Lords Sitting of 13 April 1954

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers
The Lord Lyle of Westbourne—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

WESLEYAN AND GENERAL ASSURANCE SOCIETY BILL
Read 2, and committed.
WEAR NAVIGATION AND SUNDERLAND DOCK BILL
Read 3, and passed.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords,. I have to inform you that there will be two statements this afternoon between 3.45 and 4 o'clock, the first by the noble Viscount, Lard Swinton, on High Commission Territories in Africa and the second by the noble Marquess, Lord. Reading, on Mr. Dullies' visit.

TELEVISION COSTS AND REVENUE
2.38 p.m.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is the revenue cost of the present B.B.C. Television programme and what would be the revenue for television from the sale of 4·3 million licences at £5.]
THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (EARL DE LA WARR): My Lords, -the revenue cost of the B.B.C. Television Programme for the financial year just ended is estimated at £3 ½ million. In addition, the Corporation last year spent £1 ½ million on capital works for television, and £10 ½ million on sound; it

1179
is also liable for income tax. On the other hand, the Corporation made a profit of about £1 million on its publications. None of these figures is static, of course; they change with the development of the B.B.C. services. The gross licence revenue from 4·3 million licences at £5 would, of course, be £21·5 million, but I regret that it is quite impossible to answer the noble Earl's hypothetical question as to how much of this would be "for television." As he probably knows, never in the history of the B.B.C. have the Government just selected an arbitrary amount for the licence fee and then, after making certain deductions, presented the B.B.C. with the remaining revenue, regardless of the Corporation's prospective needs. What the Government do is to examine the B.B.C.'s forward programme, including both capital and revenue expenditure, and then decide what licence fees are necessary to meet the Corporation's reasonable needs and to cover Post Office costs and a contribution to the Exchequer.
I assume that what the noble Earl is anxious to know is how I arrived, in my estimate given last December, at a figure of £5 for a television licence fee if the B.B.C. were asked to put on a second television programme at an early date. In the first place, it was assumed that the B.B.C. would provide a second television programme in 1955–56 (that is, at the same time as we expect the new Authority to start) for the same number of hours a day as we expect from the Authority. It was further assumed that the second B.B.C. programme would cost as much in revenue expenditure—that is, £3½million—and one-third in capital expenditure—that is, £500,000—as the existing programme. To this total was added the B.B.C.'s own forecast of expenditure in 1955–56, both capital and revenue, for their first television programme, as well as a sum to cover income tax. The grand total was then divided by 4½3 million, the number of licences in 1955–56, and to the resultant figure per licence was added £1 for sound and 10s. to cover Post Office costs and Exchequer contribution. No allowance was made for any subsidy to television from sound. These calculations gave a total of just about £5.
I should, perhaps, remind noble Lords that, although we frequently talk about
1180
a television licence, it is in fact a combined television and sound licence. The new £3 licence is therefore £2 for television and £1 for sound. This fact in itself may have helped to make the position a little obscure to the noble Earl.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: I thank the noble Earl for his full reply. The position is not crystal clear, and when I have examined it in writing I may come back with another Question to him.

LOSS OF COMET AIR LINER
2.42 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have any statement to make on the loss of the Comet Air Liner G-ALYY on Thursday last.]
THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (THE EARL OF SELKIRK): My Lords, the noble Lord will be aware that a statement was made yesterday by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation in another place in regard to the loss on the 8th April of the B.O.A.C. Comet operated by South African Airways. No new information has come to hand which enables me to add materially to that statement. I should, however, like to say this: the circumstances which led to this disaster pose a problem of the first magnitude to the scientists and aeronautical engineers of this country. Three representatives of the Accidents Investigation Branch of the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation are now in Italy collating all information, and, as has already been stated, a public inquiry will be held.
In the meantime, the Ministry of Supply, as co-ordinating authority in this matter, is setting in train the fullest and most exhaustive investigation which can be carried out. This will involve work which will be conducted by the national research organisations, including, of course, the R.A.E. and Boscombe Down, and by the manufacturers, the de Havilland Aircraft Company. B.O.A.C. have placed their Comets at the disposal of the Ministry of Supply for these purposes. It should be recognised that this is not a time for despair, but rather a

1181
challenge to the whole engineering and scientific ability of this country, and it is in that spirit that the matter is being taken up. I am sure that your Lordships will wish to join with Her Majesty's Government in expressing profound and heartfelt sympathy with the relatives and friends of those who lost their lives.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, noble Lords on this side of the House would wish to be joined with the noble Earl in that expression of sympathy with the relatives of those who lost their lives. We should also, I think, commend the Government in the steps that they propose to take to see that every possible avenue is explored, in trying to ensure that disasters of this sort will never happen again, and in ascertaining the causes. I agree with the noble Earl that this is not a moment at which to speculate unduly upon the cause of this tragedy, and that it is much better to await the pubic inquiry and the investigations which are to be made by the aeronautical engineers and other scientists.
LORD REA: My Lords, on behalf 3f noble Lords on these Benches may I associate every one of us with the words of the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore. I am sure that the House is unanimous:in its expression of sympathy and in its agreement with the sentiments which have been expressed by both the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, and the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lords who have just spoken for what they have said. I greatly appreciate it.
EARL WINTERTON: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Earl, in view of the astonishing coincidence in the nature of the two recent disasters, whether the inquiries being carried out overseas will take into account the question of security at the particular airports from which these machines set out. As my noble friend is, no doubt aware, in some organs of the Press, statements have been made—which may, of course, be quite without foundation—to the effect that security, both at Rome and at Cairo, for our aeroplanes refuelling is not what it should be.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, may I first of all say that I think that
1182
guessing in the Press as to what may or may not have happened in the past is highly undesirable I hope that too much weight will not be given to that. I should like to assure the noble Earl that the question of security, amongst other questions, will certainly not be overlooked.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932
2.46 p.m.
THE .JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (LORD LLOYD): My Lords, I think I can move both these Orders formally. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Orders made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, for extending section one of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Urban District of Knottingley and the Urban District of Penarth, be approved. —(Lord Lloyd.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

VISITING FORCES (APPLICATION OF LAW) ORDER, 1954
2.47 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD SIMONDS)THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD SIMONDS) rose to move, That the Visiting Forces (Application of Law) Order, 1954, reported from the Special Orders Committee on Wednesday last, be approved. The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this Order in Council is one of three Orders which are necessary to bring into effect the Visiting Forces Act of 1952. One of those Orders is an Order which brings the Act into effect, for it is prescribed by the Act that it shall not come into operation until there has been an Order to that effect. The second is the Order which designates the countries, other than Commonwealth countries, to which the Act shall apply. Neither of those two Orders has to be laid, but they will be made as soon as the Order which I now bring to your Lordships' notice has been approved. The Order which is before the House to-day is an Order under Section 8, and by the terms of the Act requires to be approved by Affirmative Resolution. The Order, as those of your Lordships who have looked at it will appreciate, is an extremely complicated enactment, and for those of your

1183
Lordships who, like myself, are not very familiar with this branch of the law—or perhaps I should say were not very familiar—it may be expedient if I say one or two words of introduction because, in effect, an enactment of this kind might well seem somewhat strange, at any rate to those who first saw the light in the days of Queen Victoria.
The position is this—and I must hark back to the year 1933. In that year, an Act was passed, called the Visiting Forces (British Commonwealth) Act, and that Act, after making certain provisions with respect to the discipline and internal administration of visiting forces, being Commonwealth Forces, prescribed by subsection (3) of Section 2, that:
"Subject as hereinafter provided,"—
I ask your Lordships to mark those words—
" any enactment (whether contained in the Naval Discipline Act, the Army Act, the Air Force Act, or any other statute) which—
(a) exempts, or provides for the exemption of any vessel," —
and so on, mentioning a number of limitations upon Acts of Parliament, and continues—
" shall, with any necessary modifications, apply in relation to a visiting force as it would apply in relation to a home force of a like nature to the visiting force:"
That Act contained a number of other provisions with which I need not trouble the House. That Act applied only to Commonwealth Forces, as I have said, but in 1940 it was applied by the Allied Forces Act to
" any naval, military or air force of any foreign power allied with His Majesty … for the time being present in the United Kingdom."
to which it should by Order be applied. And it was by Order in Council applied to the visiting forces of a number of Allied Powers. Accordingly, the state of our municipal law was that under the first Act I have mentioned, the second Act and consequent Orders in Council, a number of provisions were made which applied to visiting forces the same powers, immunities and exemptions as were applicable to Home Forces.
In addition to that, on June 19, 1951, His late Majesty's Government signed an Agreement called An Agreement regarding the Status of Forces of Parties to the North Atlantic Treaty. The Preamble to that Agreement is in these terms:
1184
"The parties to the North Atlantic Treaty signed in Washington on the 4th April, 1949, considering that the forces of one party may be sent by arrangement to serve in the territory of another party, bearing in mind that the decision to send them and the conditions under which they will be sent, in so far as such conditions are not laid down by the present Agreement, will continue to be the subject of separate arrangements between the parties concerned, desiring however to define the status of such forces while in the territory of another party, have agreed as follows".
Then follows the Agreement, which in terms imposes obligations upon the State to which a visiting force is sent to enable them, in effect, to administer the affairs of the visiting force in an efficient and expedient way.
That being the position of our municipal law, and those being the obligations imposed by this Agreement, which has not yet been ratified by this country but which will be ratified as soon as these Orders are brought into operation, the Visiting Forces Act, 1952, was passed. Your Lordships will remember that we had a considerable discussion upon that Act in this House. That Act provided that the Act should apply to

" (a) Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, India, Pakistan or Ceylon, or

(b) any country designated for the purposes of that provision by Order in Council …"

As I have told your Lordships, an Order in Council will be made designating those countries which have ratified this Agreement. The Act then provides for the exercise of powers by service courts and authorities of countries sending visiting forces and for a number of other provisions in regard to jurisdiction which were folly discussed and which are not substantially the subject of the present Order.
Section 8 of the Act then provides as follows, and I think I should read that Section to the House because it is upon it that this Order is made:
"(1) Where under any enactment a power is exercisable by any authority or person—

(a) as respects any of the home forces or their members or service courts or other persons in any way connected therewith, or

(b) as respects any property used or to be used for the purposes of any of the home forces, or for taking possession of any property to be so used, or for acquiring (whether by agreement or compulsorily) any property so used or to be so used,

Her Majesty may by Order in Council make provision for securing that subject to any conditions specified by or under the Order the

1185
power shall be exercisable by that authority or person in the case of any visiting force to which the Order applies to any extent to which it would be exercisable if the visiting force were a part of any of the home forces.
(2) Her Majesty may by Order in Council made as respects any visiting force make provision—

(a) for exempting that force or members or service courts thereof or other persons in any way connected therewith, or property used or to be used for the purposes thereof, from the operation of any enactment specified in the Order to any extent to which the force, members, courts, persons or property would be, or would be capable of being, exempted therefrom if the force were a part of any of the home forces;

(b) for conferring on that force or any such members, courts, persons or property as aforesaid any other privilege or immunity specified in -he Order, being a privilege or immunity which would be enjoyed by, or would be capable of being confer7ed on, the force, members, courts, persons or property if the force were a part of any of the home forces, …"

That rather long quotation states clearly enough what was the intention of this section and I do not think I need read any other part of the section. It is under that power that the draft Order in Council which I now submit to your Lordships for approval, before it is submitted to Her Majesty, is to be made.
The Order is a long and elaborate document because, as your Lordships will have observed, Section 8 of the Visiting Forces Act, 1952, differs from the previous Act in that, instead of authorising what I might call a general cover, it requires that those sections which confer immunity, and so on, are to be specified in the Order. Accordingly it has been a long and laborious task to introduce into this Order every possible Act which it may be required to call in aid in order to place visiting forces in the same position as Home Forces with the necessary modifications and adjustments. If your Lordships would be good enough to look at the Order, you will see that the forces to which the Order applies are, first of all, the Commonwealth Forces (I am referring to paragraph 3 of the Order) and then those of the United States of America, France, Belgium, Norway and the Netherlands. All these are countries which have ratified the Agreement.
I should weary your Lordships if I took you through this Order, referring in detail to every one of the many Acts which are made to apply. Paragraph 4
1186
deals with the provision of supplies, giving the Minister of Supply power to acquire for visiting forces in the same way as he has for Home Forces. Paragraph 5 deals with the provision of land. That is a matter specifically mentioned in the Agreement made by the N.A.T.O. Powers and enables us to do that which the Agreement had contemplated. Paragraph 6 is a somewhat small matter; it deals with the appointment of special constables. Paragraph 7 is more important; it deals with postal, telegraphic and wireless services, and excludes visiting forces from the provisions of the various Acts dealing with these services, enabling them to collect their own letters, transmit their own telegrams and so on.
Paragraph 8 is an elaborate one, dealing with road vehicles, again placing visiting forces, in respect of their vehicles, in the same position as the Home Forces. Paragraph 9 deals with exemption front rating, and paragraph 10 with exemption from harbour dues. Paragraph 11 deals with the miscellaneous exemptions, immunities and privileges referred to in the Second Schedule to the Order. Paragraph 12 is of some importance, because it provides the machinery which enables the service courts of visiting forces to exercise jurisdiction which is conferred upon them by the Act of 1952. Paragraph 13 deals with penalties for inducing or assisting desertion from the visiting forces. Paragraph 14 deals with certain provisions of the Public Health Acts, and Paragraph 15 with certain provisions of the Factories Acts. Your Lordships will notice that in the Schedule there is a long list of enactments which are made to apply to the visiting forces.
In all this we have been guided throughout by twenty years' experience of what has been needed in the case of visiting forces, and by the experience that we have also gained in respect of our own visiting forces abroad. I shall be glad to answer any question dealing with, the enactments referred to in the First: Schedule, but I doubt whether there is anything to which I ought specifically to call your Lordships' attention. The Fourth Schedule, which contains provisions relating to service courts of visiting forces, is perhaps worth, mentioning. Your Lordships will notice that any order summoning a witness to attend the service court of a visiting force must be issued,

1187
not by an officer of that force, but by an officer of the Home Forces. Similarly, it is worth mentioning that the detention of any person sentenced by a service court of a visiting force in one of our own prisons must be under the authority of the Secretary of State or the Admiralty; that is to say, that although the service court is given jurisdiction, it does not lie within the authority of that court to send a person sentenced to prison to one of our prisons, except under the authority of one of our own Secretaries of State.
I have told your Lordships that we have not yet ratified the Agreement that I have mentioned, but that we intend to do so as soon as this Order is approved. I have already told your Lordships that the foreign countries named in Article 3 of the Order have, in fact, ratified the Agreement. The constitutional system in some countries is not the same as in our own. In this country, as your Lordships know, it is not sufficient that we ratify the Agreement: to become effective, it must be made part of our municipal law, so far as it is necessary to give effect to its provisions. I am advised that that is not so in other countries, and that in those countries which have ratified the Agreement nothing further is needed to enable effect to be given to it; that is to say, that, on the Agreement being ratified, it automatically becomes part of the municipal law of that country. That, I believe, we have discussed before in your Lordships' House, and I am sure that it is so. Your Lordships will notice that the United States is one of the countries in respect of which effect is given to this Act, and the United States Embassy have given the assurance that the United States Government, in ratifying the Agreement, have undertaken to meet the claims for reimbursement referred to under Article 8 of the Agreement. That, I think, is not strictly relevant to the Order which I am asking your Lordships to approve.
It might be a matter of comment that we have attempted (and I believe we have succeeded) to bring this within the ambit of one Order: that is to say, we have not sought by a kind of bilateral bargaining to make an Order with each State to which reference is made. On the contrary, we have dealt with the matter compendiously, in one Order, in a way which we believe gives effect to the spirit of
1188
the Agreement and also complies with what we have by experience ascertained to be the needs of visiting forces and which we know by our own experience to be the needs of our own forces in foreign countries. We have not done more than we think is necessary to enable those forces which are in this country for our defence, for the defence of Western civilisation, to perform their task with efficiency and preparedness. As I have said, this is a terribly complicated Order. I have sought not to weary your Lordships by going through it in detail; but I can assure your Lordships that it has been most carefully prepared by all the Departments concerned, and, as we believe, it gives effect to the purpose and spirit of the Act of 1952 which was fully discussed in your Lordships' House before it received the sanction of Parliament. If there is any question your Lordships may have to ask upon the details, I will do my best to answer from my rather formidable brief; but unless your Lordships have some question to ask, I hope I have put it before you with sufficient clarity. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Visiting Forces (Application of Law) Order, 1954, reported from the Special Orders Committee on Wednesday last, be approved.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
3.8 p.m.
LORD MILNER OF LEEDS: My Lords, I am sure your Lordships will be grateful to the noble and learned Lord on the, Woolsack for giving us the history of this matter and, so far as is possible, simplifying it for us. As he has said, it is a very complicated matter, and the long list, of privileges, immunities and so forth, which are to be conferred on visiting forces requires rather more consideration than your Lordships' House has had the opportunity of giving to it. This Order was deposited here on March 18, and came before the Special Orders Committee only last Wednesday, April 7. Your Lordships will know that the Special Orders Committee reported
" That, in their opinion, the provisions of this Order raise important questions of policy and principle:
"That the Order is not founded on precedent:
"That in the opinion of the Committee the Order cannot be passed by the House without special attention, but that no further inquiry is necessary before the House proceeds

1189
to a decision on the Resolution to present an Address to Her Majesty praying that the Older be made."
Your Lordships will appreciate, therefore, that the Special Orders Committee have taken the view that there are in regard to this particular Order important questions of policy and principle which are not founded on precedent. The view of my noble friends on this side of the House is that your Lordships' House should have a further opportunity of considering this matter, having regard to the many questions which are involved in the Order. The Lord Chancellor told us, as I understood it, that ratification by other countries was equivalent to the making of an Order in this country.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think we mean the same thing. What I said was that when a foreign country—I do not say all foreign countries, but those with which we are concerned—have ratified an Agreement, it becomes automatically part of their municipal law. It is not a question of making an Order. It is just as if we were making it part of our municipal law, whether by an Act of Parliament or by an Order made under an Act. I do not think there is much between us.
LORD MILNER OF LEEDS: I am obliged to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, because a serious question arises as to whether, assuming these powers, exemptions and immunities are granted to visiting forces in this country, putting them in the same position as our own Forces, with all the consequences which may follow, reciprocal treatment is being given to us by these other countries. Whilst I gather that the effect of ratification does grant reciprocation, I am not absolutely clear (and I do not knew whether the Lord Chancellor is) whether other countries have granted, or have undertaken to grant, our Forces in those countries the powers and immunities which it is proposed by this order to grant to the forces of those countries.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I thought I had made it clear that, isasmuch as ratification was equivalent to the relevant municipal legislation, we should have those advantages the moment we ratify. If I am not interrupting the noble Lord, I should like to say this. It strikes me as rather strange—although I admit the debt we all owe to the Committee which looks into this matter—to say that this is "without precedent," That is
1190
rather wide of the mark, because in effect the Orders prescribe exactly what the existing legislation does, but with some modification. The Visiting Forces Act, 1933, and the Allied Forces Act, 1940, will be repealed, and the position will be substantially the same as it was before.
LORD MILNER OF LEEDS: I should not presume to comment upon the decision or the views of a Committee of this House who have in fact said, after due consideration, that this particular Order is not founded on precedent. I do not know their grounds. They may be good grounds, or grounds which are not so good, but that is the view of your Lordships' Special Orders Committee. In any event, the first question is whether the Government can assure us in terms that the reciprocal rights in all these respects have been or will be granted to our Forces in those cases where our Forces are in other countries. That is the first and, perhaps, the most important question. I do not know how far the Lord Chancellor can go with that assurance, but I gather that he is more or less satisfied that ratification of the Agreement by those other countries does in fact give our Forces the powers which we are proposing to give to visiting forces in this country; but I think the House at a later date would wish to have the most explicit assurance on that point. It is obviously essential that, where we are granting immunities, privileges and exemptions from the ordinary law of the land to the citizens, though in the armed forces, of other countries, then our Forces should be granted similar and wholly reciprocal rights in those other countries.
The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack gave us the history of this matter, for which we are obliged. The section of the Visiting; Forces Act, 1952., on which this Order is made, is of the widest possible character. If I may read a portion of Section 8 (2), it says:
"Her Majesty may by, Order in Council made as respects any visiting force make provision—
(a) for exempting that force or members or service courts thereof or any persons in any way connected therewith"—
which would not appear to limit the exemption to the members of the forces alone—
"or property used or to be used for the purposes thereof, from the operation of any

1191
enactment specified in the Order to any extent to which the force, members, courts, persons or property would be, or would be capable of being, exempted therefrom if the force were a part of any of the home forces;
(b) for conferring on that force or any such members, courts, persons or property as aforesaid any other privilege or immunity specified in the Order, being a privilege or immunity which would be enjoyed by, or would be capable of being conferred on, the force, members, courts, persons or property if the force were a part of any of the home forces."
Those are tremendously wide powers and, in my submission, this particular Order which your Lordships are discussing to-day takes advantage of that section to the fullest possible extent and seems—as, indeed, the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack agrees—to cover a vast variety of matters which it is quite impossible to discuss in detail. As your Lordships will see from the explanatory note on the First Schedule:
"By Article 5 and the First Schedule a number of powers vested in Government Deparments to acquire and use land and rights over land for the purposes of the home forces, are extended so as to enable those Departments to acquire and use land and rights over land for the purposes of the visiting forces."
With regard to Article 8, the explanatory note says:
"Article 8 extends privileges attaching to vehicles of the home forces, and persons connected therewith, to visiting force vehicles and persons connected therewith."
Your Lordships will see that Article 8 says:
"Except as provided by this Article, the Road Traffic Acts, 1930 to 1947, and Part I of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933, shall not apply to any vehicle in the service of a visiting force, or to anything done or omitted in relation to any such vehicle by a person being a member of such a force when acting in the course of his duty as such."
Presumably that entitles vehicles of visiting forces to disregard the Road Traffic Acts in some respects—to travel without lights or disregard the zebra crossings, or whatever it may be. The Road Traffic Acts are apparently not to apply to visiting forces any more than they apply to home forces.
Similarly, there are a number of other detailed criticisms one might make. The Second Schedule to the Order sets out the various exemptions, immunities and privileges which the Home Forces enjoy, and they are to be extended to the visiting forces. Paragraph 1 of Article 14
1192
adapts (and this may be an advantage) sections of the Public Health Acts making provision for the notification of infectious diseases contracted by members of the Home Forces. I do not know whether that imposes on the visiting forces a similar obligation to notify as it applies to the medical officers of Home Forces, but presumably that is so. The Lord Chancellor has dealt with the question of summoning civilian witnesses—a not unimportant matter. The Fifth Schedule deals with the
"custody, detention and treatment of persons sentenced by service courts of visiting forces."
I do not know, but perhaps the Lord Chancellor can tell us whether the courts of visiting forces are entitled to try and sentence British citizens. Presumably that would be a matter for our own courts alone.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: That arises out of the Act itself.
LORD MILNER OF LEEDS: There are a tremendous number of points which seem to require further consideration than we are able to give this Order to-day. One has read of many cases—I do not know how far this Order affects them—of affiliation orders made in this country against members of visiting forces. Provision is made, presumably, in this Order or elsewhere for proceedings to be taken in this country against members of the visiting forces against whom such orders are made. Is there any means or reciprocal arrangement whereby those orders can be enforced in other countries —for example, the United States of America? The same applies to maintenance orders. One reads of a member of the visiting forces of some other country coming to England, marrying an English woman and leaving her here. In some instances she obtains a maintenance order. Can that maintenance order be enforced in the countries of the visiting forces, and to what extent, if at all, does this Order deal with that matter? Presumably, it does not do so directly, but if there is reciprocity then, one would hope, some provision should deal with that matter.
Then there is the question of judgments for damages. I gathered from this Order that if a citizen of this country obtained a judgment against some member of the visiting forces, that could be enforced against him, but I am now told that that

1193
is not dealt with by this Order. Now are we taking advantage of the consideration of this Order to clear up all these anomalies which may affect our citizens to such an extent? There have been a great many cases of injuries, of wives who have been left in this country, of children where affiliation orders have been made and so forth, where it has not been possible to execute the judgments made by our courts. It would seem necessary, if this Order does not deal specifically with those matters, at any rate that as a matter of reciprocity the House should be assured that if this same provision is applied to our forces in other countries and that orders made in this country should be enforceable in those other countries.
I do not think there is a great deal more for me to say, except that my noble friends and I attach great importance to this Order. We express the hope that it may be possible to adjourn consideration of it and give us a further opportunity of looking into all these varied exemptions and immunities which are granted. They are numerous. The Visiting Forces Act under which this Order is laid received the Royal Assent on October 13, 1952. The Government have had one year and a half in which to draw up this Order, which your Load-ships are to-day asked to approve, yet we have had an opportunity of considering it, after its passing the Special Orders Committee, only between last Wednesday and to-day. In my submission, that is not sufficient time and the House ought to have a further opportunity. I venture to hope that the Government will agree that the further consideration of the matter be adjourned to a later date.
3.24 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I had not intended to say anything about this subject, but I am a little disturbed by the remarks of my noble friend who has just spoken. He certainly puts this House on inquiry about the regulations. Obviously, they are far-reaching and difficult, as the noble and learned Lord who introduced them admitted. In fact, judging by the size of his brief, he must have spent many hours in mastering the regulations and their effect, and the circumstances in which they are being submitted. I realise that it is the duty of every Member to make himself master of the business that comes before the House, but some of us
1194
have other occupations and this is a difficult matter. What I would plead is that, if consideration of it can be postponed without injury, to enable us to look at it, we shall be greatly obliged. If it cannot be postponed, if it is in the public interest that it should be passed to-day, we must swallow it; but frankly we should be swallowing something without appreciating what we were swallowing. In the interests of good administration and good government, it really is better that the House should know what it is doing rather than that it should not. I very much hope that the noble and learned Lord will see his way to postpone it.
3.25 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, we are in a real difficulty about that. I would remind the noble Lord that the position in which we shall be, as the result of applying these several Acts conferring immunities of privileges upon visiting forces is exactly the same as that in which we are now, except that, instead of the general cover which was provided by the Act of 1933, and applied by the Act of 1940 and the Orders under it, we now have specified in the Order the several Acts which already apply. Except in certain respects there is no difference between the position now and the position which previously existed.
Noble Lords have asked me questions about one or two points which I shall be glad to answer. We are not really introducing something new. We are stabilising the position under the existing law, and we are carrying out the Agreement which was entered into by the late Government in 1951—but not in every detail. Let me say this—and it answers, I think, one of the questions put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Milner of Leeds. Of course, there is no exact reciprocity in every respect, because that will depend upon the legislation of the particular country concerned. If we give certain immunities and exemptions in respect of an explosives Act which is part of our municipal law, there can be no exact reciprocity in, say, France, unless they have a similar law in respect of which they can give us immunity and exemption. So you cannot: get exact reciprocity. What you can do is to carry out the spirit of the agreement in order, so far as possible, to enable the forces visiting this country to carry on with efficiency

1195
and preparedness and to enable our forces abroad to do the same.
There are certain points that the noble Lord made, and particularly one in regard to judgments recovered in this country. If I may respectfully say so, that is nothing whatever to do with this Order, which is laid under Section 8 of the Act. That is a matter which was provided for by Section 9 of the Visiting Forces Act; it was a matter which was very much discussed upon the last occasion when this Act passed through this House. In fact, I am justified in saying that the Minister of Defence is making the necessary arrangements in order to implement Section 9 of the Act of 1952. Let me be quite sure about this because the noble Lord has raised this point. We are dealing with Section 8 of the 1952 Act:
"Application to visiting forces of law relating to home forces."
Has the noble Lord a copy of the 1952 Act?
LORD MILNER OF LEEDS: Yes.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Lord will see that Section 8 is the section under which we are proceeding, and that Section 9,
"Settlement of claims against visiting forces,"
is quite a separate section. All I would say about that is that the machinery for carrying that section into effect is, I believe, proceeding satisfactorily. That is very relevant to the question which the noble Lord raised, of affiliation orders and so on. In regard to that, because I realise the importance of what the noble Lord has said—it has been very much in our mind—let me observe that the new arrangements are really more restrictive than the existing arrangements. I will take Sections 144 and 145 of the Army Act. They are not applied to visiting forces by this Order, and therefore maintenance and affiliation orders made by United Kingdom courts against members of visiting forces will be enforceable, if payment is not made, by ordinary process of law. Of course, everybody must realise the difficulty. Supposing that an American soldier or airman gets a girl into trouble in this country and then goes back to America, it will be difficult to enforce an order that may afterwards be made against
1196
him—everybody must realise that. It is no part of this Order to save that situation; it could not be. But I have reason to understand that in those cases the United States authorities will do all they can to persuade members of the American forces to pay; and I have no doubt that in most cases they will succeed. That, if I may respectfully say so, is not really a matter with which we are concerned in the Order.
The noble Lord, Lord Milner of Leeds, referred, amongst other things, to the provisions of the Order in regard to the acquisition of land. No doubt that matter is important, but the position there is not changed in any way. It is obviously necessary. It does not require more than a few moments' consideration to see that it is absolutely essential that there should be power for the proper authority in this country to acquire land and buildings for visiting forces, in just the same way as it does for our own Home Forces. If I may respectfully say so, it does not really require a deal of consideration to be sure that that course must be taken. These forces are here for our protection as much as for the protection of Western civilisation, and precisely the same considerations apply for them as for our own Home Forces in regard to the acquisition of land. That, in rather elaborate language, is what Paragraph 5 provides. That, I may say incidentally, is one of the things for which specifically we are bound to make provision by the Agreement of 1951—I cannot find the appropriate passage for the moment, but I know that the noble Lord will take it from me.
Then the noble Lord, Lord Milner of Leeds, referred to Paragraph 8, which deals with road transport laws. There it is quite obvious, I would suggest, that exactly the same immunities and privileges are required for the vehicles of visiting forces as for those of our own Forces. The law in regard to that is, indeed, most elaborate. As the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said, I have had to spend some time in dealing with this matter, but, having dealt with it, I am led, inevitably, to this conclusion: that there really is no difference for this purpose between the Home Forces and visiting forces. If Parliament, in its wisdom, thinks that some kind of immunity or exemption or limitation of the law is necessary in regard to Home Service vehicles, it is quite obvious that the same relaxation of

1197
the law is needed in the case of visiting forces, if they are out on manœuvres or whatever it may be. The law of road transport being complex, the matter becomes complicated, but there again, the simple issue is that in this respect visiting forces must be treated in the same way as we treat Home Forces. Those were two of the special points to which the noble Lord referred. In regard to the provisions of the Public Health Acts, and also the Factory Acts, with regard to which I have all the details, I can assure him that it is necessary to apply the same provisions to the visiting as to Home Forces.
I think the Schedules, particularly the Fourth and Fifth Schedules, were the last matter to which the noble Lord referred. I think I have stated that the salient features there are simply procedural. The substance of jurisdiction was dealt with in the Act itself. It was a matter which created a good deal of discussion. I remember the late Lord Simon taking a considerable part in that discussion, and the difficult question of jurisdiction was established by the Act itself. These Schedules are nothing more than the machinery for enabling these courts to act efficiently, arid, as I told your Lordships, it appears to me that the salient features are these: first of all, that the summoning of witnesses (other than the members of the visiting forces, of course) is not a matter for the Service court of a visiting force, but for an officer of the Home Forces; and i a the same way, the detention or imprisonment of members of the visiting forces in one of our prisons can be achieved only under the authority of the Admiralty or the Secretary of State.
Then the noble Lord asked me whether I was quite satisfied about reciprocity. My answer to that I will state in the words which I have before me, because I cannot pretend that I am competent to examine the laws of all foreign countries. When we in our turn have ratified the Agreement, which we intend to do as soon as the Visiting Forces Act is in force—I should add, also, as soon as this Motion has been passed—and we are in a position to carry out our obligations, our Forces will be entitled in those countries to the privileges and immunities for which the Agreement provides, and these are the main ones covered by the Order. I should say that many of
1198
these privileges are already being enjoyed, by arrangement, in the countries where our Forces are stationed. As I have said, there cannot be exact reciprocity because the municipal laws of two countries are not in all respects the same—in fact, they diverge widely; but the spirit of the Agreement will be carried out in the countries which have ratified the Agreement, as it will in our own country. I cannot, I think, give any other answer than that.
I think I have already told the House that the foreign countries named in Article 3 of the Order have ratified the Agreement, and I ant further assured that in those countries no further steps are needed to enable effect to be given to the Agreement. As I say, I am not an expert on the laws of all foreign countries, and I can say only what I am told in regard to that matter. Article 8 of the Agreement is not immediately before us, but perhaps it will assist noble Lords if I say that in the United States legislation has been introduced to give effect to the provisions of Article 8, which deals with claims against the members of visiting forces, and the United States Embassy has given an assurance that the United States Government, in ratifying the Status of Forces Agreement, have undertaken to meet the claims for reimbursement submitted to them under Article 8 of the Agreement—not Section 8 of the Act. This is a matter of financial adjustment between Governments.
Purposely, having regard to the complexity and number of the Acts which are covered by this Order, I did not go through them one by one, because that would have made my opening speech too long. I hoped that, if there were any points of difficulty, they would be raised by noble Lords and that I should have an opportunity of answering them. I think I have answered all the points that were raised. I feel that, in the circumstances, it is impossible to postpone the bringing into force of this Order, and accordingly I have no other course to take than to ask that the Motion be agreed to.
3.40 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am sure that all of us, and especially noble Lords who sit on this side of the House, are very grateful indeed to the noble and learned

1199
Lord who sits on the Woolsack for the explanation which he has given of some of the difficult points in this Order. I hope he will not think that we feel that he has in any way been failing in the manner in which he has dealt with this matter in the House this afternoon. He has been exceedingly helpful in the last address, which he has just given, and he has, in fact, cleared up two points which were troubling us. Perhaps our early pressure has been helpful in inducing him to make that second address to the House.
On the other hand, I am in some difficulty—and the noble Marquess the Leader of the House will, I think, sympathise with me—because my noble and learned Leader, Lord Jowitt, who is a lawyer of some distinction, addressed the House at some length on the Second Reading of the Bill which became the Act of 1952, and, unfortunately, in the short time which has elapsed since this Order came from the Committee dealing with these Orders, I have not had any opportunity to consult him as to the progress that this Order ought to make. Further, I am quite unable to understand why an Order of this kind, initiated, I understand, in your Lordships' House and not in another place—
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: In both Houses.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: It will have to go to the other House?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I speak without the book, but I rather think that it is being taken in the other House too.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I see, pari passu. I did not know that was to be the case.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am told now that it is not being taken in another place to-day but that it will be taken to-morrow.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I am unable to understand why this Order must go through immediately. If there is some specific reason why the Government must have it, I wish they would tell us what the reason is. I have no desire to be difficult in this matter and if they have a sound reason I shall sympathise with them, having myself had some sort of responsibility for things of
1200
this sort in connection with the Defence Department. But not knowing whether the Government have some strong reason, I should have thought that it would be easy to postpone the approval of this Order until, say, a week after the Easter Recess. That would allow us to deal with it after we had been able to have consultations. These things are more difficult for us in our position than for noble Lords on the other side when they were in Opposition because they can command a larger attendance, and have a larger number of authorities whom they can consult. If the Government tell us that there is a special reason —and what that reason is—why this Order must be approved to-day, we shall be only too glad to assent. If there is not a good reason, I should be glad if the noble Marquess would consider the strong representations which have been made from these Benches to postpone this matter until after the Easter Recess.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, this is undoubtedly one of those occasions upon which Parliament has a difficult problem before it. But after all, this extremely long and complicated Order is the result, I take it, of long, international discussion and negotiation. It has been before Parliament, I understand, since March 18. It is true that it has had to go to the Special Orders Committee, as the noble Lord, Lord Milner of Leeds, has said, but it has been back from that Committee now for a week.
LORD MILNER OF LEEDS: Not quite.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: One day less than a week, I think. It is now suggested that it should be further postponed. There is every reason why this Order should be passed by Parliament as soon as possible. There is the very simple reason which was given by the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack—that the United States is already acting in the matter. Nor, with all due deference to the noble Lords opposite, do I think it would be of very much advantage to have a postponement —except that it would, no doubt, enable noble Lords opposite to examine the matter perhaps even more carefully than

1201
they have been able to do—because this is an Order, and it must be either taken or left.
In view of the fact that it has already been the subject of protracted negotiations with other countries, it is extremely improbable that noble Lords and members of their Party in another place would wish to reject the Order. Therefore, in fact, at the end of the extra week—it would really be an extra ten days, if there were a postponement for the Easier Recess—even if noble Lords opposite spent the whole of the Recess profitably in examining the Order, as I have no doubt they would do, the result would be exactly the same. Therefore, in view of the importance of getting this Order as soon as possible, and in view of the fact that other nations besides ourselves are concerned, I hope that noble Lords will appreciate the importance of acting immediately. I do not pretend that there long and complicated Orders do not present Parliament with very great difficulties. If it were a question of rejecting the Order, that would be a different matter, but I am certain that no one in the House would think of doing such a thing. For these reasons—and I may say that I speak equally with the noble Viscount opposite, not as a lawyer but only as an ordinary Member of this House—I think the House would be wise to accept the Order. I can give every assurance that, whenever such cases do occur, I will give as long notice as I possibly can.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I am obliged to the noble Marquess. As I have already said, we have no wish to be unduly difficult, but we are sorry that we cannot have this matter postponed as I have suggested'. Perhaps the noble Marquess will take into account on future occasions what we have said, and see whether these complicated and difficult Orders cannot be laid for a fairly long period. There are a good many specialised Orders which come before Parliament and which are of legislative effect, and there are cases, I believe, where they have to be laid for sixty days. We have not had that in this case, of course, and there is no statutory obligation on the Government to lay an Order of this kind for sixty days. On the other hand, in my view we really have not had enough time to consider this Order. If,
1202
in the view of the noble Marquess, it is essential in order to meet the position with the United States of legislation collaterally or pari passu with ourselves, then I think perhaps we ought not to hold up this Order. I hope the noble Marquess will forgive us for pressing our view that in the future in such cases, if possible, we might be given a longer time.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, may I put this to the House? Like my noble friend who has just spoken I think that in the circumstances it would be wrong to suggest that there should now be a postponement. But the difficulty that we face —and speak as one who takes some part in the work of the House—is that until this Order was explained it was impossible for any of us, even those of us who are lawyers, to appreciate its effects. After the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor had introduced the Order then one could profitably examine it. If we do not realise all the implications of such an Order, I do not think it would help the House if we did have a little longer to have an Order of this sort in front of us. I think the most valuable thing that could be done would be, if possible, to have an arrangement whereby the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor gave an explanation of a complicated matter of this kind. We could then go away Lind think about it in the light of what he had said. We should then be able to think about it intelligently. It is not a method that one would wish to introduce on all occasions, but in a difficult and complicated matter of this kind I think it would be most useful. Ii wonder if the noble Marquess would consider whether something of that sort could be devised, so that, if we could come back in a week's time after an explanation, we could talk about the matter much more intelligently than if it were merely laid before the House for a long period.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I will gladly consider anything which noble Lords suggest, but I should not like the House to think that there has been no time for consideration of this Order. The Order has been before Parliament for nearly a month. There is an explanatory note attached to it. That note, of course, is not nearly so enlightening as the explanation which the noble and learned

1203
Lord who sits on the Woolsack has given to-day. Still there was that note attached to the Order. Having said that, I will consider whether there are any means of meeting this peculiar type of difficulty, which of course is not very common. Noble Lords may be certain—I am sure that the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor will agree in this—that we shall be anxious to bear in mind what has happened on this occasion.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

ANGLO-AMERICAN TALKS
3.50 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, FOREIGN OFFICE (THE MARQUESS OF READING): My Lords, with the permission of the House, I should like to make a statement upon the conversations which my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has had with Mr. Dulles. The talks were concluded this morning. The talks covered a wide range of topics of common interest to our two Governments. We had a full exchange of views with reference to South East Asia. We deplored the fact that on the eve of the Geneva Conference the Communist forces in Indo-China are increasingly developing their activities into a large-scale war against the forces of the French Union. They seek to overthrow the lawful and friendly Government of Vietnam, which we recognise; and they have invaded Laos and Cambodia. We realised that these activities not only threaten those now directly involved, but also endanger the peace and security of the entire area of South East Asia and the Western Pacific, where our two nations and other friendly and allied nations have vital interests.
Accordingly, we—that is, the Governments of the United States and the United Kingdom—are ready to take part, with the other countries principally concerned, in an examination of the possibility of establishing a collective defence, within the framework of the Charter of the United Nations, to assure the peace, security and freedom of South East Asia and the Western Pacific. It is our hope that the Geneva Conference will lead to the restoration of peace in Indo-China. We believe that the prospect of establishing a unity of defensive purpose throughout
1204
South East Asia and the Western Pacific will contribute to an honourable peace in Indo-China.
Her Majesty's Government also discussed with Mr. Dulles developments in the field of atomic energy. It will be recalled that on March 19 the Soviet Ambassador in Washington was handed by the Secretary of State of the United States a concrete proposal elaborating on that portion of President Eisenhower's speech of December 8, 1953, before the General Assembly of the United Nations, which dealt with the subject of peaceful use of atomic energy. The Government of the United Kingdom, together with several other friendly nations concerned, had been consulted and had concurred in the terms of the concrete proposal before it was given to the Soviet Government. No reply has yet been received from that Government, which is studying the proposal. We also noted that the British representative to the United Nations in New York, with the support of the United States and French representatives, had suggested that a call be issued for an early meeting of the subcommittee of the Disarmament Commission of the United Nations.
3.53 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am sure we are all obliged to the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, for giving us the benefit of the statement which I understand the Foreign Secretary is making in another place at the same time. I am sure the whole House will be in full agreement with the latter part of the statement and will welcome especially the last few words which the noble Marquess has read out. Pressure must be brought to bear to have a meeting of the Disarmament Commission of the United Nations. I think that would be a very great move indeed. Many people who are at present in great anxiety about the state of special weapons will welcome that statement. I hope it will be successful.
With regard to the first part of the statement, while, of course, we should like to look at it a little longer and more closely, it seems to me (I do not know what my colleagues think) that the British Government have agreed very largely with the statements which Mr. John Dulles had already made before he came over here. If that is so, I am sure many people

1205
in this country will be rather disappointed. Of course, it is impossible to read into the short summary which the noble Marquess read out all the various angles of the discussions which have taken place, and there may be safeguards and the lice about which we do not know; but, prima facie, it certainly seems that there is at least a major agreement between Mr. John Dulles and the Foreign Secretaty, with the support of the Government, on the proposal which I understand was being made to set up a special organisation which could be called collectively to the defence of the anti-Communists in Indo-China. That kind of move at the present time should be very carefully considered in the light of all our experience. Therefore, I hope that the noble Marquess will realise that we must have a little more time to study the position and that perhaps we may have to bring it to the notice of the House at a later stage.
LORD REA: My Lords, on behalf of noble Lords who sit on these Benches, I should like to join with the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, in thanking the noble Marquess for his statement, which has been much appreciated. Although we do not put quit e the same interpretation on his remarks as does the noble Viscount, we notice with considerable interest the proposal that there will be an examination of what I think amounts almost to a N.A.T.O. for South-East Asia. As one who has had the privilege of visiting those parts fairly recently, I know how vital aril difficult the situation is there. In the future anything may happen, and we al wish that it may be something good. I hope that the noble Marquess, with his usual courtesy, will continue to let the House know of any further developments in this matter.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, in answer to what the noble Viscount said. I wish to say that naturally I do not want to launch into a minute discussion of the matter at the moment, but I should like to impress on him that in my statement I indicated that Her Majesty's Government had not entered into any new commitment involving United Kingdom or Commonwealth Forces. All that the statement said, as I think the noble Viscount will appreciate when he reads it, is that without
1206
undertaking any commitment we have indicated no more than our readiness to take part with other countries in examining measures which may lead to the establishment of what the noble Lord. Lord Rea, has very appropriately called something in the nature of a South-East Asia N.A.T.O. Of course, that is an area in which this country and the Commonwealth countries have a real, live and lasting interest.
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, may I ask this further question? The noble Marquess will agree that this is a very grave subject. Before any of Her Majesty's Forces are committed to take part in any possible operation, I take it that Parliament will be consulted as to the whole position.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, at the moment we have got no further than agreeing with one of the other parties only, the United States, to go into an examination with other countries concerned. I have no doubt that if a concrete result emerges from this discussion, there will be ample opportunities for Parliament to discuss the subject.

THE HIGH COMMISSION TERRITORIES
3.58 p.m.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (VISCOUNT SWINTON): My Lords, with the permission of the House, I should like to make a statement about the High Commission Territories in Africa. As your Lordships will have seen, a Resolution was yesterday introduced by the South African Government in the Union House of Assembly in the following terms:
"The House resolves teat the transfer to the Union of the government of Basutoland and the Bechuanaland and Swaziland Protectorates, to be administered in accordance with the terms and conditions embodied in the Schedule to the South Africa Act, 1909, or such other terms and conditions as may be agreed upon between the two Governments concerned, should lake place as soon as possible. The House consequently urges that with this end in view immediate steps should be taken towards the resumption of the negotiations between the said two Governments at the point reached at the outbreak of the war in 1939.
"The House further resolves that this Resolution, if adopted, be sent through to the Senate for its concurrence."

1207
A description of the position reached in 1939 will be found in Cmd. 8707 which was published in December, 1952.
The Resolution to which I have referred has not yet received the assent of the Union Parliament. Nor can I forecast what action the South African Government may take assuming the Resolution is passed. Nevertheless, I think it is in the interests of both countries that the position of the United Kingdom Government should be stated. It is common ground that, whereas the Union Government are within their rights in raising again the question of the transfer of the Territories, the decision whether they can or should be transferred at any given time rests with the United Kingdom Government. Moreover, at the time of the passage of the South Africa Act, 1909 (which contains provisions about the machinery for the administration of the Territories if they should at a future date be transferred), certain pledges were given in Parliament, and these have been frequently repeated. They are to the effect that transfer of the Territories to the Union of South Africa should not take place until their inhabitants have been consulted, and until the United Kingdom Parliament has been given an opportunity of expressing its views. It is to be remembered, too, that, as far back as 1925, General Hertzog stated in the Union House of Assembly:
"Our position has always been, as a Party, that we are not prepared to incorporate in the Union any territory unless the inhabitants of the territory are prepared to come in."
I think it is right to state that, in the conditions which exist at the present time, the Government would not be prepared to recommend such a transfer to Parliament.
While I think it is necessary in the general interest to make this clear statement, I should wish to add this. So far as relations between the Administrations of the 'Territories and the Union Authorities are concerned, these are, I believe, working very well. There is close cooperation over a wide range of practical matters, trade, transport, agriculture, health (human and animal), and development generally. All that is working well, and if it can be improved we want to make it work still better to the mutual advantage of both the Union and the Territories. These are the practical things that make for increasing good will
1208
between the Union and the Territories. All these practical matters of day-to-day collaboration have gone on and developed irrespective of any question of transfer. While I must make plain that transfer is an issue on which there is no prospect of agreement at this time, I should wish to make equally clear that it is the firm wish and intention of Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom to continue our close collaboration on all the matters I have mentioned, as well as on wider fronts in the world outside—economic and foreign policy and defence —where there is to-day between us such a large measure of agreement and common action.
4.3 p.m.
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Viscount for making that statement. I am bound to say quite categorically that I believe the Government are completely right to make this clear statement without any loss of time: I have no doubt that in all sections of the House there will be unanimity about that. I think there can be no question of the transfer of these Territories at the present time. I confess that I am glad to see, particularly as I have just come back from the Union, and I know it to be so, that there is to-day a very close collaboration and co-operation between the administration of the Territories and the Union Government with regard to what is being done, and I sincerely hope that that will be continued and strengthened—if, indeed, it needs strengthening. For I firmly believe that this is one way in which we can bring about an extension of friendship and co-operation between the Union authorities and ourselves, which is so vitally important in the interests of us both.
4.5 p.m.
LORD LAYTON: My Lords, in view of the history of the Liberal Party in relation to this problem, I need hardly say that we welcome the statement which has been made this afternoon. I, too, feel that Her Majesty's Government are absolutely right to have made this statement at the earliest possible moment. There is explosive material right throughout Asia and Africa, and you can never be wrong to make your position clear from the offset. We welcome not merely the fact of the statement, but its contents. As the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, said, there is certainly unanimity

1209
that the transfer should not, and could not, be contemplated at the moment. It is clear that it would be contrary to the whole drift of recent British policy in relation to territories inhabited by coloured people. It would be not only contrary to the trend of current policy, but contrary also to all our written commitments.
The statement refers to pledges given at the time of the passing of the South Africa Act, 1909. Similar undertakings have been given since that time. After all, the Atlantic Charter contains a phrase that the territories are to be free to decide their own form of government. It would be contrary to that statement in the Atlantic Charter to have a transfer, unless it were agreed by the persons concerned. I would remind your Lordships that even more recently we have undertaken a commitment bearing on this. As lately as October 23, Her Majesty's Government tabled a statement conferring on forty-three Colonies and Territories of the British Empire the privileges of the Convention of Human Rights, which came into force last: September. After lying on the Table of both Houses, it became binding on Her Majesty's Government. That is a commitment to apply certain rights; and not only to apply them, but to answer to our associates in the democratic world that they are being applied. We were committed to this step as deeply as possible, and throughout the Territories concerned that commitment of ours has been carefully noted.
It might be argued by the Government of South Africa that that Government would recognise all those rights—the right of trial, the right of free speech, the right of association and so on, without discrimination of race, colour or religion. But if this transfer were agreed to, it would at least be a transfer from the direction of a country which is committed to those human rights to one which is not a party to any such undertaking. Whether it be on the ground of policy, or on the ground of written commitments, certainly we on these Benches are grateful, both for the Government statement this afternoon and for the policy which it adumbrates. Nevertheless, we are equally gratified at the reference in the statement to collaboration: for, after all, if you are divided on a main issue of policy, then
1210
the only hope of getting on is to take a circuitous route, such as that provided by day-to-day collaboration in administration and matters of that kind. We are grateful to the noble Viscount for making the statement.
4.9 p.m.
EARL WINTERTON: My Lords, I do not want to go against the trend of your Lordships' House—indeed, I am in agreement with the Government—but I detect a certain atmosphere in this House which fails to take into account the extreme acuteness of this problem. I do not dissent from what the noble Lord, Lord Layton, has just said, but he would not find a single member of the Union House of Parliament, on whichever side of the House he sits, who would agree with a word of what he has said, because on that issue the United Party, though they differ strongly from Doctor Malan, as the debate has shown, consider that Her Majesty's Government must at some future date band over these Territories. Incidentally, if I may go off on a tangent, I do not remember any precedent for an announcement by the Government of this country in the midst of a debate in a Dominion House of Parliament. So far as I know this statement to-day is a complete precedent. It may be a serious one, but while Mr. George Strauss disagrees with Dr. Malan, he has made it dear, as hay every member of his Party, that they consider Her Majesty's Government must at some future date hand over these Territories I rise only for the purpose of saying that I imagine it is perfectly clear from the Secretary of State's speech that this matter is still open to negotiation. Though I were alone in the House in saying so, I would point out once again—to quote the phrase used by the noble Lord, Lord Layton, in a different connection—that this is a question of dynamite. It is one of the most difficult questions we have in the whole Commonwealth, and I sincerely hope that it will be solved by negotiation.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords. I hoped that we might close on the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Layton. I must make it clear fiat I do-not know whether what is being done to-day by the Prime Minister in another place, and myself, as Secretary of State, here, is a precedent but as a Government we were absolutely united and firmly convinced

1211
that we must make this statement here and now. I think that here, as in another place, we have carried the whole of the House with us, not only in what we have said but on the necessity for saying it. With great respect to the noble Earl, when you have an issue of this kind it is much better that you should not shilly shally about it. There are things that can be said among friends —I use the words "among friends" advisedly; and one of the most important things is that there should be frankness. I am sure that we shall not have lost but shall have gained by stating with absolute frankness what the position is; and here the Government speak, I think, for everybody in this country. I trust that it will still be possible to go forward with the mass of collaboration on practical things that matter which we are doing day in and day out, and which need not be prejudiced because we cannot agree on what I may call the main matter. I must again make it absolutely clear that we cannot and will not at this time propose to Parliament the transfer of these Territories.

SLAUGHTERHOUSES BILL [H.L.]
4.13 p.m.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Clause 1:
Functions of local authorities
(2) It is hereby declared that the power of a local authority under subsection (1) of section sixty of the Food and Drugs Act, 1938, to provide public slaughterhouses is exercisable in either of the following ways, that is to say—
(b) by acquiring (whether by purchase, lease or otherwise) land on which such facilities have been provided by other persons and securing that such facilities continue to be provided there;
and any reference in Part V of the said Act of 1938 to a local authority providing a slaughterhouse shall be construed accordingly.
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved, in subsection (2), to add to paragraph (b):
" and that, without prejudice to the effect of section ninety-six of the said Act (which incorporates in the Act certain ancillary provisions of the Public Health Act, 1936), the purposes for which a local authority may be authorised by the Minister of Housing and Local Government to purchase land compulsorily include the purposes of the said section sixty."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name. Noble Lords who were present on the Committee stage of this Bill will remember that we had considerable discussion on the question whether this Bill, which requires local authorities to provide slaughterhouses as quickly as possible in contemplation of the decontrol of meat, contained provision for compulsory purchase of land to enable them to carry out this duty. I took the view that, putting it at its highest, it was extremely doubtful. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, explained that there were powers, not in the Bill, but powers which had been given to local authorities.
I think I ought to explain once more to the House how it came about that it could have been argued that there were powers. Section 306 of the Public Health Act, 1936, contains a provision for compulsory acquisition, but not for slaughterhouses—for everything but slaughterhouses. Section 96 of the Food and Drugs Act incorporates Section 306 of the Public Health Act, and Section 60 of the Food and Drugs Act gives local authorities powers to provide slaughterhouses. If with that is coupled Section 1 of the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act, 1946, then, by lumping all these together, it could be said that the local authorities had the powers which the noble Lord said they had. I am not at all sure that they have those powers, even when reference is made to these various measures. Legislation of that nature is really the legislation of a lunatic asylum. Surely, if you want local authorities to have power of compulsory purchase in a Bill that you are placing before the House, the simple way is to say so. This is not even legislation by reference, because there is not a word of reference about compulsory powers in this Bill. This is legislation, if you like, by intuition. The only people who could possibly imagine that there were compulsory powers, other than people like the noble Lord who have been briefed, are the Parliamentary draftsmen; and this is provision for Parliamentary draftsmen by Parliamentary draftsmen and nobody else.
Therefore, I feel strongly that there ought to be something in this Bill which indicates that local authorities have compulsory powers for purchase of land. In

1213
the end, it is only a dispute about drafting, and the House will remember that the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, suggested on the last occasion that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and I should try to settle it over a cup of tea. Circumstances have not permitted of that kind of refreshment, but we have met, and I think the noble Lord has recognised that something should go in the Bill. This Amendment is an attempt to indicate that compulsory powers are given to local authorities under this Bill; and while it does so by reference to other Acts, it does, at any rate, contain a statement that local authorities have compulsory powers and explains why they have them. I therefore move this Amendment, which I have every reason to hope will be accepted by the noble Lord.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 11, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Silkin.)
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords. I thought on the Committee stage that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, were making heavy weather on this point, and I still think they are. When I met them privately between fie Committee stage and this stage of the Bill they did not convince me that they were right in what they said, and I, alas! did not convince them that I was right in what I said. I do not want to go into the argument all over again. The simple explanation why no power of compulsory purchase appears in this Bill is that this Bill is an amendment of the Food and Drugs Act, 1938. Clause 1 (2) with which we are dealing here is merely an explanatory clause, explaining the powers which local authorities have with regard to slaughterhouses. There is no doubt whatever in the minds of the lawyers who advised me, and the officials of the Ministry of Food, that in point of fact local authorities do have powers of compulsory purchase. Having said that, I think the worst that can be said about the noble Lord's Amendment is that it is repetitive and makes for untidiness. I am prepared to run the risk of being called repetitive and untidy if I can retain for its remaining stages such good will as the noble Lord has shown towards this Bill, and accordingly I accept his Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3:
Grant end renewal of licences
3.—(1) Where, after the commencement of this Act and before the first day of July, nineteen hundred and fifty-six a slaughterhouse licence is granted or renewed by a local authority, the period fixed by fie authority for the licence to remain in force or, as the case may be, the period for which it is renewed, may, notwithstanding anything in subsection (7) of section fifty-seven of the Food and Drugs Act, 1938 (which relates to the duration of licences under that section in respect of slaughterhouses and knackers' yards), exceed thirteen months so long as it does not end later than the thirty-first day of July, nineteen hundred and fifty-nine:
Provided that this subsection shall not apply in any case where it appears to the local authority that the premises in respect of which the licence is granted or renewed are, so far as they are to be used for slaughter, to be used wholly or mainly for the slaughter of horses.
4.20 p.m.
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved, in subsection (1), after the second "may" to insert: "with the consent of the Minister of Food." The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment. I am assure the noble Lord that of I have spoken strongly, and possibly more strongly than he thinks the occasion deserves, it is not in any sense personal to him; for he has conducted these discussions in the most amicable and reasonable manner. On this Amendment I de not feel so passionately, but I think it is right. Perhaps the House will let me explain why. Clause 3 provides that, in granting licences for slaughterhouses, a local authority may go beyond the normal period of thirteen months, which is provided for in the Food and Drugs Act, 1938, and may grant a licence for five years. Originally in the Bill, the extended period was limited to three years but an Amendment was moved, which I supported and the Committee agreed to without any dissent, to extend the period. From thirteen months to five years is a very long extension. The reason is that it was desired to give private owners of slaughterhouses some incentive to incur expenses in improving their slaughterhouses, which in many cases had been out of use during the war and were in need of expenditure to make them sanitary, clean and serviceable.
We all agreed that there ought to be some encouragement, but that was the only ground on which this period was

1215
extended to five years. It is quite abnormal. It was always thought that a period of thirteen months was right. This is an abnormal extension. For that reason I felt—and that is the purpose of my Amendment—that the extension should not be granted automatically by a local authority, but should be subject to the consent of the Minister of Food. There is one other reason why I think that consent should be provided, and that is that the Minister of Food has, or may have, a financial interest in money that is spent on improving these slaughterhouses, because there may come a time when the local authority will wish to acquire. In that case, they will have to compensate, and the compensation will have to have regard to the money spent in improvements. The Minister of Food is a half partner in the compensation.
LORD CARRINGTON: With the local authority.
LORD SILKIN: Yes, with the local authority. At any rate, I am making the case that, where the extension of time is permitted, the Minister of Food has a contingent financial interest. For that reason, I think that the Minister of Food ought to give his consent to any extension. I hope that local authorities will not grant this extension automatically, and that they will exercise some discretion. But, if it is to be a matter of discretion on the part of each local authority, they may be acting under different principles, for different reasons and on account of different ideas. Surely there ought to be some overriding necessity for them to get approval from the Minister of Food so that it is quite clear that they are acting in accordance with the same principles throughout the country.
It may be said that this is a task which is entrusted to local authorities and that they ought to be allowed to get on with it without undue interference from the Minister of Food. If the Government want to take that line, they ought to have taken it in this Bill; but they have not. I want to point to a number of instances where, in fact, the Minister of Food does come into the picture and where his consent is already required. For instance, in Clause 2, subsection (3), the permission of the Minister of Food is required where it is proposed to vary
1216
charges in respect of the use of a slaughterhouse in certain circumstances.
I should have thought that, if the argument was that the local authorities ought to be allowed to carry out their duties without undue interference from the Ministry of Food, there is much less justification for their having to get the consent of the Ministry of Food to an alteration in charges than to granting a licence for an extended period of five years. There is another case. In this same clause, subsection (2), a local authority cannot grant a licence for a new slaughterhouse without the consent of the Ministry of Food. If the local authorities are to be allowed to get on with the job, why is this necessary? Surely they can be entrusted with this task. So Her Majesty's Government are not consistent. They are not allowing the local authorities to get on with the job without interference, nor are they providing the supervision in those cases in which, in my judgment, it is called for.
The last point that may be made is that it would be administratively difficult. But is it really any more difficult to provide for supervision over the extension of licences to a period of five years than it is to exercise supervision over the grant of licences for new slaughterhouses under subsection (2) of this clause, or to go into the question of charges, or to deal with the question of grants, which they have to do under later clauses in the Bill? Moreover, the number of cases will be very few and, relatively speaking, it will not need any new organisation or anything of that kind. It may be done with the existing organisation. I hope that I have satisfied the noble Lord that, if he cannot accept the Amendment—and I gather from the shaking of his head that he may find it difficult to accept it—at any rate, there is a case for further investigation and inquiry, in the light of the case which I have taken the trouble to put forward this afternoon. I put the case in perhaps more elaborate form than I did on the last occasion. I think I have supplied further arguments to support my point that there is a case for looking into the matter. The Bill will be going to another place. I do not ask even that it should be looked into before the Third Reading in this House, but I should like to feel that at any rate the noble Lord considers that these arguments that I have put forward are worthy

1217
of further consideration. If he were prepared to give that assurance, I should not feel disposed to press this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 43, after the second (" may ") insert ("with the consent of the Minister of Food ").—(Lord Silkin.)
4.29 p.m.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I make no complaint about it, but the difficulty of having a private conversation between the two stages of the Bill is that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, is well aware of the reasons why I am not going to accept this Amendment. He has, therefore, made most of his remarks in reply to reasons which I have not yet given. When this matter was first discussed in your Lordships' House, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, had two reasons for moving the Amendment. First of all, he felt that a period of five years without any regular inspection by local authorities would, from the hygiene point of view, be a bad thing. I hope that, from that point of view, I have convinced him that in point of fact there will be regular inspection by local authorities; and; of course, the sanitary inspector will be in the slaughterhouse every day when there is slaughtering. So I think from that point of view, the noble Lord need have no fears.
As I understand it the point that is troubling the noble Lord is that he feels that the Minister of Food should have some kind of residual power and should be obliged to inspect every five-year application which is made by the owner of a slaughterhouse before the application is granted. Well, the Inter-Departmental Committee on Slaughterhouses, whose recommendations we accept and whose report I am sure both noble Lords opposite have read say this —I hope your Lordships will forgive me for quoting it:
"Having regard to the paramount necessity … of seeing that adequate slaughterhouse accommodation is then available"—
that is, on the de-rationing of meat—
"we think it essential to secure that somebody is charged with the responsibility for ensuring that such accommodation is available in all areas of the country. We think this task must rest with local authorities rather than with the Central Government Departments … we are satisfied from our inquires that the local authority, by reason of its
1218
responsibility for licensing and its close connections with local trade and consumer interests, will be the most appropriate body to review and assess the slaughtering requirements of its districts."
My Lords, we accepted that, and in this Bill we have placed on the local authorities the obligation to ensure that in their districts there is a sufficient number of slaughterhouses. I am informed that nobody can tell how many applications for a five-year licence may be made, and that at the moment there does not exist in the Ministry of Food a sufficiently qualified staff to carry out the work which would be made necessary by the acceptance of the noble Lord's Amendment.
Lastly, I feel very strongly that we in Parliament should be extremely careful not always to assume that local authorities are not capable of deciding things for themselves. After all, they have the local knowledge. They have given us an assurance that they intend to carry out the policy of the Government as regards slaughterhouses. As well as local knowledge they have the will to do it, and I think that it would be very much better to leave them to it, without putting this power in the hands of the Ministry of Food. I would just draw the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, to the fact that the two cases he gave, in which there is a power in the Ministry of Food to intervene, are not cases affecting existing slaughterhouses, out relate to the licensing of absolutely new slaughterhouses. These are net powers which will affect the extreme urgency of getting these slaughterhouses opened before the de-rationing of meat, and I think that we should be quite wrong to do anything which might in any way dissuade private slaughterhouse owners from applying for these long licences and for opening then slaughterhouses. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, ended with an appeal to me that this matter should be considered again. I have been into it fully, and this is the advice I have been given. However, of course anything which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, says will always be studied most carefully. There will be a further opportunity in another place, as he says, to discuss this matter, and for those reasons I hope he will not press his Amendment this afternoon.
LORD SILKIN: I cannot withdraw my Amendment, but I will not force it to a Division.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 4:
Restriction of private slaughterhouses
(2) Where a local authority are satisfied that the slaughterhouse facilities available in their district are adequate for the time being having regard to the requirements of persons making use of such facilities, and that no additional facilities are required in the district, they may by a resolution determine that, after the date when the resolution has effect, no slaughterhouse licence will be granted or renewed by them in respect of any premises in their district which were not licensed on that date; or that such a licence will be granted or renewed only in special cases and with the consent of the Minister of Food:
Provided that a resolution under this subsection shall not have effect until it has been approved by that Minister.
4.35 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGHmoved, in subsection (2), after the first paragraph to insert:
"Every local authority contemplating such a resolution shall announce a period of not less than twenty-eight days, during which applications for slaughterhouse facilities will he entertained, and they shall make no determination until all applications received during such period have been considered:"
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, your Lordships will probably remember that this matter was raised on the Committee stage of the Bill. I argued it at a little length then, and I understand from our conversations that the Minister has had the matter under further consideration. I should like to ask whether the noble Lord can make a statement. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 25, at end insert the said words. —(Viscount Alexander of Hillsborough.)
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, as the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, has said, this is in point of fact the same Amendment as that which was put down on the Committee stage, and I then gave an undertaking that I would consider the matter and see what could be done. Having had rather a longer time to look at the position, I hope that I shall be able to satisfy the noble Viscount that his Amendment not only is unnecessary, but would not do that which he has in mind. In the first place,
1220
Section 61 (3) of the Food and Drugs Act, 1938, requires that a resolution to refuse further applications for licences shall not have effect until the Minister has approved it. This is one of the cases where the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has his way—the Minister must approve a closure, and the Minister has to take into consideration, before he approves the closure, all representations made to him within two months of the passing of the resolution. Therefore a disappointed applicant has two months in which to protest to the Minister of Food, and the Minister of Food is by law obliged to take into consideration his representations.
It could be argued, I suppose (perhaps the noble Viscount feels like this), that it is rather late after the passing of the resolution for these representations to be considered. But I very much doubt whether his Amendment, making it obligatory to give twenty-eight days' notice before the local authority passes the closure resolution, would make any difference, because I should think that in most cases the local authority would not give notice that they intended to pass a closure resolution until they were quite satisfied that they had enough slaughterhouses in their area. Therefore the fact that twenty-eight days' notice had to be given would, from the point of view of the applicant who was late, be quite unhelpful to him.
But one point does stand out from all this and cannot be over-emphasisednamely, that it is most desirable that all applications for well-equipped and good slaughterhouses should not be delayed; they should be made as soon as possible, and there should be no question of the owner of any good slaughterhouse being caught out by a resolution of closure, a sufficient number of smaller slaughterhouses having been opened in the meantime. I hope that those who can usefully contribute to the need for good and adequate slaughtering—and there is a need for good and adequate slaughtering—will make their applications without delay. I think that if we can make that quite clear, the noble Viscount's Amendment will be unnecessary. I hope, therefore that he will withdraw his Amendment.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords. I am much obliged. There seem to be two outstanding themes in the Minister's statement.

1221
The first is, that there is adequate statutory authority for an appeal against the resolution of the local authority, and in that regard the statement now made by the noble Lord to that effect, with its publicity, will be valuable. The second point that arises is that if those who have had pre-war licences are wise they will decide now whether or not they want to apply for a renewal: their application should be made not after the local authority has passed its resolution but forthwith. Those two points having been made, together with the consequent publicity that will be received, my objective in moving the Amendment has been met, and I beg to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.39 p.m.
LORD CARRINGTON LORD CARRINGTON moved, after subsection (3) to insert:
(" (4) Where a resolution of a local authority under the said section sixty-one has taken effect (whether before or after the commencement of this Act) and any premises used as a slaughterhouse have under subsection (4) of that section been exempted from the operation of the resolution, or the local authority since the passing of the resolution have in the exercise a power reserved for them under the said subsection (4) granted a fresh slaughterhouse licence in respect of any premises in their district, then in neither case shall the local authority refuse any subsequent application for the grant or renewal of a slaughterhouse licence in respect of the premises in question, unless—

(a) the Minister of Food has consented to the refusal; or

(b) there are in force such regulations as are mentioned in subsection (3) of section three of this Act and the authority are not in relation to the premises, satisfied as mentioned in that subsection;

and in any case to which paragraph (a) of this subsection applies no appeal against the refusal shall lie under subsection (6) of section fifty-seven of the Food arid Drugs Act, 1938.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, on the Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, moved an Amendment to omit subsection (4) which, in effect, would replace subsection (5) of Section 61 of the Food and Drugs Act. 1938. I said that I should look at the matter although I was doubtful whether his Amendment would serve the purpose which both of us had in mind. This Amendment is designed to meet the point. It does, in fact, prescribe that renewals of licences for such slaughterhouses—slaughterhouses that are subject to closure and then have been exempted—shall not be refused
1222
without the Minister's consent, unless the local authority are satisfied that the hygiene regulations are not complied with. I hope this Amendment meets the noble Lord's point, and I beg leave to move.
Amendment moved.—
Page 4, line 35, at end insert the said sub-section —(Lord Carrington.)
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord. I think it is an important point. I would ask him to bear this in mind. I quoted two instances where the Minister of Food stepped in and had jurisdiction over local authorities. Here is a third. Therefore, he cannot really say that the local authorities are being allowed to get on with the job without any interference.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, should have thought that the noble lord would not have taunted me with that. He should be grateful that I have acceded to his request.
On Question. Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5 [Compensation for closure or refusal of licence]:
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, this is a consequential Amendment on compensation. It follows from the Amendment that I have just moved. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 41, at end insert—
("(5) Where after the commencement of this Act an application for the grant or renewal of a slaughterhouse licence in respect of any premises to which subsection (4) of the last foregoing section applies is refused by a local authority otherwise than on the grounds specified in paragraph (h) of that subsection, any person having an interest in the premises, or in any land held therewith, being an interest of which the value is reduced in consequence of the refusal, shall be entitled to be paid by the authority by way of compensation an amount equal to the reduction.")—(Lord Carrington.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6 [Interpretation (Part 1)]:
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, this Amendment is Toyed to honour an undertaking that I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, that I would look into the question whether a local authority had power to erect plant and apparatus for processing the by-products of animals. I think he will find that this carries out

1223
what we both want. I beg to move the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 6. line 34, after ("including") insert ("plant and apparatus and").—(Lord Carrington.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

JUDGES' REMUNERATION BILL
4.42 p.m.
Read 3 (according to Order), and passed.

NATIONAL GALLERY AND TATE GALLERY BILL [H.L.]
4.43 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
LORD KINNAIRD: My Lords, your Lordships will remember with regard to the Tate Gallery that the land and buildings were left to the Commissioner of Works; and the pictures and purchasing policy were left to the Trustees of the National Gallery. When this Bill becomes law the Trustees of the Tate will take the place of the National Gallery Trustees. In their Report to the Lords of the Treasury, dated February, 1954, the Trustees of the Tate Gallery say, in paragraph 16, that they propose to revive the custom of issuing an Annual Report in which due publicity will be given to their purchasing policy. I think they thereby recognise the right of the public to have this information and it seems a very proper and right thing to do. In Committee on Re-commitment, the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, when I asked him who was responsible for the policy and functions of the Tate replied (OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 186 (No. 43), col. 794):
"The task of running the Tate Gallery will fall in due course to the Trustees: that will be their responsibility."
He added:
"But when this Bill is passed … instructions will he sent to the Tate Gallery dealing broadly with … matters of organisation."
1224
That seems to me rather to complicate the position because there seem to be two sets of people responsible. The Trustees, he said, are responsible; but apparently they are subject to instructions. So I have asked the noble Earl whether Her Majesty's Government will undertake to lay before Parliament the promised Treasury Minute containing the instructions to the Tate Trustees—I refer particularly to the instruction dealing with pictures and purchasing policy. As the Trustees of the Tate Gallery recognise that the public should know what the policy is, I hope he will agree with me that the Lords of the Treasury also should make known to the public their instructions regarding pictures.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising this point, because I think it proper that the position should be understood. When the Tate Gallery was set up as a separate organisation in 1917, they naturally required something on which to base their organisation, and that took the form of a Treasury Minute at the time when Mr. Lloyd George was First Lord of the Treasury. A new Treasury Minute will be required when this new Bill becomes law. It may well begin by referring to the deeds of gift. It will go on to deal with the constitution and method of appointment of Trustees, their terms of reference and such rules as they may wish to include, and such other matters of administration as may be necessary. This Treasury Minute is, of course, a formal means of conveying a decision of the Treasury to some other department and is quite normally used. It was used for setting up a National Gallery in the first place; it was used in connection with other Galleries, the London Museum, the Wallace Collection, and the National Portrait Gallery. It is not normal to lay such lists of rules before Parliament but there is no objection to their being made public. If the noble Lord wishes to see one he will be welcome to see one for himself, as will any other noble Lord. I hope that that answers the point which Lord Kinnaird has raised.
On Question. Bill read 3.
Clause 4:
Powers of lending exercisable by National Gallery Trustees and Tate Gallery Trustees
4.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, the National Gallery Trustees and the Tate Gallery Trustees shall respectively have power to lend picture.; or other works of art vested in them—
(b) for display—

(i) in a public building or official residence in the United Kingdom or elsewhere for the furnishing of which the Minister of Works is responsible; or

(ii) in the official residence of the Governor of a colony.

LORD METHUEN LORD METHUEN moved, in subsection (1), to leave out paragraph (b). The noble Lord said: My Lords, I had intended to move on March 29 to omit this part of Clause 4, but I saw that the noble Earl, Lord Crawford, had already put down an Amendment to omit the whole clause and I saw no necessity for putting down my own Amendment, as the whole naturally includes the part. I did not count ort the Amendment being withdrawn at the last moment, and it was not until I saw the Marshalled List of Amendments that I realised I had "missed the boat." That is my excuse for not bringing forward this Amendment then, as I should have done. It is also my reason for tabling it now, not to inconvenience the House unduly but to put on record, not for the first time, that, with many others outside this House, I am convinced that this proposal is fundamentally unsound and should be omitted from the Bill. I am not going to weary your Lordships by giving you again my reasons for this opinion, but I have a body of informed and scholarly opinion behind me. So far, I have had no answer to the question that I put to the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, on March 29: whether the Trustees of the Tate Gallery had made representations to the Government or to the Treasury on the subject of loans of pictures not for public exhibition. I added that it might be that the Trustees did not seek or want these powers; and that if the Government intended to proceed with he matter, it should take the responsibility entirely on its own shoulders and should not give the impression that the views of the Trustees were being implemented.
The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, made a statement in general terms in relation to the Trustees during the Second Reading of the Bill, to which he has referred this afternoon. I do not doubt that the Trustees of both the National Gallery and the Tate Gallery did not disagree at the Lime to the Bill, generally speaking. But since then a considerable time has elapsed, during which both bodies have, I presume, been able carefully to consider the Bill and its implications. We have heard statements by two representatives of the National Gallery Trustees in this House on this part of Clause 4., from which we can draw our own conclusions; but we have had no statement from any representative of the Tate Gallery Trustees for the simple reason that none are represented here. This is my last chance, therefore, of asking the noble Earl whether the Trustees of the Tate Gallery want this clause left in or omitted. There is reason to suppose that the Trustees of both Galleries have at one time objected to this clause on the ground that it is no part of their business to lend for the purposes of furnishing pictures for which they are responsible. If this is so, would it not be better—I allude particularly to the Tate Gallery—for the Government frankly to say so and take responsibility for retaining this clause?
If the loans under this clause could be limited to the lending of pictures for limited periods to certain buildings, such as Nos. 10 and 11, Downing Street, and to one or two others of similar importance—buildings that could be made available to the public, say over week-ends—I see no objection. But this clause foreshadows something far more extensive; and this is where I feel apprehensive. We have a habit in this country, I know, of modifying our laws, if they are found by experience to work not quite so well Ls we expected. I only hope, therefore, either that my fears are groundless in this case; or, if they are well-founded, that revision will be found to be necessary after all. I beg to move the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 6, leave out paragraph (b).— (Lord Methuen.)
LORD KINNATRD: My Lords, I should like to say just one word on this

1227
Amendment. I gather from Lord Methuen that there has been a resolution by the Trustees of the Tate Gallery. We were not aware how it had been withdrawn. I think this matter adds weight to what I was saying, to the effect that we do not know what responsibility the Trustees have. I should like to say that I very much sympathise with the Amendment.
4.54 p.m.
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, I do not know whether I can throw some light on this matter. I am not now a Trustee of the Tate Gallery. I was a Trustee of the Tate Gallery for seven years, and I was chairman for about the last year or year and a half of that period. I was a Trustee of the National Gallery for the same period of time. All I can say is that I cannot remember the genesis of this clause in the Bill. I can certainly say that when this Bill with this clause in it was discussed by both bodies of Trustees, no objection was raised. I believe I can allay the fears of the noble Lord, Lord Methuen, to some extent. I think the position was that both boards of Trustees did, in fact, lend certain pictures—10. Downing Street is a typical example of the sort of place to which they lent them. As the law stood, the loans were made without this power, and the Trustees were doing something which they had no right to do. I think they were reluctant to take back pictures from 10, Downing Street, but they wanted to get the position regularised. I believe that was the real state of affairs.
I can say that, so far as the Tate Gallery was concerned, when I was there—I cannot speak with regard to what has happened since—we had not the slightest intention of lending many pictures or anything of that sort, or of starting a sort of furnishing, agency. We did contemplate one or two cases—not more than half a dozen—of pictures being lent. We had been doing it, and we thought we ought to be in a position to regularise what we had been doing. And that, certainly, was the position at the National Gallery. I am certain that neither body of Trustees for a moment contemplated that there would be any wide use of these powers, or any much more extensive use of the system than at the present time. That was the position
1228
when I was one of those concerned. I hope I have made it clear that I cannot speak for the present body of Trustees, for I have not discussed the matter with them.
4.56 p.m.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I should like to say one or two words in support of this Amendment. I think the point which the noble and learned Earl has raised is a very important one. But I gather that the intention of the Bill is that there should be an extension of powers so that pictures can go across the seas and not be seen by people in this country for long periods of time. Apart from the technical issues which we have discussed many times, it seems that that is likely to be very much against the wishes of owners and legatees to the Gallery, though I can see no objection at all to the lending of pictures to 10, Downing Street, or other buildings like that, where they can be seen by properly accredited people. I trust that the Government will accept this Amendment, and thus agree that pictures shall not be sent away for long periods of time so that they cannot be seen here by students and other people interested. I think we might take notice of what happens in regard to pictures which are lent. In one case which I was told about a picture was sent to an Embassy abroad and no photograph was taken of it before it went. That indicates a possible danger. I should like to support the Amendment.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I beg leave to support this Amendment, as the Amendment proposed by myself when this matter was last debated by your Lordships—an Amendment which sought to put a period on the loan of pictures—was not accepted.
4.58 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I think it is fair to remind your Lordships that we have had a pretty good discussion on this Bill, extending over a period of some six months: and. for your Lordships' information, I may say that we have discussed this Bill for twelve hours on the floor of this House—that is to say, about an hour and a half for each of these eight clauses. Moreover, it is fair to say that the Bill has been in, shall I say, gestation, for a period of ten

1229
years, starting with the inception of the Massey Report—a period which is quite adequate for most purposes. At the end of that period, I was able to say on Second Reading that the Bill was brought forward with the agreement of the Trustees of both Galleries. I am going to be quite frank. There have been reservations in the mind of some Trustees since that date. It is very largely for that reason that we have sought to meet their requirements. Lord Methuen has said that no member of the Tate Gallery Trustees is also a member of your Lordships' House. I have had several meetings with representatives of the Tate Gallery for the express purpose of making certain that in fact what was put into the Bill met substantially their requirements. I can say now that the Tate Gallery authorities are willing to accept this clause as amended. I do not want to run over all the arguments again, but we have, in fact, met criticisms; we have considerably amended this Bill; we have taken out a complete clause. There are three modifying subsections in Clause 4.
If I may, I would add—.I think this is Lord Methuen's point—a word on the question of students. I do not think the interests of students have been underestimated in the course of our debates. We are considering, for this purpose, something in the order of 4,000 pictures which are either in the reference library or in store in the Tate Gallery. it is fairly well established that they are not seen very often. I believe that under this Bill they will be seen more often and to better advantage than they are now. It is probably true to say that never in the history of this country—possibly never in the history of the world—have there been greater opportunities available to students of art, whether artists, students of the history of art or students of the 'appreciation of art. I think it is not fair to criticise us for, shall I say, riding roughshod over the interests of students.
I hope that I have answered the point which the noble Lord has made. I realise that, however much discussion we have in your Lordships" House on questions of art, we can never hope to secure complete agreement—indeed, art would be very dull if we did. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Methuen, that, if we did not pass the Bill as it stands, we should have to withdraw all pictures on loan. We should have to withdraw, for
1230
instance, the pictures from 10, Downing Street, which I think most of us would regret. I would remind the noble Lord that there is no mandatory obligation on the Trustees: they are absolutely free to lend or nor to lend, although in fact they have been lending for some fifty years. Many of these pictures have been loaned in the past without statutory authority, and one of the purposes of the Bill is to give the Trustees the opportunity of lending where they wish within their statutory authority. I hope that I have answered the noble Lord and I would ask him to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD METHUEN: My Lords, I wish to thank the noble Earl for his answer. I understand from it that the Trustees of the Tate Gallery have expressed themselves in favour of retaining the clause which is the subject of this Amendment. I take it that that is unequivocal.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: What I have said is, that they are willing to accept the clause as amended. I am not going further than that now.
LORD METHUEN: That is all I wish to know. I had received information which made me reasonably doubtful about it, and that is why I put the question to the Government. Nobody knows better than myself the enormous trouble we take with students of art. I have 150 of them in my own home, so I have reason to know it well. I am sure that these students deserve a square deal. I had considerable qualms about the fact that this Bill allows the Ministry of Works to create a Garde-meuble. I do riot know whether it has been sufficiently brought out in debate how much we are hampered by lack of space, but I hope the Government will consider seriously this opportunity of making various places, like Lancaster House, for example, subsidiary galleries to tie National Gallery, and of putting into commission as soon as possible many of the rooms which are still out of commission, I raised that subject three or four years ago, and. I believe that there are still a number of rooms which could easily be put into commission and so alleviate the immense congestion on the first floor.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, the noble Lord may not have heard me at an earlier stage. The Government have said that they would be delighted to

1231
regard Lancaster House as a subsidiary of the National Gallery, but that that is a matter for my noble friend the Duke of Wellington and his Trustees. So far as my right honourable friend the Minister of Works is concerned, he would be delighted to co-operate so far as he could.
LORD METHUEN: I am delighted to hear it. I hope also that the Trustees of the Tate Gallery will seriously consider putting these moving screens on the first floor and that they will be as good as those at the National Portrait Gallery. They have allowed the National Portrait Gallery to be "one up" on them, and I hope that the position will soon be "square." I have nothing more to say, except to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.