargiter, G. A.

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

Hart, Mrs. Judith

Parker, John (Dagenham)

Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

Hayman, F. H.

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

Winterbottom, R. E.

Healey, Denis

Pavitt, Laurence

Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

Herbison, Miss Margaret

Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

Woof, Robert

Hewitson, Capt. M.

Peart, Frederick

Wyatt, Woodrow

Hill, J. (Midlothian)

Pentland, Norman

Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

Hilton, A. V.

Plummer, Sir Leslie

Zilliacus, K.

Holman, Percy

Poppleweil, Ernest

TELLERS FOR THEE NOES:

Holt, Arthur

Prentice, R. E.

Mr. Rogers and Mr. Short.

Houghton, Douglas

Main Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House approves the proposals of Her Majesty's Government for the reorganisation of the Nationalised Transport Undertakings (Command Paper No. 1248).

COVENT GARDEN MARKET BILL
Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas discharged from the Select Committee; Sir Leslie Plummer added.—[Mr E. Wakefield.]

FARNHAM CASTLE
10.12 p.m.
Sir Hubert Ashton: I beg to move,
That the Farnham Castle Measure, 1960, passed by the National Assembly of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for Her Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.
I feel that I should tell the House that this Measure was agreed to unanimously by the Ecclesiastical Committee on 23rd November, 1960.
As hon. Members know, Farnham Castle is a very ancient, very fine and very large building. As stated in the Explanatory Memorandum, the Measure has been prepared in the closest consultation with the Church Commissioners and the authorities in the Diocese of Guildford. It received the approval of the Diocesan Conference with only one dissentient vote.
The purposes for which the castle is to be used have to be approved both by the Archbishop of Canterbury and by the Bishop of Guildford. It is, of course, the case that the present Archbishop of Canterbury has resigned and his successor has been nominated. Furthermore, a new Bishop of Guildford has been appointed since the Measure came before the Church Assembly. The Church Commissioners have been in touch with both these dignitaries, and I am authorised to say that they both approve of the Measure now before the House. The Bishop of Guildford has informed us that he would not wish to take up residence in Farnham Castle.
Since 1935, part of Farnham Castle has been vested in the Guildford Diocesan Board and part in the Ecclesiastical Commissioners-now the Church Commissioners-as a residence for the Bishop of Guildford. Successive tsishops resided there until 1956. The rest—that is, the greater part of the castle—was used as a retreat house until the end of 1958. The whole of the castle is now unoccupied, and although every effort has been made for some time to find a practical use directly by the Church of England, unfortunately no solution along those lines has been forthcoming. It is clearly desirable that a suitable and seemly use should be
734
found if possible for the castle. To this end, it is essential that the whole castle should be in one ownership, and it is convenient that this should be the Church Commissioners.
Clause 1 proposes that this should be done. Clause 2 sets out the powers of the Commissioners to let the whole or part to approved persons for approved purposes. Clause 3, as I have already mentioned, states that approval has to be given in writing by the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of Guildford. This Clause also defines the area of Farnham Castle for this purpose. Clause 4 repeals Section 14 of the Diocese of Winchester (Division) Measure, 1923, and the whole of the Farnham Castle Measure, 1935.
As I have said, the Measure received only one dissentient voice in the Guildford Diocese. It was debated for some time on two occasions in the Church Assembly, when there was no division at all, and it was passed unanimously by the Ecclesiastical Com mittee. I am confident that the Measure will commend itself to the House this evening.
10.17 p.m.
Sir Godfrey Nicholson: It would not be appropriate for the House to approve this Measure without something being said by the hon. Member for Farnham. I do so in a spirit of melancholy loyalty and affection for Farnham, because this is a sad day for the town in that it ends the last hope that long tradition might be sustained—the tradition of residence of bishops in the castle.
I do not want to weary the House. I would only say that for the hundreds of years Farnham Castle has been closely associated with Bishops of Winchester. But we must face facts in this modern age, and this Measure faces the fact that began to become outstanding on the day when the diocese of Winchester was divided. Since then Farnham and the diocese of Guildford have been fighting a gallant rearguard action. Twenty-five or more years ago a large sum of money was raised locally. That has all been spent to no avail, and the day now comes when we in Farnham must say "Goodbye" to the castle as a residence for bishops.
I merely rose to say that I reluctantly approve the Measure. I thank the Church

735
Commissioners and all those who have laboured so hard to find this solution, which I welcome as being as satisfactory as possible under the circumstances. I trust that in future the castle, with its glorious and great past, will continue to serve the cause of Western and Christian civilisation.
question put and agreed to
Resolved
That the Farnham Castle Measure, 1960, passed by the National Assembly of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for Her Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.

MATERNITY HOSPITAL, STOURPORT-ON-SEVERN
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Whitelaw.]
10.20 p.m.
Mr. Gerald Nabarro: The topic that I raise this evening on the debate for the Adjournment is a local Worcestershire matter, but one of some importance in principle, having regard to the provisions of the Mental Health Act, 1959. It will be recalled that the Bewdley Parliamentary Division of Worcestershire was represented in this House for a period of nearly 30 years by the late Mr. Stanley Baldwin, later the first Earl Baldwin of Bewdley, and in his constituency of Bewdley, now part of the Kidderminster Parliamentary Division, is a relatively small but important community which dwells on the banks of the River Severn at a place called Stourport-on-Severn.
In 1929, during the second period in which Mr. Stanley Baldwin was Prime Minister, his wife, then Mrs. Stanley Baldwin, whose maiden name was Miss Lucy Ridsdale and who was affectionately known on Severn-side as Lucy Baldwin, gave to the community of Stourport-on-Severn a maternity hospital which has been known since as the Lucy Baldwin Maternity Hospital.
With the onset of the National Health Act, 1948, the whole of the hereditament, or establishment, became vested in the State; that is, not only the maternity hospital but also three acres of open land adjoining it. Recently, on 9th December, 1960, the Worcestershire County Council made it known, in the form of a public advertisement in local and county newspapers, that it proposed to acquire from the regional hospital board this area of three acres adjoining the Lucy Baldwin Maternity Hospital for the purpose of establishing a residential hostel for mentally disordered children. That has caused a good deal of local controversy.
I raise the matter this evening on a relatively narrow issue, namely, the medical, the physiological and the psychological suitability of siting one of
738
these homes or residential hostels for mentally disordered children directly next door or contiguous to a maternity hospital. No doubt it was an administrative convenience for the Worcestershire County Council to consider taking over, for the purposes that I have explained, land which was already vested in the Crown. That was merely an administrative arrangement between two public bodies, a transfer from the Crown, in effect, in the form of the Midland Regional Hospital Board to the county council. I am reliably informed from local sources that not very much effort has been made by the county authority to find in the area of Kidderminster and Stourport-on-Severn any alternative site.
My own position in. this mattes' and my personal attitude, having regard to the local controversy which has now raged for several weeks, should be made abundantly clear. I strongly supported, throughout all the stages of the Measure, the Mental Health Act, 1959. I regarded many Sections of it as enlightened and progressive in character and denoting to a mere layman, such as myself, a realistic approach to the very real and difficult social problem of how to endeavour to rear in a happy atmosphere and improve the mental condition of those unfortunate children who are mentally retarded or disordered. I accepted at that time, and I wish to emphasise now that my views have not in any way changed, the desirability of endeavouring to bring up these children in the midst of the community. I emphasise that and, if necessary I shall repeat it later in my speech, because any hon. Member of this House making a speech on an issue of this kind is open to very real misrepresentation were he not careful to define his attitude on that point.
I am not entirely unversed in matters of the interests of children. I am myself the father of four children under the age of 15 years, two boys and two girls. I am keenly interested in this exceedingly difficult problem of children who are not entirely normal and who are retarded or disordered. I support Government policy in this regard, but as more than 50 per cent. of the cost of these residential hostels and schools for mentally retarded or disordered children is to be found from the block grant from Central Government funds,

739
I consider it my duty as a Member of Parliament not only to see that the policy is correctly implemented in all parts of the country, particularly in my own constituency, but also that sites selected by the health authority—in this instance the Worcestershire County Council—are the best possible sites for giving effect to the Government policy which I have explained and which I support.
To make my position in this matter abundantly clear, I circulated a statement in a number of Worcestershire local newspapers. It is short and, I think, might be included in my speech. I printed these words a matter of three weeks ago.
" You published last Friday a number of letters from local residents adversely commenting upon views I have expressed concerning the siting of a proposed residential hostel and training centre for mentally disordered children on land adjoining the Lucy Baldwin Maternity Hospital at Stourport-on-Severn. These correspondents are evidently under some misapprehensions and have not taken the preliminary precaution of reading my views in detail. Of course, I want a larger and modern home and training centre for these unfortunate and sadly handicapped children. It is a matter of fact that during 1959 I was a close and full supporter of the Mental Health Act, which passed through Parliament last Session, and under which the proposed new home at Stourport-on-Severn is to be built. But, to put it next door to a maternity hospital is psychologically stupid and atrocious planning. I am told that every expectant mother during the waiting months, particularly in the final stages, prays above all else that her child will be perfectly normal and healthy. I can conceive nothing worse than having mentally retarded children outside her window. The interests of sound sociology and good planning would adequately be served by siting the residential hostel some distance away from the maternity hospital, on the outskirts of the town on a suitable site. That I will warmly support, but next door to a maternity hospital —never."
In addition, the Lucy Baldwin Maternity Hospital is a pre-natal centre. I have been at very great pains to inquire about the purpose and the function of this pre-natal centre, and the women attending it who are National Health Service patients, in a small provincial town such as Stourport-on-Severn. I am informed that during the period of pregnancy, generally between the second month and the ninth month, it is customary for expectant mothers to visit the pre-natal centre once a month, in the first instance, until, perhaps, the seventh
740
month of pregnancy, and then perhaps once a fortnight or, in the event of any suspicion of disorder of any kind, possibly once a week, at the direction of the doctor.
The three acres of land which the City Council proposes to use for this mentally disordered children's residential hospital is not only contiguous to the maternity hospital and the pre-natal centre, but sited in such a position that every expectant mother attending the pre-natal centre would have to walk by the grounds where these unfortunate children will be playing. I believe it is psychologically stupid to inflict that emotional strain and disturbance upon an expectant mother when it is quite unnecessary to do so. I believe that one could find an alternative site removed from the maternity hospital, in which case this particular controversy would not then arise.
I am not alone in my view in this matter. The objections are so strong locally to this site being used that a campaigning committee has been formed, including persons who serve on the local authority, and with a number of local residents supporting the committee. Councillor Hodgson, who sits for the particular ward concerned on Stourporton-Severn Urban District Council in which the maternity hospital and, therefore, the proposed site for the children's residential hospital is sited, had this to say as recorded in the minutes of the meeting held as recently as 16th January, and in anticipation of this evening's debate, as I was anxious that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, to whom I am grateful for coming here to reply, should be fully apprised of what was then said, I have sent a copy of the minutes to her:
" the people in his ward wanted a place for mentally disordered children to be in the right situation. He doubted whether sufficient efforts had been made to find the right spot. What about Shenstone Training College, which was shortly to be vacated? "
That is roughly a mile away from the site-—
"What about the allotment site in Kidderminster Road, Stourport?"
That is between Kidderminster and Stourport—
"What about the Birmingham Road, Kidderminster site? What about the field in Lower Lickhill Road, Stourport? What about the land at Burlish and Upper Mytton?"

741
The minutes continued:
"He thought that the present site had been chosen because it was easy for it to be transferred from a Government Department to a local authority. He did not think it was big enough. It was ridiculous to say that the patients:n the materniy home would not be affected. The Regional Hospital Board's colony for mentally disordered children at Bromsgreve was very noisy:"
I made further inquiries and particularly tested individual opinion, which led to the following letter from a local lady who has had useful experience in this context of endeavouring to assist in the training of mentally disordered children. She is the mother of a number of children and a social worker. She is thoroughly experienced in this difficult sphere of social activity. She writes as follows:
"The ante-natal ward at the Lucy Baldwin is situated only 10 yards from the boundary of the proposed new centre. It is not unusual for women in such conditions as toxaemia of pregnancy and threatened premature confinements to spend the last two months of their pregnancy in the ante-natal ward.
Can you imagine the agony of suspense such a patient would have to endure, knowing that all is not well with her, and wondering whether as a result her baby,may not be abnormal too? The noises she will hear all day long will be an unfailing, nagging reminder of this possibility. And these children can be very noisy —but not, alas, in the way of normal children.
Parke's Passage…"
That is the present site of the school—
"is certainly a most unsuitable place for this school and alternative accommodation is urgently required, but please…"
She underlines the word "please"—
"let it be somewhere that is not overlooked as closely as this site on the Ridgeway. No potential mother—"
these are very telling words—
"anywhere should be subjected to such an emotional strain."
I accept that statement.
I am not a woman, I do not give birth to children and I do not understand the emotional and psychological processes through which a woman passes in such a period, but I have taken the trodble to test the opinions of quite a number of women by questions as to what—this is not a laughing matter. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Howell) evidently wants to cackle at me. I am using these words and phrases deliberately and in the greatest seriousness. I have asked a number of women, who are between
742
them the parents of a considerable number of young children, and not one of them has opposed the views expressed that I have quoted this evening or my own personal views in the matter.
My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary is clearly in some difficulty in this matter. Let me explain to her and to the House. Stourport-on-Severn is not comparable to St. Pancras or Holborn or Perry Barr, Birmingham, a heavily built-up area. Stourport-onSevern is a little Worcestershire town bounded on three sides by beautiful Englisih countryside. On the fourth side it is nearly joined to the town of Kidderminster. This proposed home for mentally disordered children is required somewhere in the Kidderminster or Stourport-on-Severn area. It matters not very much within the area precisely where it is sited, though for the benefit of parents visiting the children in the school it is desirable that it should be within relatively easy access of public services by bus or train, for obvious reasons.
Kidderminster and Stourport between them, however, have quite a large rural periphery. I do not want this school put right out in the country where it would be inaccessible. On the other hand, I do not want it put right in the town. I would place a school of this kind—and I am guided here only by my instincts as a parent—on the outskirts of such a town as Stourport-onSevern, where the seventy or eighty children concerned would have all the advantages of rural pursuits, of walks in the country, tuition on matters affecting and concerning nature, as well as the amenities available of contact with the town, visits to the shops and, in appropriate circumstances, being taken to the cinema and the rest. I seek the highest common factor of amenity for these children, and that should be, surely, on the outskirts of the town.
Let me be quite downright about this, however. Where the residential hostel for these children is sited should be decided by my hon. Friend and her advisers in Ministry of Health in concert with the county council. I should have thought we could exclude three possible sites. First, it must not

743
be placed next door to a crematorium. Secondly, it must not be placed next door to a cemetery. Thirdly, it must not be placed next door to a maternity hospital.
I believe that my hon. Friend, by administrative action, should consult the County Council, find an alternative site and, thereby, prevent the expensive recourse of a public inquiry in this matter and all the inevitable passions and controversy that would be aroused on a topic which, by discreet and appropriate action between my hon. Friend and the county council, could amicably be resolved in the best interests of the children, and the community, the county council and Parliamentary legislation.
10.39 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Edith Pitt): My hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) made quite clear that he supported Government policy in the provision of hostels and training centres for these mentally subnormal children. I am glad that he has given me the opportunity of speaking about them tonight, although it is a rather limited opportunity if I am to try to get in all I would wish in reply to him.
Since the Report of the Royal Commission on the Law relating to Mental Illness and Mental Deficiency was published, we have all heard a great deal about the reorientation of the mental health services towards care in the community rather than care in large institutions. My hon. Friend has reminded us—many hon. Members will share his recollection—of the debates during the passing of the Mental Health Act, 1959. The World Mental Health Year gave further publicity to this important human problem. Hon. Members will be aware of the efforts being made by local authorities to develop their community services and to give substance to this generally accepted idea of care in the community. But recommendations, legislation, publicity and efforts by a few are not enough to ensure that the intended beneficiaries of such activity will, in fact, reap the reward. If community care is to be a success, if these children, who could be anybody's children, are to be given their chance, the community must play a part,
744
and this means their acceptance of mentally disordered persons in their midst in the same way as other disabled or handicapped people are accepted.
This is the point I wish to make. I hope I shall be successful in making it, not only to people in my hon. Friend's constituency but also to any others who may be feeling concern at similar developments in their areas. This concern expresses itself in a variety of ways. Tonight my hon. Friend has suggested that the proximity and sight of a few mentally sub-normal children, to use the Royal Commission's term, will have a bad psychological effect on the expectant mothers. On other occasions it takes the form of a fear that these children will in some mysterious way be harmful to normal children. The form does not matter a great deal. In any particular case the concern usually springs from misunderstanding, from lack of knowledge, sometimes from prejudice against these children, and although a particular site in Worcestershire is the occasion of our debate, it is this general misunderstanding that I am more anxious to clear up.
The facts of the case in Worcestershire are few and simple. There is a need for a training centre, with associated hostel, for mentally subnormal children to serve the Kidderminster—Stourport area—
Mr. Nabarro: Hear, hear.
Miss Pitt Miss Pitt —as my hon. Friend agrees. The County Council, as local health authority, has been searching for many months for a suitable site. it looked first in Kidderminster and then in Stourport. Ultimately it decided that a piece of land of about 3 acres adjoining the Lucy Baldwin Maternity Hospital, which was surplus to the requirements of the Birmingham Regional Hospital Board, would serve its purpose. The land is held by the hospital board, which has been fully informed of the nature of the council's proposal and is prepared to recommend that it should be transferred to the council on certain conditions designed to protect the interests of the maternity hospital.
In brief, the conditions are that access to the centre and hostel should be completely separate from that to the hospital —that is. that access should be by

745
different roads—and that everything practicable should be done to avoid disturbing the hospital patients by sight or sound of the centre and hostel. In practice this means siting the buildings as far away from the hospital as possible and ensuring that there is an adequate screen between the two. At present the screen consists of a privet hedge which is not wholly effective.
The council's proposal involves a departure from the approved town map. For this reason, and because it has aroused opposition locally, as my hon. Friend has made clear, the council has referred it to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government for his permission for the development. I am authorised by him to say that he has decided to have the matter ventilated at a public inquiry before he comes to any conclusion.
I would like to emphasise that objections to this scheme have been made not only on what may be termed the health ground we are discussing this evening, but on certain other grounds, including planning. All these objections will be reviewed in the course of the public inquiry which is being arranged. and therefore what I have to say this evening on the health objection is not to be regarded in any way as prejudging the outcome of the inquiry.
I have looked into the background of this proposal by Worcestershire County Council and it is clear that the proposal to build the training centre and hostel next door to the maternity home was not formulated until the authority had explored the possibilities of obtaining a suitable site elsewhere either in Kidderminster or Stourport. No doubt the inquiry will establish whether there are any other sites which are suitable.
I am, however, not prejudging the result if I make some observations on the purely health aspect of the question of siting such a centre. It is clear from the inquiries that I have made that before embarking on the present proposal to build a training centre and hostel next door to a maternity home, the council and the regional hospital board carefully considered the advisability of this from the point of view of the possible psychological effect on expectant mothers. Their conclusion was that—subject to suitable planning of the
746
premises to be built and the provision of some more substantial screening than the privet hedge—there could no pressing objection to the scheme.
I would be most loath to see any risks taken in respect of the health and wellbeing of expectant mothers, but from the expert advice available to me there can be little objection of substance from this point of view to pregnant women in the maternity home being exposed to the sight of mentally subnormal children in the training centre next door.
As I have said, I think that this objection is based on misunderstanding. The council proposes, in consultation with the regional hospital board, to take the necessary steps in planning to ensure that patients in the maternity hospital would not be made unduly conscious of the presence of the mentally subnormal children next door. And there is no reason to assume that because mentally subnormal children are too backward to be suitable far education at school they are necessarily more obstreperous or even necessarily noisier than other children, despite the things in the letter which my hon. Friend read out. In fact, these children are often quieter than normal children, as I know from personal observation.
I should make clear that there are over 13,000 mentally subnormal children in the country judged suitable for training in the community. Against this there are 11.000 being trained, which means that a further 2,000 places are needed. The comparable figures for Worcestershire are 160 children suitable for training and 120 places filled, though some of these places are in inadequate premises. This means that there are no places at all for 40 children, and in addition 40 more, at present accommodated in unsatisfactory premises in Stour-port, would be moved to the new premises.
The hesitations which may be felt about the presence of such children would be dispelled, I think, by a visit to one of the many training centres which are now being built in various parts of the country. From my own experience I warmly recommend hon. Members to visit such a centre. I am sure that the authorities concerned and the staff, in spite of having their hands full with the children, would welcome such interest.
Last October I opened a training centre for mentally subnormal children in the City of Worcester and I was glad to know that it was the product of cooperation between two health authorities, the county council and the city council. There was a remarkably good attendance at that opening on a Saturday afternoon and I was very impressed by the general interest shown by representatives of all kinds of organisations and the appreciation of the parents of some of the children who were present and spoke to me. I hope that the community around that centre are now cooperating to make it a success, because this co-operation is vital.
These children ought to have the opportunity to develop as far as possible their latent abilities. This is not simply in
748
their own interest. In the interest of all, we should ensure that they will grow up to play a part, even if only a limited part, in the life of the community instead of being an unhappy burden on it. We cannot do this unless there is proper cooperation between the health authority and the public. My hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster will appreciate that because of the public inquiry I cannot comment further on this site but I hope that the debate will dispel some misconceptions and add something to the understanding of and responsibility for these children by the community of which they are a part.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twelve minutes to Eleven o'clock.

  SOUTHERN CAMEROONS (PLEBISCITE)
  SOUTHERN CAMEROONS (PLEBISCITE)
  NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANISATION (GENERAL HEUSINGER)
  NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANISATION (GENERAL HEUSINGER)
  UNDER-DEVELOPED COUNTRIES (UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION)
  UNDER-DEVELOPED COUNTRIES (UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION)
  INTERGOVERNMENTAL COMMITTEE FOR EUROPEAN MIGRATION
  INTERGOVERNMENTAL COMMITTEE FOR EUROPEAN MIGRATION
  TURKEY (MR. GEORGE MATTHEWS)
  TURKEY (MR. GEORGE MATTHEWS)
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY AND EUROPEAN FREE TRADE ASSOCIATION
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY AND EUROPEAN FREE TRADE ASSOCIATION
  SAHARA (NUCLEAR TESTS)
  SAHARA (NUCLEAR TESTS)
  CONGO
  CONGO
  OMAN
  OMAN
  SOUTH-EAST ASIA TREATY ORGANISATION
  SOUTH-EAST ASIA TREATY ORGANISATION
  ST. HELENA (BAHRAINI PRISONERS)
  ST. HELENA (BAHRAINI PRISONERS)
EMPLOYMENT
  Shipbuilding Industry
  Shipbuilding Industry
  Spennymoor
  Spennymoor
  Dundee
  Dundee
  Tally Clerks, Port of London (Committee's Report)
  Tally Clerks, Port of London (Committee's Report)
  Apprentices
  Apprentices
  Factories, Nottingham (Working Week)
  Factories, Nottingham (Working Week)
  Sunderland
  Sunderland
  School Leavers (Industrial Training Council's Report)
  School Leavers (Industrial Training Council's Report)
  Greenock and Port Glasgow
  Greenock and Port Glasgow
PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE
  National Assistance Grants (Dartford)
  National Assistance Grants (Dartford)
  Workers, Motor Industry (Unemployment Benefit)
  Workers, Motor Industry (Unemployment Benefit)
  Sickness Records (Analysis)
  Sickness Records (Analysis)
  Coal Miners (Bronchitis and Emphysema)
  Coal Miners (Bronchitis and Emphysema)
  Disabled Persons (Motor Cars)
  Disabled Persons (Motor Cars)
  Graduated Pension Scheme (Leaflets)
  Graduated Pension Scheme (Leaflets)
  10s. Widow's Pension
  10s. Widow's Pension
MINISTRY OF POWER
  Electricity Supply. Croxall
  Electricity Supply. Croxall
  Coal Mining (Subsidence) Act, 1950
  Coal Mining (Subsidence) Act, 1950
MINISTRY OF AVIATION
  Leeds-Bradford Airport
  Leeds-Bradford Airport
  Guided Missiles
  Guided Missiles
  Air Transport Licensing Board (Chairman)
  Air Transport Licensing Board (Chairman)
HOSPITALS
  Regional Hospital Boards
  Regional Hospital Boards
  Royal Berkshire Hospital
  Royal Berkshire Hospital
  Hospital Building
  Hospital Building
  Willesden General Hospital
  Willesden General Hospital
  St. Bartholomews and Moorfields Hospitals
  St. Bartholomews and Moorfields Hospitals
  Newton Aycliffe
  Newton Aycliffe
  Stockton-on-Tees
  Stockton-on-Tees
  Calderstones Hospital, Lancashire
  Calderstones Hospital, Lancashire
  Wythenshawe
  Wythenshawe
  Special Hospitals (Working Party)
  Special Hospitals (Working Party)
  Hospital Medical Staffing
  Hospital Medical Staffing
  Hospital Building, Devon
  Hospital Building, Devon
  Nottingham General Hospital (Miss Ada Roberts)
  Nottingham General Hospital (Miss Ada Roberts)
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Medical Whitley Council (Committee B)
  Medical Whitley Council (Committee B)
  Drugs
  Drugs
  Old People's Homes (Retirement Pensioners)
  Old People's Homes (Retirement Pensioners)
  Gonorrhoea
  Gonorrhoea
  Smallpox (Mr. L. Perk Vlaanderen)
  Smallpox (Mr. L. Perk Vlaanderen)
  Poliomyelitis (Vaccine)
  Poliomyelitis (Vaccine)
  Prescription Charges
  Prescription Charges
  Bronchitis
  Bronchitis
  Leucotomy
  Leucotomy
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Travelling Expenses
  Travelling Expenses
  Income Tax (Schedule A)
  Income Tax (Schedule A)
  Estate Duty
  Estate Duty
EDUCATION
  West Riding County Council (Finance)
  West Riding County Council (Finance)
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Defence White Paper
  Defence White Paper
MINISTRY OF WORKS
  Iver Grove, Buckinghamshire
  Iver Grove, Buckinghamshire
SCOTLAND
  Fishing Vessels, Aberdeen
  Fishing Vessels, Aberdeen
ROYAL NAVY
  H.M.S. "Vanguard"
  H.M.S. "Vanguard"
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Potato Stocks
  Potato Stocks
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Murders
  Murders
  Streatfeild Committee (Report)
  Streatfeild Committee (Report)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Cinemas (Acquisition by Local Authorities)
  Cinemas (Acquisition by Local Authorities)
TELEPHONE SERVICE
  Wales
  Wales
TRANSPORT
  Vehicles (Emission of Smoke)
  Vehicles (Emission of Smoke)
  Mobile Cranes
  Mobile Cranes
ROADS
  Motorways, Wales
  Motorways, Wales
SHIPPING
  s.s. "Queen Mary" (Replacement)
  s.s. "Queen Mary" (Replacement)

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers℄Read by the Lord Bishop of St. Edmundsbury and Ipswich

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
2.35 p.m.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I should like to inform the House that as there do not appear to be many speakers who wish to take part in the debate on the Post Office the Motion standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, dealing with airlines and the use of kerosene, will be taken after the Post Office debate on Wednesday.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am not so sure about this. We do not know yet how many more names will be put down for the Post Office debate, unless there is an arrangement for a sort of self-denial on the part of the Conservatives who might put their names down at the last minute. If that were being arranged, I should not think it was treating ordinary
2
Notices of Motion of this kind quite fairly.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: The date of this debate has been arranged for a long time, and at the moment there are only two names down℄and this is two days before, when one would normally have expected to receive the total number of names.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I know of three names, at any rate. The Motion is to be moved by Lord Crook, whose name is on the Paper, and two ex-Postmasters General, both of whom were of Cabinet rank, are to speak, all from this side. It is not saying much for the attitude of the other side if they have nothing to say on such an important question.
LORD REA: My Lords, this Motion is surely the only subject on the Paper for Wednesday. There are many occasions when we deal with more than one Motion. I should have thought that, if there are not a great many names down at the moment, or even if a few more names are put down between now and Wednesday, we might extend ourselves a little to take the Motion by the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, as well.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: I ventured to think that there was room for another four or five names, at least, without leaving the Motion by Lord Brabazon of Tara for too late an hour.

PUBLIC HEALTH BILL [H.L.]
2.37 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be again in Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.℄(Lord Brecon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair.]
Clauses 39 to 41 agreed to.
Clause 42 [Forecourts abutting on streets]:
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR WELSH AFFAIRS (LORD BRECON): I beg to move the first Amendment on today's Marshalled List. It is essentially a drafting Amendment and is designed to make even clearer what is in fact already the effect of the proviso to Clause 42, subsection (2). Clause 42 as a whole deals with forecourts. Subsection (1) deals with dangers, obstructions and inconveniences, and enables local authorities to require the owner or occupier of a forecourt to fence the forecourt or, inter alia, to remove anything on the forecourt which could be a source of danger, obstruction or inconvenience to the public.
Subsection (2), which has a different object in mind, enables a local authority to require the removal or alteration of a stall or other erection on a forecourt which is an eyesore or, in the words of the clause, "injurious to the amenities of the street". The proviso to subsection (2) provides that this power shall not apply to any stall or other erection which has been in position since the date on which this Bill was introduced on November 10 last. I am advised that the wording of the proviso already fulfils the object in mind℄to exempt stalls which were erected before the crucial date and which have remained in position ever since℄but the additional words now proposed will make this doubly clear. I beg to move.
Amendment moved℄
Page 31, line 35, at beginning insert (" at all times ").℄(Lord Brecon.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 42, as amended, shall be agreed to?
LORD CHORLEY: Before the noble Lords puts the clause, I should like to make one or two remarks, largely with a view to obtaining an expression of opinion from the Minister responsible. This clause has given rise to a certain amount of interest among local authorities, and particularly as regards one of the local authority organisations; and it is not felt that the clause at the moment is sufficiently strong. Perhaps the noble Lord will be able to set my doubts at rest. He has explained the object of the clause, which is in two parts. The first part is concerned to enable the local authority to require an owner or occupier of a forecourt to fence it from the street when that is necessary℄when something has been put outside for sale purposes, or something of that kind, which forms an obstruction or danger or inconvenience to the public. The experience of some of the local authorities that have been attempting to deal with this problem is that quite a small fence, of 12 or perhaps 18 inches high, is sufficient to deal with this problem and is the most satisfactory way of doing it. The clause as it stands at the moment is very vague, and we should like the Minister to indicate what is in the mind of the Department as to the proper way of dealing with this part of the problem.
The second subsection, again as the noble Lord explained, relates to erections on forecourts, such as stalls, which may be injurious to the amenities of the street. This is a rather different point, of course, from the question of danger, obstruction or something of that kind. Many of the local authorities feel that the strongest objection to these erections on forecourts from the amenity point of view arises in relation to vending machines℄which, as your Lordships will have noticed, have become very common during the last few years. They are used a great deal after the closing hours of the shops. These machines seem hardly to be caught by the words in subsection (2) as it stands, because it would obviously be possible to contend that a vending machine is not caught by the word "stall". If that is so, if this fear is a valid one, it seems that one of the main objectives of this clause will not be achieved. It would appear that something rather more definite in the nature of a specific power to the local authorities to get rid of these machines

5
should be included. I should very much like to know what the noble Lord feels on this particular part of the clause and what the policy of the Department will be; and also whether they are satisfied that the words which the clause already contains are adequate to handle the problem of these machines.
LORD BRECON: I am advised that the words that have been inserted here are sufficient to meet the needs. But after what the noble Lord has said, I think that had better say that I will have a look at this point before Report stage, and I will reply to him on that occasion.
LORD CHORLEY: I am very grateful to the noble Lord.
Clause 42, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 43 [Urgent repairs to private streets]:
LORD BROUGHSHANE: This is a simple, straightforward Amendment designed to empower local authorities to defray, subject to certain limitations as to amount, the cost of urgent repairs to private streets. The Amendment would, in effect, bring the clause into line with model clause No. 34. It seems desirable that the local authorities should have these powers in order that urgent minor repairs may be carried out to private streets without delay. There seems no reason for departing from the model clause, and I therefore beg to move.
Amendment moved℄
Page 32, line 11, at end insert (" and may themselves pay the cost of the repairs out of the general rate fund:
Provided that the cost of the repairs executed in any street in any period of three consecutive years under this section shall not exceed fifty pounds for each one hundred yards of the length of the street.")℄(Lord Broughshane.)
LORD BRECON: As I understand it, the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Broughshane, has two objects. The first one is to provide expressly that the expenditure of the street works authority under this clause might℄not "must" ℄fall on the general rate fund. The Amendment proposes to insert the words of the model clause No. 34, but those words are inappropriate in the Bill for two reasons. First, the model clause is drafted solely in terms of municipal corporations which have a general rate fund. The clause applies to all street works authorities, an expression which includes
6
county councils who have a county fund, not a general rate fund. Secondly, under the Local Government Act, 1933, all expenditure of a local authority must be paid out of the appropriate general rate fund or county fund. It would therefore be wrong to include words in the clause to suggest that the local authority has a discretion in the matter. For these reasons, the proviso was deliberately omitted when the clause was drafted.
The second object of the Amendment is to place a limit on the expenditure of the street works authority on any given stretch of road (not more than £50 for each 100 yards of the street in any period of three consecutive years). The model clause contemplates a limit of this kind, but leaves a blank Where the actual amount is to be inserted. In practice, the limit inserted tin recent local Acts has varied widely from £10 to £75 per 100 yards. In the Somerset County Council Act, 1960, the 'proviso was omitted altogether, and this course has been followed in the Bill. It seems reasonable to leave it to the council's discretion. A financial limit on the power to deal with danger in streets seems undesirable. If thoroughgoing works (other than urgent repairs) are needed, the council still have the powers of Section 204 of the Highways Act, 1959, and the possibility that a council under this clause might carry out major works of reconstruction is very remote. In the case of authorities subject to district audit, the improper use of these powers would certainly be challenged. I cannot recommend that the Committee accept this Amendment.
LORD BROUGHSHANE: I thank the noble Lord for his very full statement. In view of what he has said as regards the powers contained in the Highways Act, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 43 agreed to.
Clauses 44 to 46 agreed to.
Clause 47:
Refuse and litter bins
47.℄(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a county council, local authority or parish council may provide and maintain in any street or public place receptacles for refuse or litter.
(3) In any place where a receptacle for refuse or litter has been provided or maintained under this section or under section one hundred and fifty-six of the Highways Act, 1959, the county council, local authority or parish council may put up notices about the leaving of refuse and litter, and for that purpose may, subject to the provisions of this section, erect and maintain notice boards.
LORD BRECON LORD BRECON moved to add to subsection (1):
" Provided that a county council's powers under this subsection shall not be exercisable in a borough or urban district."
The noble Lord said: Clause 47 of the Bill is based on powers contained in a number of local Acts, though they have not been made into a model clause, and its main purpose is to give county councils and parish councils wider powers to provide litter baskets in streets and public places. This power is already given to borough, urban and rural district councils by Section 76 (1) of the Public Health Act, 1936; but this section does not extend to other types of authority. County councils have power to provide litter bins only in connection with highways for which they are the highway authority, or in parks under their control; parish councils may provide litter baskets only in parks and open spaces which they own or manage.
The precedents in local Acts and the passing of the Litter Act, 1958, suggest that wider powers to provide litter bins would be desirable, especially in rural areas. The clause as drafted goes a little too far, however. It has been represented that there is no need for county councils to have concurrent powers with borough and urban district councils, and this Amendment limits the extent of the clause in a way desired by the local authority associations concerned. The effect of the Amendment of the clause is that county councils could place litter bins on all highways for which they are responsible, including classified roads in boroughs and urban districts. Borough and urban district councils will have the power to put baskets in other public places within their districts, but the extra powers given by the clause to county councils and parish councils will be confined to the rural areas and the countryside. I beg to move.
Amendment moved℄
Page 33. line 40, at end insert the said proviso.℄(Lord Brecon.)
On Question. Amendment agreed to.
2.49 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD LORD CONESFORD moved, after subsection (2) to insert:
"() The regular emptying mentioned in the last preceding subsection shall be sufficiently frequent to ensure that no such receptacle or the contents thereof shall become a nuisance or give reasonable ground for complaint."
The noble Lord said: Clause 47 has the excellent intention of lessening the nuisance of litter. Unless, however, some amendment is made, I think there is a real danger that, in some cases, it will have the paradoxical effect of actually increasing that nuisance. Let me remind the Committee that leaving litter is a criminal offence under Section 1 of the Litter Act, 1958. Of course, it is no defence whatever that no receptacle has been provided to receive it. Neither in law nor in equity nor in common sense does the absence of a receptacle provide the slightest excuse to anyone for leaving litter. If anyone brings anything into the open, either in his car, in his rucksack, in his pocket or in any other were there is no reason whatever why he should not take it away with him again instead of leaving it as litter.
If no receptacle is provided, there is some hope of most people behaving and of the minority of offenders 'being punished under the existing law. If, however. a receptacle is provided, it will be taken as a reason for not removing the litter, and unless such a receptacle is frequently emptied the bin and its contents can become an offence to eye and note. and even a threat to public health, when such things as the remains of food are left to rot in the receptacle. Further, if the place is a place to which great numbers resort and a single receptacle is filled to overflowing, the public will simply deposit their litter in the open near the receptacle instead of making any attempt to take it away.
Needless to say, I do not put these arguments forward as an argument for saying that receptacles for litter cannot perform a very useful function, provided that they are cleared sufficiently often; but if they are not cleared sufficiently often, then it is much better that they should not be provided at all, for the reasons which I have given. The words already in the clause say:
" It shall he the duty of a county council, local authority or parish council to make arrangements for the regular emptying and cleansing of any receptacles…"
I am suggesting that regular emptying is not sufficient; the emptying must also be sufficiently frequent, and that is the object of my Amendment, which says:
" The regular emptying mentioned in the last preceding subsection shall be sufficiently frequent to ensure that no such receptacle or the contents thereof shall become a nuisance or give reasonable ground for complaint."
The purpose of my Amendment is not simply to cast an additional burden on local authorities. It is to remind local authorities that, unless they can provide for daily clearing, receptacles might actually increase the nuisance which they are intended to prevent. Either the local authority must clear the receptacles sufficiently often to prevent the receptacles themselves from becoming nuisances or they will take such words as I am proposing to insert in the clause as a notice that, if they cannot provide for this frequent emptying, they had better not provide a receptacle at all. I beg to move.
Amendment moved℄
Page 34. line 5, at end insert the said subsection.℄(Lord Conesford.)
LORD REA: My Lords, I had not intended to speak on this Amendment, but I should like to support very strongly the noble Lord, Lord Conesford. I imagine that many of us are able to give specific instances of where this sort of thing happens. I will take up only a few seconds of your Lordships' time to relate my own experiences in the Lake District where, at a very beautiful but hitherto not much visited lake in Wasdale, these bins have been put up for receiving rubbish. These receptacles are not emptied and it has fallen upon the conscience of the people living there to take time off from their work℄I would particularly refer to instructors of the Outward Bound Mountaineering School℄and go round in their own cars with dustbins to tidy up the mess, purely for the sake of the amenity of the country and under no obligation, because the point which the noble Lord has mentioned has not been brought into force. Therefore I should like to strongly support his Amendment.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I should like to add that this is not peculiar to Wasdale. Certainly in Langdale there was one of these
10
receptacles, which was a crying source of nuisance and about which comments were going all over the Lake District, and there was a similar abuse either in Borrowdale or at Buttermere, although I would not like to trust my memory about which. I strongly support this very valuable Amendment and hope that the Government will accept it.
LORD FARINGDON: I also should like to support this Amendment. But it is not necessary to go as far as the Lake country to see the abuse or misuse of these receptacles about which noble Lords have spoken. One has only to go, on the admittedly rare fine weekends, into London's parks in order to see litter littered to an extent which is indescribable, horrible and unspeakable, and, I think, not to be found anywhere else in this country or in the world. I would, however, make one minor criticism of the noble Lord's Amendment. I could wish that it not only provided for regular and timely clearance of receptacles, but also for receptacles of adequate size. This seems to me to be also extremely important. But I support the noble Lord's Amendment so far as it goes.
LORD MERRIVALE: I, too, support the Amendment of my noble friend, and should like to take the opportunity of asking the Minister whether it would not be possible to insert something at the next stage to ensure that these receptacles are provided with lids, some of which could be hinged and some removable. Those receptacles fitted to lampposts and other supports in the streets could possibly be fitted with hinged lids, as in Paris, where there is a slot in the lid for people wishing to deposit a cigarette box or something like that, and it is necessary to open the bin to insert any larger piece of rubbish.
With regard to my noble friend's Amendment, I think it would be useful if local authorities would pay attention to the need for instructing their men, when they are pouring the contents of dustbins into their vehicles, to take more care to see that litter is not deposited in the street or allowed to blow away in the wind. I think that such instructions would be worth considering, because this is a country in which we get a fair amount of wind and a good deal of

11
rubbish gets blown out of these bins. I warmly support my noble friend's Amendment.
3.0 p.m.
LORD BRECON: Subsection (2) of the clause already makes it the duty of the county council, local authority or parish council, as the noble Lord has said, to make arrangements "for the regular emptying and cleansing" of any receptacle they provide or maintain, and it goes on to provide that all these types of local authorities shall have the necessary power to do this. The clause should thus prevent the possibility that a litter bin might be provided by, say, a parish council in the expectation that the rural district council, who already have powers to collect household refuse, would automatically empty it. I should not have thought there was any need to elaborate in unnecessary detail something which ought to be left to the common sense of all responsible local authorities. If an authority feels sufficiently strongly to see that a litter basket is provided, it is likely to feel equally strongly on the subject of its emptying.
LORD CHORLEY: But it does not.
LORD BRECON: If there is any default, the most effective way is for local people to complain to the council offices or to their elected members. It is difficult to believe that the addition of the words proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, would, in practice, affect the way in which local authorities carry out the powers given by the clause or increase the likelihood of their being forced to do so through legal action. My inclination is to ask your Lordships not to accept the Amendment, but I appreciate the anxiety felt by my noble friend, Lord Conesford, and if he would be prepared not to press the Amendment now, I would undertake to study the problem further.
LORD DERWENT: I hope that my noble friend Lord Conesford will not be taken in by the soothing answer of my noble friend on the Front Bench. A regular collection may be once in six months; that means nothing. The other point is this. There is great pressure, particularly on the smaller local authorities℄rural district councils and so on℄to put up litter baskets, which are, in
12
fact, somewhat expensive for a small authority to put up. I know of cases where, under pressure from their own people, an authority have put up litter baskets, although they have warned the people that they have not the facilities for proper emptying, and exactly the situation arises as has been explained by my noble friend Lord Conesford. I do not know whether my noble friend is going to withdraw the Amendment now, but I hope that he will not let this Bill go through without allowing us to support him in some Amendment of this kind.
LORD CONESFORD: I am rather astonished that my noble friend the Minister, in reply to my Amendment, thought that it was too detailed. I expressly avoided putting in detail. I admit that I had thought, when I first decided to put down the Amendment, to prescribe a daily emptying; but I thought that I could then be accused of too much detail. However, what I have now suggested is a perfectly general principle: that the emptying
"shall be sufficiently frequent to ensure that no such receptacle or the contents thereof shall become a nuisance".
What could be more reasonable and general than that? I fully appreciate that my drafting is the drafting of an amateur and that the skilful advisers of my noble friend may desire on Report stage some small Amendment of what I suggest, in order to make the Government entirely happy about the Amendment. But I suggest to the Committee that the best thing we can do, in view of the universal support that has been given to my Amendment, is to adopt it now whatever the Government may wish to do on the Report stage. Therefore, interpreting, as I think rightly, the wishes of the Committee, I do not wish to withdraw my Amendment.
LORD SILKIN: Before the Amendment is put, may I say that I have great sympathy with the noble Lord's Amendment, as I think everyone who has spoken has. I would not accept the fact that it is too detailed. But, after all, the noble Lord in charge of the Bill has given an assurance that he will study the matter, presumably on the basis of trying to meet the wishes of the Committee, if at all possible. I should not have intervened but for the suggestion

13
which is rather novel, that whenever a Minister gives an undertaking to study an Amendment the right thing is to include the Amendment in the Bill by passing it and then amend the Amendment at a later stage. I should be very happy if that were the position, but I think the probabilities are that the result would be that Ministers would be very chary of giving such an undertaking in future. I should have thought that the noble Lord has achieved his purpose in getting an assurance from the Minister that the matter will be studied; and, of course, he can put down his Amendment again.
LORD CONESFORD: I am extremely anxious to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, if I can. The reason why I suggested to the Committee℄and I think the Committee agreed with me℄that it would be a good thing to put this Amendment in was that the Minister did not go so far as to say that he was going to amend the clause. If the Minister had accepted the principle that something on the lines of my Amendment must go in, then of course I should have adopted the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. But, as I understood the Minister's speech, he was very doubtful indeed whether any amendment of the clause whatsoever was required. I had satisfied the Committee, I think, in all quarters that some addition to this clause is required. The Minister was unable to say that there was anything wrong with my Amendment, except that he thought it was unnecessary and rather detailed. In those circumstances, I thought it would be advisable that, when this matter comes before the House on Report stage, it should at least embody the wishes of the Committee as expressed on the Committee stage. It was for those reasons, and not because I had any lack of faith in the promise of the Minister to consider the matter℄of course I accepted that he would℄that I thought I should press the Amendment. I have satisfied the Committee that an Amendment is necessary; no criticism of my wording of the Amendment has been produced in any quarter, and with the general intention of making the proceedings of this Committee useful, I mean to press the Amendment.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): I was
14
hoping that my noble and learned friend would perhaps await the results of my noble friend's promise to look at this matter again. My noble and learned friend Lord Conesford has made one indisputable point℄namely, that the word "regular" does not necessarily imply any degree of frequency. That is a point which nobody can deny, and certainly I should not try to deny it. On the other hand (although I am afraid that I do not know a great deal about these local government matters), I think there might be some difficulty℄I do not know, and it is one of the things I should like to consider℄if, a duty having been imposed on a local authority, a provision were inserted which said simply that it shall be the duty of the local authority to perform its duty properly and not to effect any other sanction to them. I should myself think that that is worth investigating. I fully accept what my noble and learned friend has said: that it is not sufficient that collections should be regular if they are not also frequent. I hope that, with that assurance, he will allow this matter to be studied, in the knowledge that if nothing satisfactory to your Lordships emerges from that study he will not have in any way impaired his position, which he has made quite clear.
LORD SALTOUN: There is one point I should like to put to my noble friend the Leader of the House, and it is this. This Bill originates in this House and it is our duty to make it as perfect as possible before it goes to another place. If my noble friend withdraws his Amendment now, what opportunity will be given in this House for producing a proper Amendment upon this point? I realise that my noble friend can put this Amendment down on the Report stage, but the noble Viscount who speaks for the Government has quarrelled with the wording of it, for some reason which I do not quite understand. It means that if my noble friend puts the Amendment down again on Report, he is more or less compelled to put down an Amendment which is faulty in form, and that leaves only the Third Reading to improve upon it. How would the noble Viscount meet that point, having full regard to the duty and the rights of this House?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: As regards the duty of this House, I am sure that

15
both the Government and my noble and learned friend℄whom I would not accept as being an amateur in this connection at all; I think he lost his amateur status a long time ago℄will see whether we can give effect to this point, some part of which I have already accepted to be a good one, and the House in its collective wisdom will be in a position on Report to pass judgment on the matter. Certainly, if the Government feel that it is proper to amend the clause in the sense which I have indicated, that it is feasible to do so and in accordance with the ordinary requirements of local government, they would put their own Amendment down. I cannot foreshadow what it would be. Obviously, if we do not put down an Amendment we shall have to justify our not doing so, and I am sure the House will be able to pass judgment on that.
EARL ATTLEE: Does that mean that the Government are persuaded that some amendment of this clause is needed? That is the point.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Perhaps I should not have intervened so fully, but I felt that perhaps my noble friend was being a little hard pressed on the matter and that he might like to take further counsel. I have said all I can of my own knowledge and wisdom, such as it is, which is that I was persuaded that my noble and learned friend had made one point℄which I thought was not only good, but desirable℄that "frequent" and "regular" collections were not the same thing, and that they ought to be both.
LORD CONESFORD: If I may say so, the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, has put his finger on the exact point. At the present moment, Her Majesty's Government have not admitted that any amendment of this clause is required at all. This Committee, if I rightly interpret its view, is virtually unanimously of the opinion that an Amendment roughly on the lines of my Amendment is necessary. I am very much puzzled why Her Majesty's Government do not accept my Amendment. If they find that there is something
wrong with it, they can amend it on Report stage in any way they think fit, even to the extent of moving its omission and putting something else in its place. But this Committee will have at least indicated that it believes this clause requires amendment on these lines. If I have satisfied the Committee on this, what reason of any sort is there for not incorporating this Amendment on the Committee stage? I believe that this House, whether sitting as a House or as a Committee, should try to improve Bills to the best of their ability. I have endeavoured to do so by putting down this Amendment, and I do not see why it should not be carried.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I am sure that the last thing I should ever suggest to the House is that we should not try to improve Bills to the best of our ability. All I was suggesting was that, as the Committee have indicated their opinion quite clearly, the Minister (who knows a great deal more about it than I do, just listening to the debate) has indicated that he will take the clause back to his right honourable friend with an indication of the Committee's view. That was all my noble and learned friend was seeking at this stage. I would respectfully agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said: that the really sensible thing to do is to realise that the Government have noted the view of the Committee and recognised tie validity of the arguments put forward, and will seek in some way to give effect to them. The only reason why I cannot give a more definite assurance is that the matter is not wholly in my hands, and I claim even less than my noble and learned friend to be an expert draftsman on matters of this kind. I hope that with that assurance he will feel that the best way is to seek the experts' advice, or the advice of those who he frankly has said are experts, and see what we can do to give effect to his desires.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 38: Not-Contents, 20.

CONTENTS

Airedale, L

Amwell, L.

Baden-Powell, L

Alexander of Hillsborough, V.

Attlee, E.

Birdwood, L.

Amulree, L.

Auckland, L.

Birkett, L.

Broughshane, L.

Howe, E.

St. Edmundsbury and Ipswich, L. Bp.

Cholmondeley, M.

Killearn, L.

Chorley, L.

Latham,

Saltoun, L. [Teller.]

Conesford, L. [Teller.]

Listowel, E.

Shepherd, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Merrivale, L.

Silkin, L.

Dalton, L.

Nathan, L.

Strang, L.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Newall, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Faringdon, L.

Ogmore, L.

Torrington, V.

Gifford, L.

Pethick-Lawrence, L.

Uvedale of North End, L.

Henderson, L.

Rea, L.

Wise, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Hailsham, V. (L. President.)

Newton, L. [Teller.]

Bathurst, E.

Hawke, L.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Bossom, L.

Jessel, L.

St. Oswald, L.

Brecon, L.

Kilmuir, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Spens, L.

Crathorne, L.

Luke, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Forbes, L.

Mills, L.

Teviot, L.

Gosford,

E. Milverton, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
3.25 p.m.
LORD LATHAM LORD LATHAM moved, in subsection (3), to leave out all words from the beginning of the subsection down to "county" and to insert instead "A". The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 52 as it appears on the Marshalled List. This Amendment is based upon the experience, limited perhaps, that litter bins are not universally efficacious as a means of avoiding the distribution of litter. Clause 47 (3) empowers the local authority concerned to put up in any place where a receptacle for refuse or litter has been provided or maintained under this clause or under Section 156 of the Highways Act, 1959, notices about leaving refuse and litter, and for that purpose to erect and maintain notice boards. Although in the past it has been the practice of at least one county council℄and probably there may be others℄to erect notice boards bearing anti-litter notices, the specific power contained in Clause 47 (3) to erect notices where receptacles are provided is bound, in the view of the local authorities, to raise doubts about the existence of what they have regarded as being an implied power to erect notices in places where there are no litter bins.
The Amendment is in line, it seems to me, with contemporary and gathering opinion about the prevention of litter in the countryside, and with the "Take your litter home" slogan which has been adopted by the "Keep Britain Tidy" organisation, and also, I understand, by the National Parks Commission in connection with the Country Code. There are many places where people are wont
18
to pull their cars off the road and where it is most desirable to erect a notice warning against leaving litter without the necessity at the same time of providing a litter basket. The erection of notices may sometimes be more efficacious than the provision of litter baskets. I understand that certain conversations have taken place with the Minister's Department, and in those circumstances I hope that, in order to remove any uncertainty and doubt, the noble Lord will be able to accept this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved℄
Page 34, line 6, leave out from beginning to (" county ") in line 8 and insert (" A ").℄(Lord Latham.)
LORD BRECON: I am fully in agreement with the purpose of the Amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Latham, has just moved. I am advised, however, that this might not be the best way of achieving the object we both have in mind, and if he would be agreeable to withdrawing this particular Amendment I would undertake to put down some alternative words at the Report stage.
LORD LATHAM: I am very grateful to the noble Lord, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF GAINSBOROUGH THE EARL OF GAINSBOROUGH moved, in subsection (10), to leave out "forty shillings" and insert "ten pounds". The noble Earl said: This Amendment is to protect the litter bins which have given so much concern to your Lordships this afternoon. At present there is provided a penalty of

19
40s. for removing a litter bin or refuse bin. It is felt that this is an unrealistic penalty in these days. Under the Litter Act, 1958, if anybody leaves litter about or does not put it into a litter basket he may be fined a maximum of £10. But if this clause is left as it stands the rather absurd position arises that if you drop litter around you may have to pay £10, but if you take the bin away or damage it you pay only £2. Although there is provision for the local authority to recover damages in respect of damage to the bin, I think that your Lordships may agree that in these days 40s. is insufficient as a deterrent to stop people who want souvenirs and things. Although your Lordships may think that a litter bin would be a silly souvenir to take, there are such people about, and I would urge that this matter be considered by Her Majesty's Government. I beg to move.
Amendment moved℄
Page 35, line 12, leave out (" forty shillings ") and insert (" ten pounds ").℄(The Earl of Gainsborough.)
LORD BRECON: I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Gainsborough, that there are anomalies here. This fact was fully appreciated when the Bill was drafted, but it is extremely difficult to avoid anomalies when various penalties have been imposed in a large number of Acts and at different times. The figure of 40s. in this particular instance was adopted because it appears in local Acts at this point. Unfortunately, the figure of £10 which the noble Earl suggests is not free from anomaly either. I should like to suggest that we deal with this difficulty in the best way we can in the circumstances. The offence referred to in subsection (10) is that of removing or damaging a litter basket or a notice board. Section 289 of the Local Government Act, 1933, deals with a related matter and refers to the destruction or disfigurement of notice boards, advertisements, placards or notices, and it provides for a penalty of £5. If one wished to depart from the local Act precedent on which this subsection is based and drop the figure of 40s. then I think we ought to adopt the penalty under Section 289 of the 1933 Act for a similar offence. If this solution commends itself, I will put down an Amendment to this effect on the Report stage.
THE EARL OF GAINSBOROUGH: I am much obliged to the noble Lord. I feel sure that what he has said will go some way towards meeting the matter. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 47, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 48:
Management of parks and pleasure-grounds
48.℄(1) Sections seventy-six and seventy-seven of the Public Health Acts Amendment Act, 1907 (which give a local authority certain powers as regards their parks and pleasure-grounds), together with Part VI of the Public Health Act, 1925 (which extends the said section seventy-six), shall be in force throughout the district of every local authority and section three of the said Act of 1907 (which relates to the adoption by a local authority of provisions in that Act) shall not apply to the said sections seventy-six and seventy-seven.
(2) When any part of a park or pleasure-ground is set apart by a local authority under paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of the said section seventy-six for the purpose of cricket, football or any other game or recreation, the local authority may, subject to the restrictions or conditions, if any, prescribed by rules made under that section, permit the exclusive use by any club or other body of persons of℄

(a) any portion of the park set apart as aforesaid, and

(b) the whole or any part of any pavilion, convenience, refreshment room or other building provided under that section,

subject to such charges and conditions as the local authority think fit.
(3) Subsection (2) of this section shall not empower a local authority to permit at one and the same time the exclusive use of℄

(a) more than one-third of the area of any park or pleasure-ground, or

(b) more than one-quarter of the total area of all the parks and pleasure-grounds provided by them or under their management and control.

(4) Subsections (2) and (3) of this section shall be read as one with the said section seventy-six.
3.32 p.m.
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved to leave out Clause 48. The noble Lord said: This is the first of three clauses all of which under the Bill constitute attacks on open spaces throughout the country. The effect of each one of them is to deprive the public of a measure of the enjoyment which they possess in the parks and open spaces, and which they have come by with great difficulty, and often with considerable expense. Each one of these clauses is capable of, and susceptible to,

21
serious attack; but, taking them cumulatively, they represent a really grave attack on our open spaces. I have down Amendments to delete each of the three clauses; in the second Amendment, that relating to Clause 49, I am coupled with the noble Lord, Lord Conesford. I would respectfully suggest that the Government might well look at these clauses again to see whether they are, in fact, necessary in their present form in order to achieve their purposes.
I want at this stage to look at Clause 48. I want to say straight away that I fully realise that this clause is substantially in the form of one of the model clauses set out in the edition of Model Clauses for 1960, so that the powers conferred by Clause 48 are similar to those which have already been conferred by private Acts upon a number℄if you dike, a substantial number℄of local authorities. But I would say (I hope I am right) that in each case where these powers have been conferred upon local authorities they have been the subject of individual examination. Moreover, the mere fact that there is a precedent for conferring the powers upon one authority does not automatically entitle another authority to receive the same powers; in fact each one is looked at individually. What we are now proposing to do is to confer these powers indiscriminately upon all local authorities, without examination. I would also draw the attention of the Committee to the paragraph at the conclusion of the introduction to the model clauses and to what it says℄namely,
"The inclusion in this collection of a clause does not warrant its inclusion in a Bill; it is merely an indication that the clause, if included in a Bill, should be drafted, though not necessarily punctuated, on the model."
I would suggest to the Committee that the mere fact that a similar clause to this is incorporated in a number of Private Acts is not in itself a reason for introducing it in a Public Act.
I concede that in principle there is a good deal to be said on the merits of this clause: a local authority should have the power to take a portion of its recreational land used for snorts and games, and allow it to be used by private clubs, either on payment of a fee or any conditions that they like. But in my view this clause goes much too far. The Government have sought to impose
22
limitations (they are contained in subsection (3) of the clause) by which the local authority are not permitted at one and the same time to allow the use for this purpose of more than one-third of the area of any park or pleasure ground, or more than one-quarter of the total area of all their parks. My case against the clause is 'that, even with these limitations, it will be possible in the case of a number of authorities to deprive the general public entirely of any facilities for playing individual, unorganised games; and I think that would be deplorable.
Even if you take both these limitations, you might still get the position that you could allow clubs to use the whole of the available land which is set aside for games and recreation. The subsection says:
" More than one-third of the area of any park or pleasure ground."
A quarter of a park or an individual pleasure ground might be devoted to games and recreation. So under this Bill you could take the whole of that area and give it to a club for its sole use. Then the subsection goes on to say:
" More than one-quarter of the total area of all the parks and pleasure grounds."
There, again, the amount or proportion of the total area of the parks belonging to any particular authority which is used for games or recreation might be less than one-quarter. The rest might be available to the general public for walks and rest and so on. But you could apply these conditions quite easily and deprive the public permanently, if you so desire, of the whole of the facilities which are enjoyed by so many people, schoolchildren and others, for games of recreation.
I would therefore say to the noble Lord that if the Government deliberately desire to give local authorities the power to let the whole of their land available for games and recreation to private clubs ℄I do not not know whether this particular point has been overlooked or whether it is deliberate—then I am afraid that we must part company and test the views of the Committee on this point. If, however, it is not their intention and they desire that those playing unorganised games℄schoolchildren and people playing cricket or football, or knocking a ball about other than in organised groups℄should still have these facilities,

23
then I say that this clause runs the danger of depriving the general public of a good many of these facilities and is in need of further consideration, and in my view, amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved℄
Leave out Clause 48.℄(Lord Silkin.)
LORD OGMORE: I should like to put another point of view. I have a good deal of sympathy with this clause for a reason which will commend itself to the noble Lord, the Minister in charge of the Bill, he being an old Rugby forward from Ebbw Vale, which is a friendly rival of my old club, Bridgend. Some years ago in my own town the professional sport of Rugby League came along and took our ground, a ground which me had had for very many years. The club is now about 80 years old and is one with which both my father and my grandfather were connected and of which I am at the moment, and have been for some years, Patron.
In South Wales the Rugby Club forms an integral part of the life of the community, second only, perhaps, to the religious life. I am not sure that it is always second; sometimes, about the time of the England-Wales match, I believe they are about equal. When we lost our ground it was a staggering blow to the life of the community in the little market town where I was born. We looked around and finally the council allowed us to play on the recreation ground. It was very kind of them and we appreciated it tremendously and managed to keep the club going; but we had no exclusive use of the ground. The result was that normally, even during a game, except for two or three occasions a year, we had no right to exclude others from the ground. We could not charge people to go in and we had to pick up all the paraphernalia of the game, the footboards around the pitch, afterwards. We could not put up any sort of stand, however flimsy. Indeed, it was only through the tremendous efforts of voluntary supporters of the club that we kept going at all.
Eventually, I am glad to say, we got our ground back. Professional football did not take on and had to go, and to-day, as the noble Lord, Lord Brecon, knows, the club is third in the Welsh
24
League, following immediately behind Cardiff. We produced two members of the Welsh XV that played the South Africans and beat England, one being Ken Richards who, as those of your Lordships who follow the sport will know, played a masterly game and was the architect of victory. I mention this to show that this power is very important and that in conditions of that kind, which may happen anywhere, it is highly desirable that the council shall have the right to allow one team not only to play on the ground but also, in certain circumstances, to have the exclusive use of it.
I admit that this power should be used only in such circumstances as make it desirable, for we do not want to make it a very common practice; but I am certain that it would not be common. It would apply only in cases where it is really necessary, and only then would this power be used by the local authority. With that cautionary tale of my own club, therefore, I would support the Government in this measure, and I hope the Minister will resist any attempts to do away with the clause.
LORD SHEPHERD: Like my noble friend, Lord Silkin, I await with some anxiety an indication from the Government of what are their intentions there, because where there are recreation grounds which have perhaps tennis courts or bowling greens I can visualise that a local authority, under this provision, could hand over the whole of those courts or greens to some club or set of individuals. That is my understanding at the present moment. I am sure that that is not the intention of the Government, but reading the clause as it now is I can see that that is possible. I feel I should draw the attention of the Committee to Clause 48. While this power is given to local authorities, no protection is given to the public by allowing them to protest.
The Committee will see that Clause 49 (7) provides that the local authority must advertise their intention in the newspapers, and presumably an inquiry could result from that action. But when we are dealing with Clause 48 there is no such provision, so that local people would have no opportunity to protest. They might even be unaware that some of their recreation grounds were being taken away from them for the use of a

25
private club. They might have no idea that that was happening, and even if they knew of it they would have no opportunity of taking any action other than bringing pressure upon their local councillor. I certainly wait with anxiety to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Brecon, can tell us regarding this clause, but I believe that as it stands we should oppose it.
LORD FARINGDON: It is with some hesitation that I rise to differ from my noble friend, Lord Silkin. I hope the Government will maintain this clause. I think it is a reasonable and proper power to give to local authorities, and I am amazed by the suspicion that local authorities are likely to exaggerate in any way in their use of it. The contrary is far more likely. I should be far more anxious lest they should not use this power as widely as they might and should.
LORD HAWKE: I do not always agree with the noble Lord, Lord Faringdon, opposite, but this time he has expressed my sentiments precisely. What on earth are we going to leave to local govern-men t to decide if we are not to permit them to decide about letting a football pitch to a recognised club or leaving it for desultory bands of boys to play upon? I believe it would be a gross and unwarrantable interference with the powers of local government if we were not to leave them to do this kind of thing.
LORD CHORLEY: I think a good deal can be said on both sides here and I do not wish to take any particular part in that discussion, but it occurred to me, in discussion with my noble friend, Lord Faringdon, that under subsection (3) (b) a local authority will not be permitted to give the exclusive use of:
" more than one-quarter of the total area of all the parks and pleasure grounds provided by them or under their management and control."
If we are dealing with one of the large authorities who have a number of parks and pleasure-grounds it might be possible for them to hand over the whole of one park in this way, which clearly would not, I think, be wise or advisable. Is this a wrong interpretation? I shall be glad to have the noble Lord's view about that.
LORD CONESFORD: If I understand the clause rightly, there is a double limitation. It must not be more than one-third of the area of any park (that is under the paragraph (a)) and it must not be more than one-quarter of the total area of all the parks and pleasure-grounds provided by the local authority or under their management and control; so it is a dual limitation. I rise only because I have received a communication, as I think have other noble Lords, from a society which speaks with a good deal of authority on these subjects, the Commons, Open Spaces and Footpaths Preservation Society; and the point on which they are particularly unhappy is what they believe to be the insufficiency of the limitation in paragraph (b) of subsection (3): the limitation of a quarter of the total area. This Society from their experience are eager that, instead of the figure of one quarter, there should be a figure of one-eighth. I think that the Committee may like to have before them this considered view of the Society.
LORD SILKIN: Before the noble Lord replies, may I say that I thought I had made it clear that I was not against the principle at all, and therefore the football club in South Wales of the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, would have been quite safe, in my view, and I should not object to it. What I do object to is that on the reading of this clause it is possible to let the whole of the available recreational grounds to clubs.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I do not think it is.
LORD SILKIN: It is, if you read it carefully; not the whole of the park itself but the whole of that portion of the park which is allocated for games. These limitations do not relate to the portion of the park available for games only but to the total area of the park. My criticism would really be met if there were some limitation on the proportion of the area for games which could be set aside for clubs, so as to ensure that at all times there was some available recreational land for persons who were not members of clubs.
LORD AMULREE: I should like to say one word in support of this Amendment. I have seen the danger that can occur in Hyde Park, over most of which

27
the public could walk once upon a time, if not over the entire park. I have seen areas reserved, for quite proper reasons: places where people can putt and places at the Serpentine where people can undress and bathe. One can no longer walk right round the Serpentine, as I could when I was young. There is another part of the north of the Park reserved as a playground for children. Therefore, I think one should be extremely careful not to give powers like this too widely, because in time we might see more of the parks being taken away, though for quite proper reasons, and it means that the general public have less.
LORD LUKE: I think I sense what is the difficulty at the back of the mind of the noble Lard, Lord Silkin; that is, the principle of what happens to the remainder of the park we are talking about. When we have allowed a third to be earmarked for organised games, how are we to know what unorganised games (if I may call them that) can be played? I think that is the principle of the thing.
LORD BRECON: The main purpose of this clause is to extend certain powers concerning the management of parks and pleasure grounds which are contained in Section 76 of the Public Health Acts Amendment Act, 1907, and Section 56 of the Public Health Act, 1925. Under these Acts local authorities may already exclude the public from parts of parks set aside for particular games and they may charge for the use of those areas by the individuals or teams playing. What this clause permits, in effect, is an arrangement under which a local club may regularly have the use of a cricket or football pitch, or the bowling green or some of the tennis courts, together with changing-room accommodation and facilities for refreshments. Some regular arrangement is necessary if a club is to be able to settle its fixture list in advance. No one will question that some games can hardly be played seriously except on an organised basis and in an area from which non-players are excluded. I think we must remember that the people who form the clubs and play there are the public; they are not separate from the others.
28
If I understand the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and other noble Lords correctly, I think their chief fear is that lands and buildings may be removed from public enjoyment even when they are not being used for organised games℄subject, of course, to the area limitations contained in subsection (3). On this it must be recalled that some permanent restriction on the public use of parks is necessarily involved when local authorities provide facilities for certain kinds of sports and games. Bowling greens, tennis courts℄we cannot let the public wander around tennis courts, even when people are not playing, but they can go and play tennis there℄and athletic tracks, for instance, are normally closed except to people who have paid to use them for their specialised purposes.
The first question, therefore, is whether there is any objection in principle to sports facilities being made available to clubs and not to isolated individuals and to the exclusion of the public while those facilities are required by the clubs. It is difficult to believe that this is seriously contested. The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, spoke about Rugby clubs in South Wales. My own club, in which I played over 30 years ago, played on a pitch that is in a park at Abergavenny. They still play. They have it for use for Saturday games at the present moment. It is this sort of provision that has to be made, subject to the safeguard of one-third of any park or a quarter of all parks. I have noted what my noble friend Lord Conesford has said about his having a letter to say that people who are concerned with this question think it should be one-eighth. I will have a look at that point.
The real problem reduces itself to this, therefore: should we try to write into this clause some words to the effect that pitches, playing fields, refreshment rooms, et cetera, should, so far as is practicable, be available to the public when they are not actually being used by a club? If I have correctly summarised the main grounds for the objections mentioned by noble Lords, and by Lord Silkin in particular, I think we should not find it impossible to meet the point that the noble Lord has raised. If he would agree to withdraw his objection I would certainly explore the practicability of tabling an Amendment on Report stage to this effect.
LORD FARINGDON: Could the noble Lord give an answer to a question which arises from a point made by my noble friend Lord Chorley? I fully take the point that it is one-third of the area of any park or, alternatively, one quarter of the total. It is not stated "whichever should be the less".
LORD CONESFORD: May I suggest that both apply? We say
"shall not empower a local authority to permit at one and the same time the exclusive use of more than one third of the area of any park… or more than one quarter of the total area…"
Both limitations must be satisfied.
LORD FARINGDON: I thought that that was so and I suddenly had a doubt.
LORD BRECON: It is so.
LORD SHEPHERD: I am much obliged for having heard the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Brecon. However, I am still concerned. I am thinking of a recreation ground where I used to live where they had about a dozen tennis courts. As I understand it, it would be possible for the local authority, if they wished, to give these tennis courts exclusively for the use of a local club, say on Saturdays and Sundays, which means that anybody who was not a member of the club would not have access on a Saturday or a Sunday. That may be the judgment of the council. I think it would be wrong that that facility which has been built up in a recreation ground should be handed over exclusively to a club and that the public should be denied completely any access to it, unless, of course, the local authority were to provide further facilities. As I see it, what we want to do is to make our recreation grounds available to as many people as possible. We may lose that if we give exclusive rights ℄and the public know they are exclusive rights℄to a club. In a club one can quickly fill up the fixtures list. At times you can play tennis or golf on Saturday or Sunday with regular members, and the not-so-regular members do not get a chance to play. think we should resist anything that will deny the public at least a general access to the facilities in these recreation grounds.
LORD STONHAM: I wonder whether, before the noble Lord, Lord Brecon,
30
replies to my noble friend, he would consider one other aspect of the matter, arising particularly out of the assurance he offered to my noble friend Lord Silkin. It is not merely a case in every instance of local recreation grounds with buildings and facilities provided by the local authorty. There are examples where the local authority provide the land and give a local club permission to put buildings on it. They come to an agreement that it will be for a period of years. I have in mind, for example, the Taunton Town Football Club, where it is local authority land and where they put up buildings. There are two points arising from that. First, this step was not taken without its being very thoroughly canvassed in the town and in the town council, and we must have regard to that fact.
The noble Lord, Lord Hawke, said that local authorities have not many powers left: I have heard it said that they have nothing to lose but their drains. But here is a case where a scheme has been thoroughly canvassed and local councillors have thoroughly considered local opinion. Surely they have a right in such matters. If the noble Lord, Lord Brecon, is going to consider an arrangement in this clause whereby, when a particular club is not using the facilities, the public shall have access, I would point out that in the case that I have cited it would be wholly impracticable. There the buildings themselves do not belong to the local authority, so that it would be wholly wrong, to suggest that the public should have access when the club is not using them. So it is not as easy as the noble Lord thinks. When he considers this matter, will he consider in particular a case of that kind?
LORD OGMORE: I should like to say something on the same lines as those followed by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham. I think the noble Lord, Lord Brecon, wants to be a little careful before he accepts the views expressed against this particular clause. I say that for two reasons. First, there is exclusive use of the portion of land itself. have already indicated the trouble we had to go to in Bridgend, when, after every game (we played twice a week), we had to move everything off. If anybody is to be allowed to use the ground when a particular club is not intending to

31
use it, it may mean that the ground will be cut up terribly. The club may be paying a great deal of money to keep that ground in good order, with a groundsman or two, and they would be paying a great deal of money to keep it in order so that anyone could come along and play on it without paying a brass bean, and possibly spoiling the ground. Secondly, children and so on may damage the posts and the various impedimenta that there are around the ground.
The second point is as to the building, the pavilion. Here the club, if there is a club, must have exclusive use, because all its gear would be in the building. There would be the equipment of the players℄the football boots, and all the rest of it℄as well as the flags, and so on. There cannot be anything but exclusive use of a building. You cannot have other people going into a building where there is hundreds of pounds worth of the club's equipment. I think, therefore, that, so far as paragraphs (2) (a) and (2) (b) are concerned℄and particularly (2) (b)℄the Minister should consider very carefully before he gives way. He knows as well as anybody (because he used to play for Ebbw Vale, which is a club of the type I am talking about) that in South Wales there is often only one piece of land available in the industrial area, which piece has very often been made by levelling a tip. If a club ℄it may be an absolutely first-class club; as, indeed, Ebbw Vale is℄has to use a ground which anybody else can use on all the days on which the club is not playing, then it will not be a first-class club very much longer℄that I can assure your Lordships. So I sincerely hope that the noble Lord will resist any attempt to "water down" this clause.
LORD LUKE: With the greatest respect, I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, has got it quite right. As I understand it, many of these grounds and pavilions are played on and used by many clubs and by schools. It is not a question of an exclusive use by any one club. I have seen all this expensive equipment in pavilions, and so forth, with wardens and so on, to look after it, to see that no damage is done. These grounds are being used by all sorts of clubs, and not by one alone.
LORD SILKIN: The noble Lord has given an undertaking that he will look at this question again from the point of view of ensuring that the general public ℄and I mean the general public other than those people who are members of clubs℄are not deprived of all facilities for games and recreation. I think that the clause can be appropriately amended so as to ensure that. It seems to me that all that is needed is a further condition having regard to the amount of recreational land that would be left, and not merely to other open space. On that assurance℄and perhaps it would be helpful if, in this case, the noble Lord would allow me to have a word with him on this subject before he puts the Amendment down℄I should be very happy to withdraw the Amendment.
LORD BRECON: Certainly. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, for what he has just said. I do not think we can legislate for every possible condition that exists in these parks under local government authority. I think that what Lord Silkin has in mind in the Amendment is as to the exclusive use of this land for a game℄and I think "exclusive" means that if they want to play a game of football then it is exclusive while they play that game of football. Personally, I have very great faith in local authorities; and, so far, I have not heard of any objection throughout the country as to the misuse of the powers they already have. But I will give Lord Silkin an undertaking to consider the point that he has raised, and also to see whether we can meet the point that he has made: that the public shall have the use of the ground when it is not being used by the club.
LORD SILKIN: It was not quite that. I do not necessarily mean that. I take the point that it may not always be convenient; but what I mean is that you do not part with the whole of your recreational land to clubs, but leave some of it for the general public. However, I think we can talk this thing over.
LORD BRECON: May I just add that it is limited by subsection (3)?
LORD SILKIN: I do not think it is.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 48 agreed to.
Clause 49 [Parking places in open spaces and playing fields]:
4.8 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD LORD CONESFORD moved to leave out Clause 49. The noble Lord said: We now come to the clause which enables a local authority, subject to the provisions of the clause, to take over one-eighth of the total area, or one acre, whichever shall be the less, of an open space and to use it as a parking place for relieving the congestion of traffic in the area. In the debate on Second Reading on November 24 last year, I attacked this clause and gave notice that immediately the Bill received its Second Reading I should table an Amendment to leave out the clause. I tabled my Amendment that same day. During that debate, I was supported in every quarter of the House, most notably by my noble friend Lord Luke. I trust that in the same way this afternoon I shall be supported in every quarter. I am glad to see that my Amendment is supported by the noble Lord. Lord Silkin, and others.
I believe that this clause is as offensive to informed public opinion as it certainly is to the amenity societies most concerned. At the risk of repeating arguments already known to the Committee, may I briefly set out the case against the clause, reserving any further argument until I hear the Minister's reply? It simply is not true to say that this clause does no more than make general a provision already to be found in many local Acts; that it is, in effect, the model clause No. 82 in the volume which any noble Lord can obtain in the Printed Paper Office.
Provisions on the lines of the model clause have been incorporated in a certain number of Statutes. I mentioned two, I think, in my speech on Second Reading℄the Oldham Corporation Act, 1960, Section 55; the Southend Corporation Act, 1960, Section 43, I think it was; and there are some others. But there are the greatest differences between the model clause and what has been adopted in existing Statutes on the one hand, and what is now proposed in this measure on the other. And those differences are not wholly accounted for by the Minister's explanation℄though I agree that that has some weight℄that in making a power general by legislation, it is necessary to provide for rather
34
wider powers than would be given in legislating for any individual local authority. But the model clause says nothing whatever about land provided as playing fields under Section 4 of the Physical Training and Recreation Act, 1937. The model clause is confined to parks, pleasure-grounds and open spaces provided by the corporation in question, or under their control. And the model clause contains nothing even remotely resembling subsection (6) of Clause 49, about which I may say a little more later.
Even if the clause we are considering did not go beyond what many local authorities already have power to do under local Acts, there would still remain an enormous difference between powers enjoyed in a particular case by the deliberate decision of both Houses of Parliament, after hearing relevant evidence, and powers which may be exercised without any Parliamentary control of any kind. In every Private Act in which any provision on the lines of this clause has been provided, the section has been considered by the Private Bill Committees of both Houses of Parliament, who deal so carefully with such private legislation. But if this Clause 49 is not left out, then, hereafter, wider powers than are enjoyed by any local authority will be exercisable without any Parliamentary control of any kind whatsoever.
What is the purpose for which these portions of open spaces and playing fields can be taken over? They can be taken over for the purposes of Section 81 of the Road Traffic Act, 1960. That section empowers local authorities outside London to provide parking spaces for the purpose of relieving or preventing the congestion of traffic. In other words, to relieve traffic in the area it will be possible, for the first time, for any local authority to take a portion of a park, playing field or open space. I think the Minister mentioned on the last occasion that Section 81 of the Road Traffic Act, 1960, was itself a consolidating section. I agree with him. Some of the powers in that section had existed long before. What is wholly unacceptable is the suggestion that these powers should be applied to parks and open spaces. In my respectful submission to the Committee, it would be possible to justify a provision on these lines if, and

35
only if, when a parking space ought to be provided in a congested city, the first place to which the local authority should look were an existing park, open space or playground. I would suggest that not merely is that not the first place where they should look for their parking space: it is the very last place.
That point, I am glad to say, was taken in a leading article in The Times of last Tuesday, which many noble Lords may have seen, and which concluded in this way:
"The argument that the last space we can spare is our already inadequate fund of public parkland is unanswerable".
I respectfully agree. It is the last place, as I say, to which a local authority, anxious to serve the public, should look when seeking a place in order to relieve traffic congestion. While it is the last place to which they should look, the fact is that, if we are so foolish as not to delete this clause, the parks will be the first place to which in fact they will look; because this parking space they will be able to secure without paying compensation. They will be able to secure it cheaply. If they seek, in a congested area, to obtain a space for a garage or off-street parking, they may have to pay heavily for it; but if they are allowed to invade the parks and playgrounds, that will provide a very cheap alternative. They will merely be taking away the land from the public, who enjoy the open spaces, without expense.
That brings me to the so-called safeguards. It is said that there is a safeguard in the decision of the local authority, which must respect public opinion. Then there is the provision for a local inquiry; and, finally, there is the Minister's sanction. I will say a word about those safeguards in a minute. But one thing is quite certain: that those safeguards, individually or collectively, are pitifully inadequate compared with the safeguards that are to be swept away. May I remind the Committee of the provisions of subsection (6) of the clause? I commented on them luring the debate on Second Reading, and so did the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. Let me read it again:
"The powers given by this section may be exercised notwithstanding anything in section ten of the Open Spaces Act, 1906, or in any other enactment, whether in any public, local or private Act, which provides for the use or
36
enjoyment of any open space or playing field for recreation or any similar purpose".
That means to say that all restrictions in existing Acts are to be swept away. The local authority will be able to take over the open space to relieve traffic congestion in the area, not only without any Parliamentary control whatsoever over such taking over, but with power to override everything in the Statutes which so far provides for the contrary.
Since Section 10 of the Open Spaces Act, 1906, has been mentioned, may I again remind the Committee of what the words of the Section are? Under Section 10 of the Act a local authority had to hold and administer the open spaces:
"in trust to allow, and with a view to, the enjoyment thereof by the public as an open space within the meaning of the Act and under proper control and regulation and for no other purpose."
That is what the Parliament of 1906, in its wisdom, provided. Under that general Statute, which in some respects was a consolidating Statute, many open spaces previously in private hands or in the hands of charities were transferred to local authorities, I believe, as all parties then thought, for greater security. I doubt if anybody foresaw, in 1906, that rather more than half a century later it would be proposed to sweep this safeguard aside and to provide that, without any Parliamentary control, a portion of a park can be taken to provide parking space to relieve traffic congestion in the area.
If open spaces can be invaded and desecrated so cheaply, while to acquire garages where they ought to be acquired remains expensive, of course, many local authorities will decide, with perfect bona fides, to use these powers for invading their parks and open spaces. Then there can be a local inquiry. But what evidence can be brought against them? The local authority may say, with perfect truth, that there is a need for providing parking space and Parliament has said that this is a proper use of the parks, subject to this limitation. On what ground can the Minister be expected to say, "No"? I have no doubt whatever that if we accepted this clause, the Minister, whoever he was and to whatever Party he belonged, would exercise his power carefully and honestly, but what would that power

37
be? A local authority would have established their bona fide view that there was a need, and Parliament would have said that this was a proper use of their parks. Sometimes, no doubt, the local inquiry would reveal a difference in opinion about the policy of whether space should be taken, but the real objection to the taking over would be the objection that I am voicing to your Lordships this afternoon, that our parks and open spaces are precious. The past Statutes which protect them are wise and we should be foolish if we swept them away.
There is one final reason why I have cause to hope that the Government will not refuse to bow to the wishes of the Committee this afternoon. I expected that the speech which I am now making would have had to be made last Tuesday when, I may say, I had many more friends in the House who are unable to he here to-day and who would certainly have supported me. But something was said in the course of that debate which I was very glad to hear. My noble friend Lord Newton, in resisting some Amendments of the noble Earl, Lord Gains-borough, which he thought had a good deal to be said for them, used these words [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 227 (No. 28), col. 1183]:
"The two Amendments are therefore contrary to the intention of the Bill as a whole. which is to enact well-precedented local provisions which are either non-controversial or, at any rate, not too controversial."
I think that what is said in the course of this debate will satisfy Her Majesty's Government beyond a doubt that this clause is extremely controversial. I beg to move.
Amendment moved℄
Leave out Clause 49.℄(Lord Conesford.)
4.25 p.m.
LORD LUKE: My Lords, I should like to say a few words on this clause. I was one of those who spoke on the Second Reading and I will not repeat word for word what I said on that occasion, but I think it is an objectionable clause, and it could rightly be called retrograde. As I said on the former occasion, it boils down to this: whether we are going to continue a policy of trying to find land for recreation and children's playgrounds, or whether we are going progressively to pass over this
38
sort of land for car parks. In view of what was said on Second Reading, I had hoped that we might have something from Her Majesty's Government to meet some of the points that were made then. Perhaps I may repeat, here and now, that this is a great encouragement to local authorities to take this land instead of taking other land for their purposes, just ℄as the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, has said℄because it is so easy. Recreational land has been obtained with great difficulty and laid out at great cost and it is doing a good job as it. I consider it a great pity that any of it should be taken for another purpose,
I wish that the Government would encourage local authorities to use a little more imagination over this question. I have already made a plea for a wider definition of open spaces. I am sure that other spaces are available, though perhaps not so easily available, for car parking arrangements and which could be used before taking land that is now being used for recreation. I had hoped that there might have been more of a joint approach over this matter, recognising that there is still a great need for recreational spaces. It is not as if all our needs were in one direction. There should be a joint approach to this matter. I am well aware that land for any purpose is difficult to find, but there should be a joint approach towards obtaining land that can be used as an open space. perhaps some for parking cars and the the rest for additional recreation. But I object strongly to the principle which now seems to be Government policy, that land at present being used for recreation should be used for an entirely different purpose.
Why should the taking of this land be made easier for local authorities? It is just opening the door to local authorities who have not thought about it yet. I am well aware that 300 local authorities, or one quarter of the total, have already taken action. I think that that in itself is regrettable, and it is not a reason at all for saying that the rest should be able to do it. But the Government are now opening the door to 1,400 other local authorities to do just this very thing. Those powers that have already been taken were obtained under a number of private Acts and before the pressure on parking space became so great. I end by saying that there are

39
few new spaces for children and adults, without taking away even one-eighth of what exist already. I should like to support all that the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, has said and to vote in favour of the deletion of this clause.
LORD BIRKETT: I should like to say a few words in support of the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, and the exclusion of this clause from the Bill. I am conscious that at this stage, after the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, it is difficult to add anything very new to the argument, and although there are some assemblies where it is necessary to repeat something time and time again in order that the facts may finally sink in, I do not think this Committee is quite in that category. I merely say that for the reason that, should I repeat somehting that has already been said, in the circumstances, I hope the Committee will be indulgent and forgive me.
My mind is coloured by something said on the last Amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. For many years I was the Chairman of the Standing Committee on National Parks that agitated, in season and out of season, for the creation of national parks, and we were delighted beyond measure when the Labour Government of the day brought in the National Parks Bill in 1949. When Lord Silkin said this afternoon that it was well to remember the struggles which had taken place to provide the public parks and the public open spaces, I felt that that was a note which might well appeal to noble Lords in every part of this Committee. In particular, when the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, referred to Section 10 of the Open Spaces Act, 1906, I thought how these great boons, fought for so earnestly and for so many years, can so quickly and easily be taken away. This Bill expressly cites Section 10 of the Act of 1906, as the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, pointed out, and that section is framed in those important words:
"Open spaces in trust for the enjoyment of the public and for no other purpose."
The framers of that Bill would certainly be profoundly astonished to think that that which was couched in that very expressive and impressive language should, in a clause of this nature in the
40
Public Health Bill, just be cast on one side.
When it is said: "Well, we are taking only one acre or one-eighth of a public park", I think of that line of Milton:
" Besides what the grim wolf with privy paw Daily devours apace and nothing said."
If you take your acre to-day, what is to prevent you from taking your acre again to-morrow? You have the perfect example, I think, in this very Bill, because in 1906 nobody would have conceived that land that was
"in trust for the enjoyment of the public and for no other purpose"
one day would be just swept away. What guarantee is there, if it be said: We will let you have this little piece; we will let the grim bad wolf "℄I hope it does not apply personally to anybody℄"have the one acre", that there will not come a moment when it is said: Now we will take another acre "?
I should like to make this quite clear. In those days about which I spoke, when we agitated for national parks, I hope I always tried to see the other side to the amenity side. The great cities needed water; and one was conscious that when, for example, in the Lake District they made their proposals to raise the level of Ennerdale Water or Hawes Water, the great cities had fo have water from somewhere. So to-day, while I think this Committee would do well to keep in mind the great problem that faces urban authorities in finding parking space for cars℄it is, I fully agree, one of the most urgent and most pressing problems which urban local authorities, in particular, have to meet℄yet still I feel, even with that knowledge, that this is not the way to meet it. To take public land of which we have far too little, as was quoted by the noble Lord. Lord Conesford, to ameliorate or to mitigate in some way the difficulty of parking is, in the submission which I make to this Committee, utterly wrong and improper.
I am bound to add this. I do not know quite what the answer of the Government is going to be about this matter. For my part, I cannot quite see that any amendment of this particular clause could be really acceptable. It seems to me to be one of those cases

41
where you say you will give the power or you will not; it is as clear-cut as that. I would suggest, on all the facts of this case, that the proper answer is that we will not.
The other thing I should like to say is this. The clause itself contains all those safeguards which are normally to be met in a clause of this kind: the proposals must be made public; the Minister, if he thinks tit, can hold an inquiry, and so on. I think that those matters in a Bill of this kind are really quite illusory. Let us envisage this. All the steps have been taken and the Minister has said: "You may have your local public inquiry." There you are at the inquiry. What do you say? Those who represent the local authority get up and say, quite rightly" Our need is really desperate. One of the most pressing problems that we have to face is this question of providing parking space." And they will add: "Parliament, in its wisdom, has given the power to take land for this purpose." That is what will be said. They will bring their facts and those facts will not be able to be refuted; they cannot be contested. There is the problem.
The answer from the other side is the answer that I am making here before the Committee: Your problem is recognised. We have sympathy with your problem, but this is not the way to solve it." Then those who are presenting the case at the inquiry would say, would they not, "Parliament has given this power and would not have done so unless it was to be exercised. Here we come at this inquiry and put before you our dilemma and our needs, and we ask you to exercise the power that Parliament has given". It would be a difficult thing for any inquiry, whoever presided over it, to say: "We do not think this power ought to be exercised." Equally, it would be difficult for the Minister, when it comes before him, to say: "Despite your need, and despite the gravity of the problem, you: shall not have the land."
So I think, with great respect to the arguments which may be used on the other side, that this is a case where the Committee must make up their mind whether they are ready to give this power or whether they are not, with the consciousness that once having given the
42
power we cast away some portion of that heritage of our open spaces which we ought, as lovers of the country, to do our utmost to preserve.
4.40 p.m.
LORD SALTOUN: I wish to say a few words in support of my noble friend's Amendment. I would start by saying that the circumstances of different places are so various that I think a wide, general power of this kind must be always very dangerous. I am acquainted with a locality where it is quite a common thing for the local proprietors, in order to help the local authority, to make land available for a public open space for children's playgrounds, or something like that, at a purely nominal sum. Sometimes it happens that in the course of time a new housing centre is built, and it becomes essential for the local authority to resume that land and to use it for building. The practice in this locality, at any rate, is that they re-convey the land to the proprietor in question. They probably get another piece of land a little later, and the land is then sold for building de novo. But the whole system goes on with great friendliness between the local authority and the proprietors, because it is quite understood how the thing will be treated. If a public open space, children's playground or whatever it might be, were taken over for parking under the powers conveyed in this Bill. I think it would poison that happy relationship.
Let me take another case. I am a trustee for a public open space which has been enjoyed since the seventeenth century under a deed of trust. It is highly valued by the whole of the community. It is a children's playground, and it is used for every kind of diversion. Recently, owing to the parking difficulties, I have had every sort and kind of pressure put upon me to give off a little portion of this valuable public open space for parking. I did my best. I allowed the trustees to grant a lease for ten years, in the hope that circumstances would change. But the pressure is so strong that it is practically irresistible, and the worst of it is that it is nearly always in a place which impairs the whole use of the land. I entirely agree with what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Birkett, has said, and I shall support the Amendment of my noble friend.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: The places in which the demand for parking accommodation is greatest are, of course, the centres of cities, and it is precisely there that every assault on open space ought to be safeguarded. It has been the policy of Parliament, no matter what Party was in power, for several centuries to safeguard public open spaces and to prevent their being used for purposes other than the general enjoyment of the public. There have been cases in which public open spaces, or parts of them, have been diverted to other uses. In such cases it has been the practice of Parliament, in giving permission for that purpose, to require an equal amount of open space to be provided somewhere else. But there is no such provision in the clause which we have in front of us, and therefore the danger is quite acute that this practice will be adopted generally as an easy means of meeting the demand for parking spaces.
Curiously enough, this clause appears to be quite inconsistent with what I understand from recent speeches to be the policy of the Minister of Transport, because he has said quite clearly that people who want to park motor cars in the centre of cities ought to pay a full commercial price for it, and that that fact has to be borne in mind in the policy of getting motor cars off the public streets and parked elsewhere. But if that is the policy, it is perfectly clear that it ought to be the duty of the local authority, if it is going to provide parking spaces, to acquire other land for it, and not to use public parks and open spaces for the purpose, and that it should then charge a proper price in order to obtain a commercial return upon its expenditure. This clause is contradicting entirely the policy which appears to have been enunciated℄in my opinion, properly and justly℄by the Minister of Transport. I sincerely hope that the Government will accede to the arguments which have been put before the Committee this afternoon, and will agree to the deletion of this clause.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I have naturally listened with great attention and respect to the remarks of noble Lords who have contributed to this discussion. While I am under the influence of the advocacy of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Birkett, I am not sure that my judgment
44
is quite what it should be. My doubts could be based on a number of arguments, and I think I ought to put them on record.
In the first place, of course, we know that local authorities make mistakes; and so, I believe (although I should not say it), does Parliament from time to time. But it is a great matter of public policy that local communities should be allowed to manage their own affairs, within limits and subject to proper safeguards, and that they should do so by means of powers conferred by Statute. What this Amendment, in substance, does is to say that this matter of open spaces is a matter of such overriding importance that local authorities are not to be allowed to manage their own affairs, even though what they do has the support of the Minister of Housing, and even though a public local inquiry has pronounced in their favour, unless of course they go to Parliament℄as I think 300 local authorities in one form or another have done℄and obtain the powers by local or private Act, which is an expensive and difficult procedure. Then, of course, they may do it.
Notwithstanding the fact that 300 local authorities have obtained these special powers by this procedure, I understand that there has been remarkably little complaint about the way in which those powers have been used. One would have expected that, had the clause involved the disastrous consequences suggested by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cones-ford, in the exercise of these powers a certain amount of criticism would have been aroused. But I understand that this has not been so. I recognise, of course, as my noble and learned friend pointed out℄as he always does with great acuteness℄that to grant a general power to local authorities is different in principle from the procedure followed in the case of a Private Bill, whereby local authorities go to Parliament and argue the case on its specific merits; I think that point has a certain validity.
I was a little surprised to hear so little attention paid to the effect of local public opinion, which on the whole, I think, is something to be trusted in things of this kind, and also surprised to hear so little weight attached to the value of local public inquiries and the opinion of the Minister, particularly in this case.

45
I have heard, and indeed, having lived a humbler life at the Bar than the noble and learned Lord on the Cross-Benches, have attended in various capacities, numbers of public local inquiries; and obviously where the Minister concerned is the Minister of the Department with a policy departmental interest in favour of a positive answer, one has a certain number of misgivings, which we try to meet one way or another by various safeguards and procedures which we discuss in Parliament from time to time. But in the present case, of course, the Ministry with the policy interest are the Ministry of Transport, and the Ministry who would give or withhold their consent are the Ministry of Housing, whose policy interest must be towards the preservation of an open space. I should have thought, bearing in mind that the statutory interest and departmental interest of the Ministry concerned would have been in favour of the preservation of an open space, that one should not lightly disregard that as a safeguard.
In those circumstances, I should have thought that the case for the Amendment was extremely doubtful. But I do bear in mind what my noble and learned friend, Lord Conesford, said, I think towards the conclusion of his remarks. It certainly is the intention of my right honourable friend that this Bill should be a Bill which includes not merely clauses which are right but clauses which are, at any rate to some extent, uncontroversial. I hope that this candid admission which was made by my noble friend at the last sitting at which this Bill was discussed in Committee will not be read too closely against me on any other Amendments which we may from time to time have to resist for the exclusion of particular clauses; otherwise we may have remarkably little left.
But I have listened very carefully to all the arguments presented, and I hope the Committee will think that, on the whole, I act wisely if, notwithstanding my own doubts, to which I have given candid expression, I say on behalf of the Government that I will accept the exclusion of this clause, provided that it is distinctly understood that I am not binding my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport in any private legislation which may subsequently be put forward by local authorities and also that my words about the desire of the
46
Government not to include controversial clauses will not be taken down and used too much in evidence against me.
LORD CONESFORD: It only remains for me to thank my noble friend for what he has done and to say that I think that the reputation for wisdom of Her Majesty's Government will grow as a result of his action.
Clause 50 [Closing of parks and pleasure-grounds]:
4.55 p.m.
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved to leave out Clause 50. The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name. This clause permits the closing of parks and pleasure grounds for a limited period from time to time for the purpose of carrying on a show or other special purposes. I think that the practice of closing parks for short periods has been established in the past, although, so far as I know, there is no model clause dealing with this particular subject and it cannot be said that there are large numbers of local authorities which have Private Acts for the purpose. My objection to the clause is not to the principle. Again, I think there may be cases where it would be right to make preparations for holding a show in a park.
My objection is on two grounds: first, that it goes much too far, because it enables one-quarter of the total area of open spaces within the area of a local authority to be closed at one time, and I think that that is quite an inordinate amount to take; secondly, that it may be closed for a consecutive period of six days rather than four, as at present. And in computing any such period of six consecutive days,
"a Saturday and the following Monday shall be regarded as consecutive days".
So in practice one might get more than six days during which the ground is closed. I should be quite content if the noble Lord could give me an assurance similar to the one he gave me on the Amendment I moved earlier; namely, that he will look at the details of this clause again, see whether he does not agree that one-quarter is too much to close down at any one time, whether the six days are really necessary, and

47
whether he would not be content with what is the present practice. I beg to move.
Amendment moved℄
Leave out Clause 50.℄(Lord Silkin.)
LORD CONESFORD: May I support what the noble Lord has just said on one point on which I, in common with other noble Lords, have heard from the Commons, Open Spaces and Footpaths Preservation Society? They agree with his criticism that one-quarter is too great, and they suggest that a better figure would be one-eighth.
LORD BRECON: I shall be very happy to give the assurance for which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has asked. I shall look once again at the particular parts of this clause to which he has referred. I think the figure of one-quarter has been given to meet certain needs, if it is a large function or something of that description, and the idea of increasing it from four days to six days was really for the purpose of having a function for a full week. I think the only idea was to enable the local authorities to fit in their programme, or whatever entertainment they have, more easily with the week, and perhaps to have larger functions. But I am happy to give an assurance to look at the particular parts of this clause.
LORD SILKIN: With that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 50 agreed to.
Clause 51 agreed to.
Clause 52 [Charges in cases exempted under s. 4 of Act of 1937]:
LORD JESSEL LORD JESSEL moved, in subsection (2) after "such" [charges] to insert "reasonable". The noble Lord said: Clause 52 empowers local authorities to specify charges in respect of those trade effluents which so far have been exempt from charges℄that is, effluents which were lawfully discharged prior to March, 1937. As these charges are to be imposed for the first time and they are old-established cases, I suggest that it is essential they should be reasonable in addition to being specified. By that I mean sufficiently described as to make them fully understandable. Perhaps I
48
can give an example of what I consider reasonable and unreasonable. I think it is unreasonable to ask a user to pre-treat an effluent if it is impossibly expensive, and I think it would be reasonable for a new user, if he were asked by the local authority to contribute to standing charges for bringing a sewage works up to date, to be told exactly how his contribution was arrived at. I hope the Minister will be able to put in this little word for me. I beg to move.
Amendment moved℄
Page 40, line 42, after (" such ") insert (" reasonable ").℄(Lord Jessel.)
LORD BRECON: This matter has been looked at very carefully. It is felt that the insertion here is really unnecessary. The subsection lays down a basis on which charges can be specified for exempted effluents, and these are referable to the Minister on appeal. It goes without saying that the Minister will apply the test of reasonableness. It may, perhaps, be argued that the word, although unnecessary, does no harm, but that is not certain. There may be unfortunate implications if it is inserted here and omitted from other provisions in the Bill conferring powers on local authorities. It will be a natural presumption that there is a reason for such a difference, and the result would, to say the least, be rather confusing. I think it is better to avoid these complications, and I am afraid that the Government cannot accept this Amendment.
LORD JESSEL: I personally cannot see any harm in putting the word in the Bill, but at this stage I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.3 p.m.
LORD JESSEL: Under the Act of 1937 a charge when specified in a consent granted by local authority for the discharge of a particular trade effluent could not be varied. This Bill seeks to remove this anomaly. But I suggest that the provisions of Clause 52 (2) go too far the other way and empower the local authority from time to time to revise charges. I think it would be unreasonable for a local authority, having given a direction on charges for an effluent previously exempted, suddenly to give another direction almost immediately

49
afterwards. In the Manchester Corporation Act, 1956, power was given to vary the otherwise fixed and specified charges, provided that there was a three year interval. I am told that this precedent℄I should say sound precedent "℄is doing extremely well in Manchester, and I suggest that three years is a fair period for the charge to operate without revision. I beg to move.
Amendment moved℄
Page 41, line 3, after (" time ") insert (" not being less than three years from the date of the last direction ").℄(Lord Jessel.)
LORD BRECON: The objects of this Amendment and those which Lord Jessel will move to Clause 57 (1) are to provide a minimum period of three years, during which a local authority would be prevented from varying e Charges they may have imposed on exempted effluents under this clause, and varying the conditions including charges which they may have attached to their consents and which they are now being given power to vary under Clause 57 (1). The noble Lord will no doubt claim that a trader who is to be subjected to the new charges or the variations in conditions permitted in these two clauses should at least have some assurance that changes will not be made to often.
On the other hand, the local authorities have their point of view, namely, that the charges and the other conditions, which they are now being allowed to impose and vary, must be reasonably variable as circumstances may alter in the future. It is not altogether easy to reconcile these different points of view. I understand that the Federation of British Industries are having some discussions with some of the representatives of local authorities and that something may be agreed between them. If that is so, I have no doubt it may well be acceptable also to my right honourable friend and to Parliament. But in the meantime perhaps the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment, on the understanding that some provision of this kind may be inserted at a later stage. In any event, these Amendments, to be consistent, would need some extension. Clause 54 gives the local authority another power to vary its directions, and logically that power should be limited in the same way.
LORD JESSEL: I thank the noble Lord for his reply, and naturally, in view
50
of his assurances, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.7 p.m.
LORD HAWKE LORD HAWKE moved to add to subsection (2):
"provided that the local authority, in a direction specifying charges under this subsection, shall have regard either to the value of the by-products recovered at the sewage works of the authority or to the cost of recovering the by-products from that particular trade effluent."
The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Barnby, who much regrets that he is unable to be in England at the moment, I beg leave to move his Amendment. In 1956 there was appointed a sub-committee to the Central Advisory Water Committee, to consider, among other things, the various anomalies arising out of the laws regarding the discharge of trade effluents into local authority sewers. The Committee agreed that it was advisable that all these effluents should go into the local sewers but that the existing system, that those who acquired a right to do so before 1937 should put the stuff in free whereas those who only came on the scene after 1937 had to pay, was an anomaly, and they recommended that all should pay. This clause of the Bill is an attempt to carry out their recommendation. In fact, they recommended that local authorities should be authorised to make reasonable charges℄note the word "reasonable"℄for treating trade effluent and to vary these charges having regard to the cost of such treatment. Clause 52 is presumably intended to implement this recommendation. But the local authorities are instructed in respect of charges to have regard only to any additional expense incurred or likely to be incurred.
Under the former system, the Trade Premises Act, 1937, recognised that it was most difficult to cover in one general Statute the wide variations in the nature and composition of trade effluents and the method of treatment, and it was left to the local authorities to administer the provisions of the Act through bylaws which had to be submitted to the Minister for approval after they had been discussed with designated bodies of traders within the area of the local authority. So that any charges that were

51
going to be levied there quite clearly arose only as the result of by-laws already discussed between the local authority and the people who knew all about the effluent. In this case, that provision is not in this Bill; the local authorities are the sole arbiters of the expense incurred, and the only redress a trader has is an appeal to the Minister as to the reasonableness or not of the charge in any particular case.
This is a cumbersome and most irksome procedure, particularly for a small firm which never particularly likes to get involved in appeals to a Minister, and so on. These provisions are particularly disquieting to the wool textile industry of the West Riding of Yorkshire. As your Lordships know, "Where there's muck, there's money", and the effluents discharged into the sewers of the local authorities of the West Riding contain a lot of very valuable by-products, such as lanoline, fertilisers and so on, and some of these I understand get worked up into most valuable products such as ladies' face cream and the like. The wool textile industry maintain that in view of the great value of these by-products it is only right that, when charges come to be calculated for receiving their effluent into sewers, due regard should be had to the exceedingly valuable content of this effluent which is extracted by the local authorities.
It seems a reasonable point, and the industry suggest, therefore, that in determining the expense incurred, or likely to be incurred, the local authority shall take into account either the receipts from the sales of the by-products or the cost attributable solely to the recovery of these by-products. The one would work out to the advantage of the local authority if they were running the byproduct business at a loss, and the other if they were running it at a profit. As the Bill stands, we believe that it does not carry out the recommendations of the Armer Committee to their full extent. The purpose of this Amendment is to implement the full recommendations of that Committee. I beg to move.
Amendment proposed℄
Page 41, line 4, at end insert the said proviso. ℄(Lord Hawke.)
LORD BRECON: This Amendment is presumably meant to ensure that a local
52
authority in fixing their charges shall take account of the value of the byproduct they can recover from whatever it is made into. There is nothing wrong with this in principle, but it is really unnecessary, as Clauses 52 and 56 already do what is necessary and, as now drafted, provide that a local authority in fixing charges shall take into account besides the nature of the effluent
"any additional expense incurred or likely to be incurred."
That expense is unquestionably net expense: that is to say, the revenue from effluent should be set off against the expenditure. If a local authority were so unreasonable as to ignore a factor of this kind, the Minister, on appeal, would have to put that right.
The noble Lord, Lord Hawke, is quite right that the number of places where there is something valuable in the effluent is very small; but it does occur in the wool textile industry. From the information I have, I believe there are only three places in the whole of the country where this occurs. It is not a big question, and there are only a handful of cases. We believe the Bill makes sufficient provision for them. Apart from these objections, the Amendments are slightly defective in drafting, too. For those reasons Her Majesty's Government are not prepared to accept this Amendment.
LORD HAWKE: I thank my noble friend for his explanation, and naturally we shall value his assurance that "any additional expense" means net expenditure; but may I ask whether, if we come forward at the next stage of the Bill with an Amendment to insert the word "net", the noble Lord will accept it?
LORD BRECON: When the noble Lord brings it forward I will certainly look at it.
LORD HAWKE: I shall have to consider the whole question. At this stage I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD JESSEL: This Amendment should be read in conjunction with Amendment No. 75. I do not mind subsection (8) of Clause 52, but my contention is that it does not go far enough. I have the Armer Committee to support me there, because they stated that sufficient grounds had not been shown for

53
giving statutory authority to abrogate contracts between traders and local authorities. Subsection (8) deals only with agreements affecting previously exempt effluents℄that is, effluents discharged prior to March, 1937; so we have a gap between that date and the coming into force of the Act resulting from this Bill. I believe that that gap should be looked after, so that agreements shall not be broken, and I believe my Amendment No. 75 does that. It should also be remembered that while some of the agreements contain a provision for charges, in some cases they do not. But here the trader has usually given some valuable consideration℄say, the installation of pre-treatment plant, and generally better control of his effluent. I beg to move.
Amendment proposed℄
Page 41, line 35, leave out subsection (8).℄(Lord Jessel.)
LORD BRECON: The Armer Report in paragraph 113, in recommending that charges should be imposed on "exempted" effluents, made an exception for effluents
"where there is a contract between the local authority and the trader".
Subsection (8) of Clause 52 accordingly provides that no Charges shall be payable under the clause where charges are already payable under an agreement. I take it that the Amendment is to be read with the new clause to which the noble Lord has just referred, which he wishes to insert after Clause 67. The united objective of those Amendments is presumably to ensure that the charging powers conferred by the Bill are not to be available where there is any kind of agreement℄that is, without the qualification in Clause 52 (8).
Evidently, the noble Lord thinks the subsection is not wide enough, but he can be assured that it was framed with care to include the genuine agreements and to exclude what the sub-committee had not got in mind. The case in which no charges can be imposed under the clause is that in which, under an agreement between local authority and trader, charges are payable to the local authority for the discharge of trade effluents for any period. That is unquestionably what the sub-committee meant℄that a trader who had already covenanted to pay a
54
charge for an exempted effluent should not be disturbed. The whole of Clause 52, of course, is dealing with exempted effluent.
It was not enough to say there shall be no new charges where there is any agreement. There are "agreements" between traders and local authorities in which the two parties agree as a matter of mutual convenience that a certain volume was in fact the maximum discharged on any one day during the twelve months before the Act of 1937, and that a certain rate was the highest rate of discharge during that period. These factors are relevant to determining the extent of the exemption under Section 4 of the Act of 1937. No payment is made. It is essentially an agreement on facts that have been in dispute. It is for these reasons that I am unable to accept the Amendment put down by the noble Lord.
LORD JESSEL: It is a complicated subject. I think I am convinced by my noble friend's answer, but I am not quite sure. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 52 agreed to.
Clause 53 agreed to.
Clause 54 [Installation of inspection chambers and meters on exempted premises]:
5.20 p.m.
LORD JESSEL: Here, again, I want to insert the word "reasonably", but for a very different reason. The point of my Amendment is that meters are not the only way in which the quantity of trade effluent can be measured. In practice, the volume of trade effluent may often, with sufficient accuracy, be calculated from the volume of water supplied to premises. The wholesale use of meters would be a burden in some cases, and the Amendment is designed to permit alternative procedure. I beg to move.
Amendment moved℄
Page 42, line 21, before (" be ") insert (" reasonably ").℄(Lord Jessel.)
LORD BRECON: I should like to tell the noble Lord, Lord Jessel, that I will have a look at the point he has raised on this Amendment.
LORD JESSEL: I am grateful for that assurance, and with the leave of the Committee I will withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 54 agreed to.
Clause 55 agreed to.
Clause 56 [Conditions which may be attached to consents under Act of 1937]:
LORD JESSEL: The opening part of subsection (1) of Clause 56 states that the following matters, on which conditions may be attached in the consent,
"correspond, subject to minor variations, to the matters set out in subsection (1) of the said section five",℄
meaning Section 5 of the Act of 1937. My Amendment refers to paragraph (e) of subsection (1) of Clause 56, which corresponds to paragraph (f) of subsection (1) of Section 5 of the 1937 Act, with the important difference that formerly the power to make charges was in respect of specified charges, whereas the Bill now under consideration omits the word specified". This may be a mistake. Charges for trade effluents are a very complex subject, because the cost of treating and disposing of particular trade effluent when mixed with all the other trade effluents and domestic sewage of the district is difficult to define. There are ways and means of doing this, even though they tend to be rough, practical approximations. I submit that the person who is called upon to pay a charge should be told as plainly as possible what the charge is by its being specified in the condition of consent of the effluent. I beg to move.
Amendment moved℄
Page 44. line 5, after the first (" of ") insert (" specified ").℄(Lord Jessel.)
LORD BRECON: I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Jessel, that these are very complicated matters. But Clause 56 empowers a local authority to attach conditions to consents, one of them being (in Clause 56 (1) (e)) charges for receiving the effluent into the sewer. The insertion of the word "specified" before "charges" seems to serve no useful purpose. Clearly a charge must be specified by the local authority and reviewed by the Minister. I understand that the Federation of British Industries may con-
56
ceivably be disturbed because Clause 56 (1) (c) allows the local authority to make a condition eliminating a specified constituent from the effluent before it enters the sewer℄while the word is not used in subsection (1) (e). But the two paragraphs are not comparable. In subsection (1) (c) the word is needed. The local authority are to specify one constituent amongst many and exclude it. They are not to have a general power to exclude any (unspecified) constituent at any time. But in subsection (1) (e) they cannot make charges without specifying them.
Alternatively, my noble friend, Lord Jessel may have in mind the wording of Section 5 (1)(f) of the Act of 1937:
… byelaws may provide… for requiring … occupiers of trade premises… to pay such charge… as may be specified in the byelaws) "
and the wording of Clause 52 (2) of the Bill:
" A local authority may direct… that… the occupier shall pay such charges… as the local authority may… specify in the direction… "
But the fact that "specified" and "specify" are used in these contexts does not necessarily mean that "specified" is needed in Clause 56 (1) (e); and its omission from Clause 56 (1) (e) does not, in the Minister's view, enlarge the scope of a local authority's charging powers. For these reasons I ask the Committee not to accept the Amendment.
LORD JESSEL: I shall have to read that reply later at my leisure. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD HAWKE: Amendment No. 61A is consequential on the last one I moved, and I move it formally.
Amendment moved℄
Page 44, line 12, at end insert℄
(" Provided that the local authority, in a condition specifying charges under this subsection, shall have regard either to the value of the by-products recovered at the sewage works of the authority or to the cost of recovering the by-products from that particular trade effluent ").℄(Lord Hawke.)
LORD BRECON: For the reasons I gave on the earlier clause, the Government cannot accept this Amendment.
LORD HAWKE: I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD JESSEL: To make sense of this Amendment it should be read in conjunction with Amendments Nos. 73 and 74 which I have on the Marshalled List, especially No. 74 which gives a definition of "approved apparatus". It says:
"Approved apparatus' means apparatus approved by the Minister".
I am told that paragraph (a) of subsection (2) of this Clause 56 is entirely novel, and, while its object is a proper one, the difficulty is that the apparatus referred to is not defined, and there are good grounds for thinking that much of the apparatus the paragraph could be held to cover does not exist. I am also told that a distinction must be made between thorough examination of an effluent, which may be made in a laboratory, and any apparatus to be installed on the effluent plant to achieve the purpose of the paragraph outside a laboratory. Such apparatus is likely to be costly and difficult to maintain and to require the most expert supervision. My Amendment seeks approval of the Minister of Housing and Local Government to any apparatus which the local authority might require. I think that this is a safeguard for the user. I beg to move.
Amendment moved℄
Page 44. line 24, after (" of ") insert ("approved ").℄(Lord Jessel.)
LORD BRECON: The word "approved" is not defined in this clause. But the noble Lord's Amendment to Clause 64 is supplemented. as he said, by a definition that
"'Approved apparatus' means apparatus approved by the Minister".
Presumably the word has the same meaning here. I am not quite clear what is expected of my right honourable friend. Is he in some way to "approve" the apparatus before the local authority impose it as a condition? That could be done only by way of some general published list of "Approved appliances for determining this and that". That might well be confusing. Would it be possible to draw up a list with such clarity that it would be crystal clear to local authority and trader what was "approved" in any particular circumstances℄or whether any-
58
thing was approved at all? It is very doubtful, and who would get the benefit of the doubt? It might not be the trader. The existence of the list might encourage some local authorities to require apparatus in cases where it was not really needed℄and require the trader to appeal to the Minister. And my right honourable friend might be embarrassed in exercising his appellant jurisdiction by misapplied quotations from his own approved list. The purpose of this Amendment is obscure, and that fact can only make it objectionable. I must ask the Committee on this occasion not to accept the Amendment.
LORD JESSEL: If the purpose of the Amendment is obscure I must ask leave of the Committee to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 56 agreed to.
Clause 57 [Power to vary conditions]:
5.30 p.m.
LORD JESSEL: This Amendment is consequential. Clause 57 empowers a local authority to vary any of their conditions of consent, whether for charges, for technical conditions or otherwise. All such conditions were previously unalterable, under the Act of 1937; and, while we agree that variation is reasonable, it is not fair that the local authority, having imposed such conditions, should be empowered to vary them at any time. I should like to refer once more to the Manchester Corporation Act, 1956, about which I have already spoken, and I suggest that, here again, a period of three years would be fair. Having heard my noble friend's answer to my previous Amendment on these lines, I can anticipate what his answer is going to be. I beg to move.
Amendment moved℄
Page 44, line 38, after (" may ") leave out (" at any time ").℄(Lord Jessel.)
LORD BRECON: My noble friend is quite right. Our opinion on this Amendments is the same as that set out in the answer that I gave on Clause 52; and for the reasons then given the Government cannot accept this Amendment.
LORD JESSEL: I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 57 agreed to.
Clause 58 [Appeals under s. 3 of Act of 1937]:
LORD JESSEL: My noble friend Lord Broughshane is unable to be present at the moment, and he has asked me to say on his behalf that he does not wish to move the Amendment in his name.
Clause 58 agreed to.
Clause 59 [Postponement of right to discharge trade effluents in special cases]:
LORD JESSEL: With the permission of the House, I should like to take Amendments Nos. 67 and 68 together. Throughout the Act of 1937 and in Part V of this Bill, the reference is to the "owner or occupier" of trade premises. Subsection (2) of Clause 59 refers solely to the occupier of the trade premises, and it is suggested that this could prejudice the owner's position℄if, for example, the present occupier were to vacate the premises in favour of the owner, and the owner were to be served with a trade effluent notice not to commence discharging a new trade effluent after the present occupier had left the premises. I beg to move.
Amendment moved℄
Page 46, line 29, after first (" the") insert (" owner or ").℄(Lord Jessel.)
LORD BRECON: The purpose of this Amendment is not altogether clear. The noble Lord, Lord Jessel, may have in mind the wording of Section 2 (3), of the Act of 1937, which provides that a local authority may give a direction to "the owner or occupier, as the case may be" of the premises in question℄ that is, to the person who served the trade effluent notice. There may therefore be some merit in the idea behind the Amendment. The proposed wording is not quite satisfactory, but I should be very happy to take this back and to have another look at it.
LORD JESSEL: I am grateful for my noble friend's answer, and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 59 agreed to.
Clause 60 agreed to.
Clause 61 [Power to extend Act of 1937 to other effluents]:
LORD JESSEL: This is an Amendment for clarification, to leave no doubt
60
that the Minister may by order deal in terms, within the clause, only with any effluent which is discharged into public sewers. As the clause relates to the Act of 1937 and Part V of the Bill, it should not be competent for the Minister to make an order for any liquid or other matter which is discharged from any premises other than to public sewers. If your Lordships will look at the Explanatory Memorandum, at the bottom of the first page, you will see that reference is made merely to public sewers. I hope the Minister will clear up this point for me. I beg to move.
Amendment moved℄
Page 48, line 14, after ("premises ") insert ("into public sewers ").℄(Lord Jessel.)
LORD BRECON: This Amendment appears to be purely a drafting Amendment. The Act of 1937 and Part V of the Bill relate only to the discharge of trade effluent into public sewers, and it is not intended that under Clause 61 other discharges℄that is, discharges not made to public sewers℄should be brought under control. I am happy to remove any doubt there may be on that score by accepting the Amendment.
LORD BRECON: This Amendment makes it clear that orders under Clause 61 of the Bill shall be made by statutory instrument. The clause, in effect, empowers the Minister of Housing and Local Government by order to include within the description of "trade effluent" any discharge of waste matter not already covered by the special provisions governing trade effluents. Subsection (5) of the clause also provides that such orders shall become effective only after being approved by a resolution of each House. I beg to move.
Amendment moved℄
Page 48, line 30, at beginning insert (" An order under this section shall be made by statutory instrument and ").℄{Lord Brecon.)
Clause 61, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 62 agreed to.
Clause 63 [Appeals to the Minister]:
LORD BRECON: This Amendment is linked with Amendment No. 72, and it will be convenient, with your Lordships' permission, to consider them both at the

61
same time. Subsection (2) of Clause 63 provides that, where a decision is taken by the Minister on an appeal connected with this part of the Bill, the Minister's decision shall apply as if in all respects it had been the decision of the local authority itself. These two Amendments repair a slight omission in the drafting so as to ensure that this is also the position when the Minister, on an appeal against conditions attached to a consent, imposes a condition as part of his decision on appeal. I beg to move.
Amendment moved℄
Page 50, line 7, after (" given ") insert (", or condition imposed ").℄(Lord Brecon.)
LORD BRECON: I beg to move.
Amendment moved℄
Page 50, line 10, after (" given ") insert (" or, as the case may be. the condition had been imposed ")℄(Lord Brecon.)
Clause 63, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 64 to 67 agreed to.
5.40 p.m.
LORD JESSEL LORD JESSEL moved, after Clause 67 to insert the following new clause:
Unjustified disclosures of Information
".If any person discloses any information relating to any manufacturing process or trade secret used in carrying on any particular undertaking which has been furnished to or obtained by him under this Act or in connection with the execution thereof, he shall, unless the disclosure is made

(a) with the consent of the person carrying on that undertaking; or

(b) in connection with the execution of this Act; or

(c) for the purposes of any legal proceedings arising out of this Act or of any report of such proceedings,

be guilty of an offence."
The noble Lord said: Clause 1 (3) of this Bill states that:
" Part V of the Bill shall he construed as one with the Public Health (Drainage of Trade Premises) Act, 1937…."
Section 14 (2) of the latter Act states that the 1937 Act shall be construed as one with the Public Health Act, 1936, there referred to as the principal Act. Section 287 (5) of the Public Health Act, 1936, will therefore apply to the provisions of this Bill in the same way as it applies, for example, to Section 10 of
62
the 1927 Act. Section 287 (5) reads as follows:
"If any person who in compliance with the provisions of this section or of a warrant issued thereunder is admitted into a factory, workshop or workplace discloses to any person any information obtained by him in the factory, workshop or workplace with regard to any manufacturing process or trade secret, he shall, unless such disclosure was made in the performance of his duty, he liable to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months,"
At first sight, this penalty provision appears to be sufficiently wide to provide an effective deterrent. However, I am told that this is not so, because the information that it protects is limited to that obtained in a factory or workshop, whereas the information required under this Bill, by reason of Section 9 of the 1937 Act and this Bill, would be sent 'by the factory occupier to the local authority, and there might be no necessity for an official of the latter to set foot inside the factory at all.
The new clause which I have moved in my Amendment, which is taken verbatim from Section 26 of the Clean Air Act, 1956, has the following advantages over Section 287 (5) of the Public Health Act, 1936. First of all, it protects information, however obtained. Secondly, an official of the local authority would be subject to the penalty. Thirdly, the information covered by this clause would include details of effluents. Fourthly, the clause contains a clear statement of the offence. And fifthly, any discharger who is injured by an unjustified disclosure may institute proceedings in respect of the contravention under Section 298 of the Public Health Act, 1936. I beg to move.
Amendment moved℄
After Clause 67, insert the following new clause℄
(" Unjustified disclosures of Information
.If any person discloses any information relating to any manufacturing Process or trade secret used in carrying on any particular undertaking which has been furnished to or obtained by him under this Act or in connection with She execution thereof, he shall, unless the disclosure is made

(a) with the consent of the person carrying on that undertaking; or

(b) in connection with the execution of this Act; or

(c) for the purposes of any legal proceedings arising out of this Act or of any report of such proceedings,

be guilty of an offence.") ℄(Lord Jessel.)
LORD BRECON: The proposed new clause is repeating exactly, as the noble Lord has just said, the wording of Section 26 of the Clean Air Act, 1956. Certain provisions about the disclosure of information with regard to manufacturing processes and trade secrets are contained in Section 287 (5) of the Public Health Act, 1936. They will apply to disclosure of any information obtained under the Bill in the circumstances there envisaged ℄namely, the entry upon premises of authorised officers of the authority concerned. The proposed new clause duplicates these provisions, but it goes further in dealing not merely with information which has been "obtained by" any person concerned, but also with information "furnished to" him.
So far as the Bill provides in Clauses 54 (1) (e) and 56 (2) (c) for the making of returns and the giving of certain information by traders to local authorities, I am in sympathy with the suggestion, which has been made on behalf of industry, that some wider power than that contained in Section 287 (5) may be desirable to cover the disclosure of information from these additional sources. On the other hand, I am not quite sure how far the exact provisions of Section 26 of the Clean Air Act are appropriate to this Bill. If the noble Lord were to agree to withdraw his Amendment, I should be glad to consider how we could meet the point of substance with which, as I have said, the Government are in sympathy.
LORD JESSEL: I am grateful to my noble friend for his reply. He obviously appreciates the need for wider powers, and that is really all I want. As he has undertaken to look at this matter again, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 68 and 69 agreed to.
Clause 70 [Power to reduce numbers of pigeons and other birds in built-up areas.]:
On Question, Whether Clause 70 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD SHACKLETON: I do not expect the Government to give an answer now, but I am wondering whether they ought to consider if the powers they are giving to local authorities in this matter
64
are not a little too wide and not quite closet), enough defined. We all realise that removing starlings particularly, or pigeons, from built-up areas is anything but a simple task, and it might be that the process would cause as much nuisance as the birds themselves. However, my main concern is subsection (2), where the authorities merely have to believe that doves or pigeons have no owner. I am wondering how far consideration has been given to the position of carrier pigeons. I do not know whether they are covered by this particular subsection, whether some further precaution is necessary, or whether some cautionary phrase might be added to ensure that an enthusiastic pigeon catcher, who would probably be able to distinguish them, did not in fact do something which might cause serious regret to an owner. I do not know whether the Government can answer me now, but I wanted to make that point.
LORD BRECON: I cannot give an answer to that question straight away, but where there is a large congregation of pigeons I suppose it would be very difficult to say who were the owners. Normally these pigeons will be dealt with, I presume, at the time they roost, which is at night time, and in their homes. However, I will certainly look into this matter.
Clause 71 [Byelaws as to pleasure fairs and roller skating rinks]:
LORD BRECON: Clause 71 of this Bill, which is based on model clause No. 95, gives local authorities the power to make by-laws for the purposes set out in subsection (1). Subsection (6) of the clause gives to local authorities the power of entry conferred in Section 287 of the Public Health Act, 1936. That section sets out the circumstances in which a right of entry may be exercised and deals with safeguards and enforcement. Section 287 (1) (a) provides, however, that a local authority may enter premises to find out whether by-laws are being observed only if it is the duty of the authority to enforce those by-laws. If it is not their duty to enforce them, then the authority have no power to enter the premises under Section 287 of the Act of 1936. The purpose of this Amendment, therefore, is to complete the power of entry intended to be given

65
by subsection (6) of the clause by including these by-laws among those which it is the authority's duty to enforce. I beg to move.
Amendment moved℄
Page 52, line 28, at end insert℄
("and it shall be the duty of the local authority to enforce byelaws made by them under this section.")℄(Lord Brecon.)
LORD SILKIN: If these words are really necessary. I do no: want to say anything against them, but it astonishes me to find local authorities being given the power to make by-laws without also having the power to enforce them. It is the first time that I have come across this form of words in any Statute. Though I do not ask the noble Lord to give me an answer, I should be grateful if I could be informed whether there is any precedent for these words and whether the granting of authority to make by-laws does not ipso facto contain within it power to enforce them.
LORD BRECON: I will certainly meet the noble Lord's request and let him have some information on this point.
LORD AMULREE: This clause gives local authorities powers to make by-laws to control the hours at which pleasure grounds and local skating rinks shall be open and to provide that they are run in a decent and sanitary manner. The clause gives a long list of the various entertainments which are to be covered by the clause but does not include bowling alleys. They are of comparatively new appearance, from America. There is nothing at all to suggest that they are not properly run and operated, and there is no objection to them at all, but I think it would be simpler to make the by-laws cover bowling alleys as well as the other varying forms of entertainment are covered. I beg to move.
Amendment moved℄
Page. 53, line 9, after (" galleries ") insert (", bowling alleys ")℄(Lord Amulree.)
LORD BRECON: I am convinced by what the noble Lord has said, and am prepared to accept the Amendment.
LORD BURDEN: This Amendment, if carried, would permit a local authority to make by-laws or to apply existing
66
by-laws to entertainments where the profits are devoted to a charitable purpose. I am advised that the exemption contained in this subsection is not included in many local Acts, and frankly I do not think that the exemption is necessary or desirable. I admit that there may be difficulties about defining a charitable purpose. Many local authorities let a town hall or park or open space free of charge to organisations who wish to hold a function for a charitable purpose. But I put it to the Minister that if the local authority have no power to apply their existing by-laws or any by-laws made in future to any function or entertainment run for charitable purposes, then these functions will be excluded from the operation of the by-laws. I submit for consideration that local authorities who, in the past, have let premises free of charge to organisations who wish to hold a function for a charitable purpose℄ I know that we did it in East Ham frequently℄may be reluctant to do so, seeing that they will have no power of any sort of control. I beg to move.
Amendment moved℄
Page 53, line 24, leave out from (" days ") to end of line 26.℄(Lord Burden.)
LORD BRECON: The purpose of subsection (4) (d), which the noble Lord seeks to, delete, is to exempt charitable entertainments from the operation of by-laws made under the clause. If the Amendment were accepted, church bazaars and gardens parties, and perhaps other harmless occasions. which we have removed from the main purpose of the clause, would be brought under the by-laws. There are some local Acts at present which do not exempt entertainments for charitable purposes, but all recent local Acts on this point have included exemption similar to this, and it appears in the model clauses. I suggest that the right thing to do is to leave paragraph (d) in the Bill unchanged. For these reasons, I would recommend to the House not to accept the Amendment.
LORD BURDEN: I have no desire to press this Amendment hut I would issue a word of warning to the Minister. He may find that the scope of this exemption is far 'wider than church 'bazaars, garden parties and desirable things of that kind. Many organisations use council premises

67
and town halls free of charge. I suggest that this may not be a good clause in the interests of the promoters of charitable functions. But the responsibility for that is not on my head: it is on the head of the Government. With that warning, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 71, as amended, agreed to.
LORD BRECON LORD BRECON moved, after Clause 71 to insert the following new clause:
Byelaws as to seaside pleasure boats
".℄(1) For the prevention of danger, obstruction. or annoyance to persons bathing in the sea or using the seashore, a local authority may make byelaws℄

(a) regulating the speed of pleasure boats;

(b) regulating the use of pleasure boats so as to prevent their navigation in a dangerous manner or without due care and attention or without reasonable consideration for other persons;

(c) requiring the use of effectual silencers on pleasure boats propelled by internal combustion engines.

(2) The Secretary of State shall be the confirming authority as respect byelaws made under this section.
(3) Any byelaw may be made under this section so as to have effect not only within the district of the local authority but also within a distance seaward from that district not exceeding one thousand yards from low-water mark of ordinary spring tides; and any offence against any such byelaw committed within that distance may be inquired into and dealt with as if it had been committed within the district of the local authority.
(4) If and in so far as any byelaw made under this section is inconsistent with any byelaw made by any dock undertakers, the latter shall prevail."
The noble Lord said: This new clause has been put down because there is a clear need to exercise some form of control over the growing number of motor boats now used. It gives local authorities the power to make by-laws dealing with the speed and use of pleasure boats and the fitting of silencers.
Under Section 231 of the Public Health Act, 1936, local authorities already have power to make by-laws to regulate, among other things, the navigation of vessels used for pleasure purposes in areas set aside for public bathing. The power in the new clause is an extension of the existing provision, but it goes further in a number of ways. It is not confined, for instance, to preventing danger but aims also at reducing annoyance℄that is,
68
from noise. Nor does it have only bathers in contemplation; it is for the benefit of all persons using the seashore. By-laws made under this clause would be confirmed by the Home Secretary, who is also the confirming authority for by-laws made under Section 231 of the Public Health Act, 1936. It is largely because the Home Secretary has received a number of representations on this subject that the clause has now been brought forward.
The clause is based on provisions which are already contained in a number of local Acts. There are, in fact, two model clauses on the point (Nos. 98 and 99), though these have not been followed exactly. Model clause No. 98 deals with the keeping and landing of boats along the seashore, and also provides for a licensing system affecting boats kept on any part of the seashore owned by the local authority. Many boats nowadays are brought by trailer and are not necessarily kept permanently on or near the water, so the provisions about licensing appear unnecessary in relation to the main purpose of this clause. Model Clause 99 makes by-laws effective up to a limit of three miles from low water mark. This distance seems too great for bylaws such as these, though it may be appropriate in other circumstances. The figure of 1,000 yards has been adopted instead. Neither the existing precedents nor this clause would affect boats other than pleasure boats, and it will be noted that subsection (4) saves the application of by-laws made by dock undertakers. I beg to move.
Amendment moved℄
After Clause 71, insert the said new clause.℄(Lord Brecon.)
LORD SHACKLETON: The noble Lord spoke about motor boats: do "pleasure boats" also include yachts℄in particular, catamarans?
LORD BRECON: The clause deals with speed and noise, and I do not think that a yacht travels so fast or makes a noise.
LORD SHACKLETON: But my point is whether the definition is satisfactory. The Amendment speaks about "pleasure boats". The noble Lord perhaps does not know it, but a catamaran moves at a prodigious speed.
LORD BRECON: I saw them at the Motor Show and know about them. If the noble Lord would like me to look at that definition to see if it covers the type of boat that the clause wants to cover℄that is, those that make a terrific noise and those that go at terrific speed ℄I will certainly do so.
LORD SILKIN: There is, in fact, no definition of "pleasure boat" in this clause. In view of what my noble friend has just said, I think it would be desirable to have a clearer definition of what is meant.
LORD BRECON: As I say, I will have a look at. it.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: Does the noble Lord mean to include yachts and small pleasure boats of that nature?
LORD SHACKLETON: That is the point. I do not know that it is at all desirable. I hoped that yachts would not be included; and I have only a slight reservation about catamarans.
6.2 p.m.
LORD AMULREE LORD AMULREE moved, after Clause 71 to insert the following new clause:
Hairdressers and barbers
"℄(1) As from the day on which this section conies into force in the district of a local authority, a person shall not carry on the business of a hairdresser or barber on premises occupied by him unless he is registered by the local authority under this section and the premises are so registered.
(2) On application in that behalf made to the local authority by any person for the registration of the applicant or of any premises, and, if the application relates to premises, on his furnishing them with particulars of the premises, the local authority shall register the applicant or the premises and issue to the applicant a certificate of registration.
(3) The local authority may make byelaws for the purpose of securing℄

(a) the cleanliness of premises registered under this section and of the instruments, towels, materials and equipment used therein, and

(b) the cleanliness of the hairdressers or barbers working in such premises in regard to both themselves and their clothing.

(4) if any person carries on business in contravention of subsection (1) of this section. he shall be liable to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds.
(5) If a person registered under this section contravenes or fails to comply with any byelaw made under subsection (3) of this section, the court by which he is convicted may, instead
70
of or in addition to imposing a fine, order the suspension or cancellation of his registration, and of the registration of the premises in which the offence was committed, if they are occupied by him.
(6) If the court directs that this subsection shall apply, an order for the suspension or cancellation of registration under the last foregoing subsection shall not come into force until the end of the period of fourteen days mentioned in subsection (1) of section eighty-four and subsection (2) of section eighty-seven of the Magistrates' Courts Act, 1952, as the period within which a person convicted may bring an appeal, whether by case stated or otherwise, and if before the end of that period an appeal is so brought the order shall not come into force until the final determination or withdrawal of the appeal.
(7) Where the registration of any person is cancelled by order of a court under subsection (5) of this section℄

(a) he shall within seven days deliver up to the local authority the cancelled certificates of registration and, if he fails to do so, he shall be liable to a fine not exceeding forty shillings, and to a further fine not exceeding ten shillings for each day on which the default continues after he is convicted, and

(b) he shall not again be registered by the local authority under this section except in pursuance of a further order of a magistrates' court made on his application.

(8) The occupier of premises registered under this section shall at all times display on the premises the certificates of registration and a copy of any byelaws for the time being applying to the premises, and, if he fails to do so, he shall be liable to a fine not exceeding forty shillings.
(9) Where an offence punishable under this section which has been committed by a body corporate is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of, or to be attributable to any neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate, or any person purporting to act in such capacity, he as well as the body corporate shall be deemed to be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.
(10) This section shall be construed as one with the Public Health Act, 1936.
(11) This section shall come into force in the district of a local authority on such date as the local authority may resolve, being a date not less than twenty-eight days after the passing of the resolution, and, not less than twenty-eight days before that date, the local authority shall publish in a local newspaper circulating in the district a notice of the resolution which shall set out the general effect of the provisions of this section."
The noble Lord said: The object of this new clause is to ensure that there shall be proper cleanliness in barbers' and hairdressers' shops, both in regard to the people who cut, shampoo or wash the hair and to the equipment and the

71
condition of the premises. The point about the registration proposed is that it would be a means whereby the local authority would know where these premises are. The introduction of the registration is in no sense meant to affect the livelihood of the hairdresser and will in no way be applied to the question of whether or not he is competent or experienced. The sole purpose is so that the local authority may be able to inspect the premises to see Whether they are run in a clean fashion. If they are not the case would need to be brought to the courts. It will not be possible, under the Amendment, for the local authority to withdraw the registration, but the courts will be able to do that under bylaws which the local authority can make, if the Amendment is passed, to ensure this cleanliness. The courts will have no duty imposed on them to cancel the registration if they do not wish to do so
I would say, before sitting down, that there is no disease that has been spread a great deal by dirty conditions in hairdressers' and barbers' shops generally, but it seems 'to me not an unreasonable preventive measure to take to ensure that they are kept properly clean; and I am sure that that is what the general public wants. Maybe it is not a very good argument to include, but this clause does at present appear in 70 or so private Acts of Parliament which affect about 300 local authorities. I beg to move.
Amendment moved℄
After Clause 71. insert the said new clause.℄(Lord Amulree.)
LORD SILKIN: I am not sure whether the clause is as well drafted as it might be; it looks to me extremely complicated. However, I am satisfied that there is a need for some kind of protection against the possibility of persons contracting, say, dermatitis when they attend a hairdresser. In the course of my own now rather lengthy professional career I have successfully fought a number of actions in which claims have been made against hairdressers for dermatitis contracted when clients were receiving attention. I hope the Minister will not say, as he said in the case of tuberculosis, that there is no evidence of anybody having suffered as a result of contact
72
with hairdressers. I think the case is clearly established, and that it would be a great improvement to this Bill if some clause were inserted so that there was a form of registration to ensure the cleanliness of the premises, of the equipment and of the hairdressers or the barbers themselves and their clothing. I do not 'think this new clause goes too far in that direction, and I hope that the Government will look on this Amendment favourably.
LORD BURDEN: I should like to say a word or two in support of this Amendment. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Brecon, and your Lordships that the local authorities attach great importance to this proposed new clause and that it has been strongly pressed upon the Department. I know that there has been some trouble in regard to the inclusion of a similar clause in a local Bill, but that should not deter the Government at this stage, when they have the opportunity of doing what I consider is the right thing in regard to hairdressers' shops. After all is said and done, it is only protecting the public and the decent, careful hairdressers, who go to considerable expense and trouble in regard to their equipment and the precautions they take, as against other hairdressers who are not so careful as they ought to be. I am sorry that this Amendment has come up at this late hour, because, along with some of my colleagues, I felt that it ought to have the most serious attention of your Lordships. I hope that if the noble Lord cannot go very far with us this evening, and even if he is inclined at the moment to give a negative reply, in view of what has been urged he will take it back or leave the matter so that it can be looked at again at a later stage.
LORD AUCKLAND: I firmly support this new clause, particularly in its possible application to small towns where there may be only one hairdresser, who may also carry on the business of a tobacconist or perhaps rent off part of the shop for other forms of salesmanship. Cleanliness in hairdressers' shops, generally speaking, is of a high standard, hut there are cases where one sees dirty basins, dirty floors and dirty equipment. By these means skin diseases can be spread. This is a Public Health Bill, and I feel that this new clause, while it would not put any inconvenience on bona fide

73
hairdressers, would help to strengthen the conviction behind the Bill.
LORD BRECON: A large number of local authorities have already been granted powers on the lines set out in this proposed new clause, and the possibility of including it was considered when the Bill was being drafted. It was perhaps difficult to say, however, that the need for these powers was generally agreed or accepted. In view of the views expressed by noble Lords on the proposed new clause, subject to the Committee being agreeable, I am willing, on behalf of the Government, to accept it. I would add that there may possibly have to be drafting changes.
LORD AMULREE: I am grateful to the noble Lord.
Clause 72 agreed to.
LORD BURDEN LORD BURDEN had given Notice of his intention to move, after Clause 72, to insert a new clause dealing with washing facilities at inns. The noble Lord said: I think it would not be fair to the Minister for me to move this Amendment, and if it is convenient to him I should prefer to leave it until the Report stage.
Clause 73 agreed to.
Clause 74 [Summary recovery of damages for negligence]:
6.10 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved, to leave out "twenty" [pounds] and insert "one hundred". The noble Viscount said: The idea of this clause is obviously an admirable one, in that it enables the local authority to recover from somebody who negligently damages an article of street furniture the cost of that article in a court which involves very little expense. However, in practice, I think the application of the limit of £20 will be found more or less to stultify the whole object of the clause. In these days, when the value of money has fallen to such a large extent, it is not really sensible to expect the sum of £20 to cover very much in the list of articles of street furniture which are mentioned in this clause.
I have in my hand a list of various items which appear all over the streets in this country. For instance, the
74
cheapest price at which you can find a bus shelter for sale is £36, plus the foundations, and a really expensive one is £125 plus foundations. Lamp-posts are mostly insured for not less than £25, and in some cases for £50. Even a six-foot long teak seat, by the time that its carriage and foundations have been supplied, would cost more than £20. I would also point out that where the item is not totally destroyed but has to be removed before another one can replace it, there is an extra cost over and above that of the new article by itself.
Thus, in the circumstances, it looks as though the limit of £20 is going to result in a negligible use of this clause, which would be a pity, because the alternative must be for the county council, the parish council or whatever it may be, to go to a court such as the county court, where they would have to pay more and where, incidentally, it would cost more for the person who has been negligent to defend the action. This is particularly important in the case of the very small authorities which are listed here, the parish councils or parish meetings, to whom the opportunity of going to an inexpensive court to recover this damage will be very valuable.
It is not, as I understand it, purely a question of precedent that the jurisdiction of the magistrates should be limited to £20. There are recent Acts as well as older ones which allow either a higher limit or a limit in their discretion. I would quote Sections 50, 33 and 34 of the Magistrates' Courts Act, 1952, Section 67 of the Water Act, 1945, and various other Acts, which are up to date and which allow the magistrates to give as civil damages a greater sum than £20. Therefore, if we are going to legislate in a fashion such as this clause provides, surely it is sensible to put in the clause a sufficient sum to allow it to be used in the way in which it is intended to be used, and not merely to put in this legislation a clause which is almost valueless. Therefore, I suggest that a sum such as £100 or, if that is felt to be too high, perhaps £75, should be incorporated in this clause instead of £20. I beg to move.
Amendment moved℄
Page 54, line 20, leave out ("twenty ") and insert ("one hundred ")℄(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I have listened very carefully to the arguments my noble friend has advanced, and I should like your Lordships to consider another aspect of this matter before you make up your minds. The purpose of the clause is to give county councils, local councils and parish councils the power to recover damages in a magistrates' court instead of the county court when relatively trifling damage has been caused by negligence to the various matters mentioned, like lamp-posts, notice boards or other pieces of equipment in a street or public place. Of course, as my noble friend has said, it is cheaper and easier to go to a magistrates' court than to a county court, and no objection need be raised to relatively trifling sums being recovered in this way. Many local Acts, therefore, contain a clause on these lines, and it appears in the model clause handbook as No. 108.
It is interesting, as I am sure my noble friend knows, that there have been a number of attempts to raise this figure. In four they have been successful, and in three out of the four they have got it up to £50 and one to £100. But as against that, there are over 100 local Acts in which Parliament, on the advice of the Government, has restricted the amount of damages which may be recovered in this way to £20. As I understand it, the reason why Parliament has acted in this way, broadly on the advice of the Government of the day, has been because magistrates' courts, who do an enormous amount of work, for which I, being in charge of the magistrates, could not be more grateful to those who sit in the courts℄of course their work is largely concerned with criminal cases (they do 97½per cent. of our criminal work) and what I might call domestic cases between husband and wife, adoption of infants and affiliation cases℄are not intended and, indeed, not fitted, to discuss a question of negligence in which a serious point may arise.
When you get to damage in the sphere that my noble friend has raised, of payment of about £100, you may well get questions of the law of negligence coming into operation and being raised which otherwise would not be raised. In other words, one has to look at the other point of view. This is a privilege local authorities have. As I say, everyone wants
76
them to have the privilege in regard to small claims, and to have the minimum amount of trouble. But when the claims get bigger, one has to regard the other aspect of equality before the law, and in the case of the bigger claims they ought, in my view, to go to the courts which deal with such claims. If there is no defence, and if it is a question of simply paying out for something, then they can get their judgment very quickly and cheaply on the basis of there not being a defence; but I think they ought to go to the county court for other claims.
I have not had a chance of looking at the various sections of the Magistrates' Courts Act and the Water Act to which my noble friend referred. If they are the ones I suspect they are, they raise very different points, and I do not think are a clear analogy here. I ask your Lordships to accept the general viewpoint that giving people special powers to go to the court which does not deal with the matter in the ordinary way should be limited to small amounts, and therefore I would ask my noble friend not to press the position of the four local authorities but to accept the position which has been placed on over one hundred that I have mentioned.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I am, of course, grateful to my noble and learned friend both for coming at all and for the interesting and complete answer which I think he has given to my Amendment. It will, I know, be of great interest to the smaller local authorities, the parish councils and parish meetings, to know that it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government that they should go to the county court in these cases. It may have been thought that there was some precedent which prevented magisrates from having greater jurisdiction; but if it is felt that in the general interest of the public as well as that of the local auhorities these cases should not be heard in the magistrates' court but should go to the county court, I am quite willing to accept my noble and learned friend's reply on the subject. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 74 agreed to.
Clause 75 [Power to amend local Acts]:
LORD JESSEL: In this Amendment I am trying to help the Minister. There

77
appears to be a gap in his powers in regard to local Acts which came into force between March 1937 and to-day. Clause 75 of this Bill specifically excludes the provisions of Part V from the power of the Minister to amend local Acts. My Amendment is to substitute for this exclusion the powers already existing under Section 12 of the Act of 1937, brought up to date. I beg to move.
Amendment moved℄
Page 54, line 32, after (" Part V ") insert (" Section 12 of the Act of 1937 shall apply to any of the provisions of Part V of this Act but so that the provisions of that Section shall be extended to enable the Minister by Order to amend or adapt any local Act in force at the date of the passing of this Act ").℄(Lord Jessel.)
LORD BRECON: The purpose of this Amendment appears to be to ensure that the powers of Section 12 of the Act of 1937 are available in relation to the provisions of Part V of the Bill and that they will enable the Minister to amend or adapt (for the purpose mentioned in Section 12) any local Act (of the kind mentioned in that section) which is in force when the Bill is passed. Subsection (1) of Section 12 of the Act of 1937 enables the Minister to amend or adapt local Acts relating to sewerage authorities to bring them into conformity with the provisions of that Act, and subsection (2) of that section says that, in relation to an area in which a sewerage or sewage disposal system is provided by a joint sewerage authority℄such as a joint board℄the Minister may by order provide that the functions of a local authority under such provisions of the Act of 1937 as may be specified in the order shall be discharged by the joint sewerage authority either as well as, or instead of, by the local authority.
Clause 1 (3) of the Bill provides that Part V shall be construed as one with the Act of 1937. One effect of this is that references in Section 12 of the Act of 1937 to provisions of that Act will include references to the provisions of Part V. Having given further consideration to the noble Lord's Amendment, I am quite prepared to look into the question whether anything else is necessary to achieve the results which the Amendment is apparently intended to produce.
LORD JESSEL: I am quite happy to withdraw my Amendment. I am only
78
trying to help the Minister. if he thinks he has the powers, I am delighted to hear it. I understand he is going to look to make quite sure he has. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 75 agreed to.
Clauses 76 and 77 agreed to.
6.25 p.m.
LORD BURDEN LORD BURDEN moved after Clause 77, to insert the following new clause℄
Amendment of 26 Geo. 5 & 1 Edw. 8. c. 49 s. 89
"·Section eighty-nine of the Public Health Act, 1936, shall in its application have effect as if for the words refreshment-house or place of public entertainment' in subsection (1) of that section there were substituted the words refreshment-house., café or restaurant '."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment seeks to amend Section 89 of the Public Health Act, 1936, by a substitution of the words "refreshment-house, café or restaurant" for the existing words "refreshment house or place of public entertainment". I regret, however, that in the drafting of the new clause it was overlooked that this would exclude places of public entertainment. This defect, however, would be put right if the Government were disposed to look at my new clause.
There is clearly a strong doubt as to whether cafes and restaurants are included in the scope of the present Section 89. The Public Health Act, 1936, contains no definition of either "refreshment house" or "place of public entertainment", although in respect of the former it is quite likely that a court may have regard to the definition of refreshment-houses contained in Section 6 of the Refreshment Houses Act, 1860℄namely:
"all houses, rooms, shops or buildings kept open for public refreshment, resort and entertainment at any time between the hours of ten o'clock at night and five o'clock the following morning not being licensed for the sale of beer, cider, wine or spirits respectively".
As the proprietors of such refreshment houses are required to take out a licence under the Act of 1860, it seems unlikely that any unlicensed café or restaurant could be brought within the expression "refreshment-house" in Section 89 of the Public Health Act, 1936.
This new clause is taken from a clause in the Cardiff Corporation Bill, which would give the City Council power to require the provision of reasonable sanitary accommodation for the use of customers in cafés or restaurants. This provision removes a doubt as to the applicability of Section 89 of the Public Health Act relating to refreshment-houses. That, of course, substantiates the point I made just now. From the evidence submitted by the Corporation I gather that the Cardiff City Council have not up to now applied Section 89 to cafés or restaurants because of the doubt in law, but the Council consider that it is in the interests of public health that sanitary accommodation should be provided at these premises.
The city receives many visitors from all parts of the country. There is a regular substantial influx of residents from the valleys and from neighbouring towns, particularly at week-ends and on Thursdays, the weekly shopping half-holiday of many of the adjoining districts. There are a large number of eating houses in the city, but at only a minority of them are sanitary conveniences provided for customers. Out of about 197 eating 'places, only 61 possess separate conveniences for customers; at 30 premises, customers are stated to be allowed, on request, to use the satisfactory occupier's facilities. At 106 premises there are no suitable sanitary conveniences for customers. The Cardiff Corporation were satisfied that lack of these conveniences in these premises and other things affected the comfort and health of their customers but did not extend to being a public nuisance. I understand that your Lordships' Committee accepted this evidence and argument and accepted a clause, and I understand that it has been accepted in another place.
Now I come to the point of public nuisance. In addition to this, I venture to submit to your Lordships some important information I have obtained from the chief public inspector of a popular seaside resort. This is the information he gives me. Serious nuisances are being caused in the town by the absence of sanitary accommodation at cafes, coffee bars and similar establishments which are open for long hours in the evening. People frequenting these
80
places often remain for long periods and, because no sanitary accommodation is provided for their use, go outside into doorways, basement areas and, in fact, anywhere handy, and use these places as conveniences. In a survey of 30 establishments of this kind, only two were found to be provided with conveniences for their customers.
I know quite well℄as I am sure your Lordships do℄that there may be difficulties in that some cafés have not adequate space and are unable to provide conveniences. On that point I think it is important to recognise that it may not be necessary to require the provision of conveniences at all eating places. Every case would have to be considered on its merits, and so, accordingly, would the types of meal and refreshments served and the time customers spend on the premises. It must also be recognised that for structural and other reasons conveniences could not always be provided. But℄and this is the proviso℄Section 89 enables a person who has been asked by the local authority to provide conveniences to question the reasonableness of the authority's requirements when the case is taken to court by the authority. This should provide a sufficient safeguard against the unreasonable exercise of the authority's powers under this section, if it is amended by the Bill now under consideration by your Lordships. I have submitted to your Lordships the experience of a responsible officer and of the corporation of a great industrial city. I have also submitted evidence from an entirely different sort of place, a popular seaside resort which it would be quite unfair for me to particularise. I think I have submitted enough evidence to show that my new clause merits serious consideration in the interests of public health, not to mention decency. I therefore commend my new clause to the Minister, and I beg to move.
Amendment moved℄
After Clause 77, insert the new clause.℄(Lord Burden.)
LORD AMULREE: The noble Lord who has moved this new clause has drawn a horrifying picture, if it is at all true. I should like to support from all points of view the new clause that he is proposing. I think it is most improper and irregular, in a place where one can

81
obtain food and drink, not to have sanitary conveniences available. That is really going back to the bad days of the middle nineteenth century, before main drains and sewers were built. We do not want so go back to that. I am sure the Government will look kindly on this new clause.
LORD BRECON: I have listened with great interest to what the noble Lords, Lord Burden and Lord Amulree have said. Section 89 of the Public Health Act, 1936, deals with the provision of sanitary conveniences. Among other things it covers refreshment-houses and places of entertainment. Lord Burden's Amendment is aimed at widening the ambit of the expression "refreshment-houses", but he has agreed now that he has omitted to put in "places of entertainment"℄an omission which could, of course, be put right at a later stage. It is quite possible that what the noble Lord had in mind was Section 58 (4) of the Wallasey Corporation Act, 1958. It is true that that subsection deleted "places of entertainment" but only because they were dealt with in other provisions of the Wallasey Act. I think that, so far as Cardiff Corporation are concerned, we should have to look up the Bill and the references made to it. Of course, the lack of conveniences to which the noble Lord referred may be due to the fact that the local authority have not provided sufficient public conveniences. That may be part of the trouble, anyway in some of the towns.
It is far from certain, however, that the expression "refreshment-houses" in the 1936 Act has anything other than the ordinary meaning it would have in everyday speech, and legal advice given to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government does not support the view that it has some special or restricted meaning based on the Refreshment Houses Act, 1860, as is sometimes suggested. If this view is correct, then Section 89 of the Public Health Act, 1936, already covers cafes and restaurants, and the Amendment is unnecessary. For those reasons, in view of what the noble Lord has said, if he would like to consider his Amendment on the Report stage, I think that would be a good idea. At the same time, I cannot give an undertaking that the Government will put down an Amendment.
LORD BURDEN: I am most grateful to the Minister for what he has said, and I am quite willing for the matter to be considered on the Report stage. If the legal advice given to the Minister is as stated by the noble Lord, I think it would be helpful to local authorities if that were backed by just a simple Amendment to the 1936 Act. I am sure it would not be the desire of the Department to involve local authorities in costly litigation, seeing that there is such doubt as to the legal interpretation of the words. But with the assurance that the Minister will see whether the matter can be clarified (I think that is the right word) in the interests of local authorities, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 78 [Expenses]:
LORD BRECON: The expression "the Minister" is defined in the Interpretation Clause, Clause 2 (1), as meaning the Minister of Housing and Local Government. The Minister of Housing and Local Government is not, however, the only Minister who could incur expenditure under the Bill. The Home Secretary, for instance, is the confirming authority for by-laws made under Clause 71. The Ministers of Transport and of Power may make regulations under Clause 45. The purpose of this Amendment is merely to ensure that expenses incurred by any Minister under the Bill are properly authorised. I beg to move.
Amendment moved℄
Page 55, line 42, leave out (" the ") and insert (" any ").℄(Lord Brecon.)
Clause 78, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 79 [Short title, commencement and repeals]:
6.41 p.m.
LORD BRECON LORD BRECON moved, in the proviso to subsection (3), after "shall" [take effect] to insert:
"save as otherwise expressly provided in the said Part I."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment paves the way for the later Amendment to Part I of the Fourth Schedule, and with your Lordships' permission, the two might conveniently be taken together. Both of them are purely technical and are designed to correct a drafting discrepancy. Building regulations, cannot,

83
of course, be made immediately the Bill becomes law. Under Clause 9 the Minister first has to appoint the Advisory Committee, and then he has to consult with them and with other interested bodies, all of which must take some time. Subsection (2) (a) of Clause 79 therefore provides that the provisions dealing with building regulations shall come into force on a date appointed by the Minister. There will thus be an interim period between the date when the Bill as a whole comes into force and the date when the building regulation provisions come into force on the appointed date.
To cover this interim period, paragraph 7 of the First Schedule provide:, that all existing building by-laws shall remain in operation until the appointed day, when they will all be replaced by building regulations; and it repeals as from the passing of the Bill (these are the crucial words) Section 68 of the Public Health Act, 1936, under which building by-laws are effective for a limited period of ten years, which might, in some cases expire before the appointed day when building regulations will come into force.
Part I of the Fourth Schedule lists all the repeals consequential upon the building provisions of the Bill, including the repeal of Section 68. But the proviso to subsection (3) of Clause 79, as it now stands, has the effect that all these repeals will take place on the appointed date, not as from the passing of the Bill. The Amendments are designed to bring Part I of the Fourth Schedule and the proviso to subsection (3) of Clause 79 into line with paragraph 7 of the First Schedule by providing that the repeal of Section 68 shall be effective as from the passing of the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved℄
Page 56, line 16, after (" shall ") insert the said words.℄(Lord Brecon.)
Remaining clause, as amended, agreed to.
First Schedule agreed to.
LORD BRECON: Your Lordships have already given some consideration to this Schedule when I moved the three new clauses, Amendments Nos. 4, 5 and 6. I beg to move.
Amendment moved℄
After the First Schedule, insert the following new Schedule℄
"SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS CONCERNING SEWERAGE CONTRIBUTIONS
Establishment of actual and estimated cost per yard of sewer
1.℄(1) As soon as may be after a resolution has been passed for the purposes of section (Contribution to cost of sewering highway) or section (Contribution to cost of sewer in land subsequently laid out as street) of this Act and the actual cost of constructing the sewer to which the resolution relates has been ascertained, the local authority shall serve on the owners of the premises fronting the street or the Hart of the street in which the sewer is constructed a notice specifying—

(a) the amount of the actual cost per yard of the sewer constructed in the street or part of the street, and

(b) the amount which the local authority estimate as the cost per yard of a sewer having an internal diameter of nine inches constructed in the street or part of the street art a depth of seven feet,

and every such notice shall state that the lesser of these amounts will be relevant in computing the amount of any payment recoverable under section (Contribution to cost of sewering highway) or section (Contribution to cost of sewer in land subsequently laid out as street) of this Act, as the case may be, in respect of those premises, and shall give particulars of the right of objection conferred by the next following paragraph.
(2) The cost per yard of a sewer constructed in a street or part of a street shall be computed by the local authority by dividing the cost of constructing that sewer by its extent in yards.
2.℄(1) Any person on whom a notice is served under the foregoing paragraph may within one month of the date of the notice serve on the local authority an objection in writing to the correctness of any amount specified by that notice.
(2) If an objection is made under this paragraph within the said period and is not withdrawn, the local authority shall, after the expiration of that period, apply to a magistrates' court to appoint a time for hearing and determining all objections so made within that period and shall serve on all the objectors notice of the time and place so appointed.
(3) At the hearing the court may direct that there be substituted for any amount specified in the notice such other amount as the court may determine.
(4) Subject to any direction by a court on the hearing of objections under this paragraph (whether at first instance or on appeal), the amounts specified in the notice shall be conclusive for all purposes.
Recovery of payments
3. Whenever a payment becomes recoverable in respect of any premises, the local

85
authority shall serve a notice specifying the amount of the payment on the owner of the premises for the time being, arid may recover that amount together with interest thereon from the date of the notice from that person:
Provided that no notice shall be served under this paragraph before the amount of the actual and estimated cost per yard of the sewer has been conclusively established.
4. The rate of interest chargeable under the last foregoing paragraph shall be such rate as the local authority may determine not exceeding the maximum rate fixed by the Minister for the purpose of section two hundred and ninety-one of the Public Health Act. 1936, at the time when the notice is served, or, if different maximum rates are then so fixed, the highest of those rates.
5. The payment recoverable in respect of any premises together with interest thereon front the date of the notice served under paragraph 3 of this Schedule shall, from that date until recovered, be a charge on the premises and on all estates and interests therein.
Interpretation
6.℄(1) A building shall he deemed to be erected after the date on which a resolution comes into operation unless its erection was complete before that date.
(2) A building shall be deemed to be erected℄

(a) if any part of the building is wholly or partly re-erected when the outer wall of that part has been demolished (otherwise than in consequence of fire or other accident) to within ten feet of the surface of the ground adjoining the lowest storey of that part;

(b) if (not having been originally constructed for human habitation) it is converted into a house;

(c) if it is converted into a factory, shop or place of public resort;

(d) if it is extended so that the area occupied by the site of the building will (with any previous extension made since the date on which a resolution came into operation in relation to the building) be increased by an area of more than one-eighth or. in the case of a building constructed for agricultural purposes, one-quarter, of that occupied by the site of the building before that date;

and subsection (2) of section ninety of the Public Health Act, 1936 (which specifies operations which are deemed to be the erection of a building), shall not apply in relation to section (Contribution to cost of sewering highway) or section (Contribution to cost of sewer in land subsequently laid out as street) of this Act.
7.℄(1) References to premises on which a building is erected are references to the building and any land occupied with the building.
(2) References to "fronting" include references to adjoining and abutting and "frontage" shall be construed accordingly.
Proof of publication of resolutions
8. Publication of a notice of a resolution for the purposes of section (Contribution to cost of sewering highway) or section (Contribution to cost of sewer in land subsequently laid out as street) of this Act in a newspaper and the date of any such publication may he proved by the production of a photostatic or other reproduction certified by the clerk of the local authority to be a true reproduction of a page or part of a page of that newspaper hearing the date of its publication and containing the notice ").℄(Lord Brecon.)
Second Schedule agreed to.
Third Schedule [Attachment of street lighting equipment to certain buildings]:
LORD SILKIN: With regard to 'the last Amendment in my name, I have 'been informed by the noble Lord that if I were to move it in a slightly different form it would be acceptable to the Government. What it amounts to, if I may paraphrase, is that 'this clause is to apply not only Ito a building owned by a development corporation established under the New Towns Act but also to dwellings owned by the Commission for the New Towns established under the New Towns Act, 1959. I gladly accept that suggestion and I hope that if I do not persist in my proposed Amendment but hand in a Manuscript Amendment in that form, it may be acceptable. I see the noble Lord opposite nodding his head, indicating that he will accept the Amendment. I should just like to say how much we appreciate the great physical handicap under which he has conducted these proceedings today. We think that it is very brave of him and I hope that he will go straight to bed and get over his disability, and come back fit for the next stage of the proceedings. I beg to move.
Amendment moved℄
Page 63, line. 51, first column, at end insert℄
"A building owned by a development corporation established under the New Towns Act, 1946 (or the Commission for the New Towns established under the New Towns Act, 1959).℄(Lord Silkin.)
LORD BRECON: I accept the Amendment as the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has presented it. May I thank him very warmly for his kind words? One does not know when influenza is going to attack, and if it attacks just before one is expected to undertake a task like this one can hardly push that task on to

87
one's friends. I am most grateful for your Lordships' consideration.
Third Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Fourth Schedule [Enactments repealed]:
LORD BRECON: This Amendment is linked with Amendment No. 86 which we have already considered this afternoon. I beg to move.
Amendment moved℄
Page 64, line 20, third column, at end insert (" as from the passing of this Act").℄(Lord Brecon.)
Remaining Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at thirteen minutes before seven o'clock.