Lords Sitting of 19 April 1955

Preamble
Reassembling after the Easter Recess, the House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Prayers
The Earl Granville—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
The Lord Colwyn—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his grandfather.

THE MARK IV COMET
2.35 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 arrangements have been made by Her Majesty's Government, the British Overseas Airways Corporation and the de Havilland Aircraft Company Limited for the production and delivery of the Mark IV Comet, and what the performance and carrying capacity of this aircraft are expected to be.]
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, B.O.A.C. have ordered nineteen Comet IV's for delivery in 1958–60, and an announcement to this effect has already been made. The Comet IV has not yet flown and its performance, therefore, has to be established in practice. In this connection, I would refer the noble Lord to the reply by my noble friend in the Written Answer to the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, in the OFFICIAL REPORT of March 29, 1955.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, what I think was not in the answer to the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, and has not been given to-day, is what financial arrangements have been undertaken by Her Majesty's Government in connection with the Comet IV. That also is contained in my Question.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I do not see in the Question any particular reference to the financial arrangements. If
402
the noble Lord wants a specific answer about financial arrangements he should put down a separate Question.
LORD OGMORE: Really, my Lords, I must protest on that score. Usually the connection of the Government with the aircraft industry is a financial one, and they cannot expect every "i" to be dotted and every "t" to be crossed in this way. One puts down a Question in general terms and one expects an answer.
LORD HAWKE: I am afraid I cannot give the noble Lord an answer in more specific terms than I have given him to-day.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
2.37 p.m.
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, I rise to ask the following Question of which I have given private notice: Have Her Majesty's Government any statement to make upon future Business?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (VISCOUNT WOOLTON): My Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble and learned Earl for giving me this opportunity of informing your Lordships of our proposed programme before Parliament is prorogued. We have already had discussions through the usual channels with noble Lords opposite, and we hope that we shall enjoy not only their co-operation but the co-operation of noble Lords on all sides of the House in bringing it to a successful conclusion. I am afraid that we shall have to ask your Lordships to allow us to take the different stages of many Bills at short intervals, but we shall do our best to give the House as much opportunity as possible, within the time before us, for their proper consideration.
Briefly, my Lords, Her Majesty's Government hope to proceed with all the Bills which are on the Order Paper this afternoon with the exception of the Police (Scotland) Bill, which amends as well as consolidates the law, and therefore requires the setting up of a Joint Select Committee of both Houses, a procedure for which there is really no time.
On Thursday next, April 21, we propose to ask your Lordships to allow us to bring forward the Second Reading of the Children and Young Persons (Harmful Publications) Bill, which is at

403
present down for Second Reading on Tuesday next, and which for obvious reasons we are anxious to save from the bonfire. The publication of the Bill, which is popularly known as the "Horror Comics" Bill, had an immediate effect upon the production and sale of these pernicious publications, and my right honourable friend the Home Secretary is rightly afraid that its disappearance from the Government programme would give rise to an immediate recrudescence of these harmful publications, with their serious threat to the morals of the child and adolescent population. We earnestly hope that noble Lords opposite, who, we are sure, are as anxious as we are for the welfare of our young people, will give us their best help towards saving this useful and necessary measure. In the programme we have envisaged the House should have ample time for the full consideration of this Bill.
We do not propose to proceed further in the present Parliament with the Copyright and Television Exhibiting Right Bill, which is down for Committee the same afternoon, and for whose progress through another place there is obviously not time at present. Nor do we propose to proceed further with the Criminal Justice Administration Bill, which is down for Second Reading to-day fortnight, and which must obviously fall by the way, as it, too, has originated in your Lordships' House and has still to go through all its stages in another place.
As your Lordships know, by arrangement with noble Lords opposite we are postponing the Second Reading of the Requisitioned Houses and Housing (Amendment) Bill from next Thursday until Tuesday next, the 26th. We shall take the Committee stage of the "Horror Comics" Bill the next afternoon, and it has been agreed that on Thursday 28th we should take the Committee stage of the Requisitioned Houses Bill. We shall ask your Lordships to sit on Monday, May 2, in order that we may complete those Bills which are still awaiting their final stages, and send down any Amendments which may have been made upon them for consideration in another place.
From the Commons we may expect the National Insurance (No. 2) Bill, a short measure which is designed to relieve the lower income groups of liability for
404
recent increase in insurance contributions and with which noble Lords opposite will, I am sure, be the last persons to quarrel. Finally, my Lords, we shall in due course receive a short Finance Bill to enable the country to tide over the period between the old and new Parliaments. I hope that these arrangements will meet the convenience of the House. May I add that the Prime Minister will make a statement in another place, in response to a Private Notice Question, at 3.15 this afternoon, and with your Lordships' permission I shall interrupt the Business of this House in order to repeat that statement here.
2.43 p.m.
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount the Acting Leader of the House for that Answer. I hope he will convey to the noble Marquess the Leader of the House our concern about his health and our wishes for his speedy recovery. I should like to thank the noble Viscount for the statement he has made. I can well understand his desire to save certain Bills, if I may use his phrase, "from the bonfire." I feel bound to point out that it was the noble Lords opposite who applied the match to the bonfire. I hope, therefore, that, in considering some of these Bills, we shall not be placed—I am sure the noble Viscount would not desire it—in any sort of position of "take it or leave it" because there is no time to make Amendments or because, if we make Amendments, there is no time to get them considered in another place. That applies particularly to the "Horror Comics" Bill which obviously is exactly the type of measure which needs that careful revision which your Lordships' House is so well qualified to give, although I entirely agree with the noble Viscount that on principle there is nothing between us, in that we all desire to protect our children and young persons from disgusting publications, whilst preserving the fullest freedom of expression in the Press and in magazines.
The Requisitioned Houses and Housing (Amendment) Bill, is also a measure in regard to which I trust that Amendments will be most carefully considered. I hope that the Government will meet us so far as they can on that Bill and that, if they are convinced that any Amendments which we may or may not think fit to move really have substance, we

405
shall not find a closed mind opposed to us because there is a difficulty with regard to time in another place. For the rest, I can reassure the noble Viscount about all the Bills on the Order Paper to-day. I anticipate no difficulty whatever about the National Insurance (No. 2) Bill, to which the noble Viscount referred at the end of his statement, and I anticipate no difficulty about the short Finance Bill. Following our normal practice, I suppose we shall have some discussion on that Bill and then pass it through all its stages. With regard to the "Horror Comics" Bill, it may be—I do not say it is certain—that, on consideration, we shall want to consider the wording of the Bill to see that it really carries out the wishes of the Government; also, we may want to consider the question of date and time with regard to the Requisitioned Houses Bill.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, I wish merely to express the concurrence of noble Lords on these Benches with the course proposed by the Government. I need add nothing to what has been said by the noble and learned Earl who has just spoken, except that we are pleased that the "Horror Comics" Bill is to be saved from extinction and that special measures are to be adopted which will, we hope, result in the passing of the Bill into law during the present Parliament.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, may I ask the noble Viscount a question? In asking it, as is customary in your Lordships' House, I state my interest in the matter—namely, that I am, as the noble Viscount is aware, a director of Wembley Stadium. May I ask the noble Viscount whether he is aware that unless and until the controlling bodies of sport and the sports promoters obtain the protection that is afforded to them under Clause 2 of the Copyright and Television Exhibiting Right Bill, there can be no hope of extended television of major sporting events?
VISCOUNT WOOLTON: My Lords, I am quite well aware of that, but we are controlled by a matter of time. There will be another Parliament after this, as the noble Viscount will appreciate.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I am rather surprised at the statement which has just been made by the
406
noble Viscount, Lord Elibank. May I ask whether Her Majesty's Government recognise the authenticity of that statement, or is it just an expression of opinion? Because in discussions which took place through the usual channels we held rather a different opinion from that which the noble Viscount has just expressed.
VISCOUNT WOOLTON: I regard it as a matter of opinion.

BRITISH MUSEUM BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

PENSIONS (INDIA, PAKISTAN AND BURMA) BILL
2.50 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (THE EARL OF HOME): My Lords, it is a happy chance that the first Bill that I have to introduce to your Lordships' House as Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations deals with the affairs of those who in their lifetime have served the Commonwealth so well. The Bill, I am afraid, is inevitably complex. I am by no means sure that I have fully understood the whole of it in the short time that I have been at the office; nevertheless, I will try to simplify it as far as I can.
The number of pensioners affected by the Bill is some 23,000. The amount of the pensions which would be paid out annually is some £5·8 million for Indian pensions, and £370,000 for pensions in Pakistan. When the Bill is passed, as we hope, Her Majesty's Government will control Indian pensions as from April 1, 1955, and Pakistan pensions as soon as final agreement is reached with the Pakistan Government. The broad effect of the Bill, as I see it, is that pensioners outside India, and pensioners outside Pakistan when agreement is reached, will enjoy all the benefits which have already been granted, and the future payment of pensions will therefore be a full obligation which is laid directly upon the Government of the United Kingdom. That is an arrangement which
I feel will satisfy

407
pensioners and which will be convenient to all the Governments concerned.
The precise definition of the pensions to be transferred is pensions of all persons who have served the Crown in India which on March 31, 1955, are being paid by the Commonwealth Relations Office, by the High Commissioner for India or by paymasters accounting to either, and of Europeans which are being paid by paymasters accounting to the Government of India. So far as Pakistan is concerned the Government have agreed in principle, but negotiations are not yet concluded, and therefore I am afraid I cannot to-day give the date when the transfer will take place.
EARL JOWITT: Would the noble Earl say how many persons are concerned?
THE EARL OF HOME: The number of pensioners concerned in this Bill is 23,000, taking India and Pakistan together—I could find separate figures if the noble and learned Earl would like them. But pensions paid in India, Pakistan, Aden or Burma are not being transferred, nor are pensions which are the liability of the Government of Burma.
I do not think your Lordships would wish to be worried this afternoon with the complicated financial arangements which have led up to this agreement on terms of transfer—they are to be found in the First Schedule to the Bill. I will try to give your Lordships just the salient points. Following Independence, the Government of India purchased annuities to the value of £168 million out of which their sterling pensionary commitments have been met. The purchase that was made was out of sterling which was at that time standing to India's account, and the annuities appear as part of the National Debt. The balance of debt outstanding at March 31st of this year was £129 million. At the takeover, the United Kingdom will pay to the Government of India two capital sums. One is of £40 million, which represents the difference between the capital value of the Indian annuities unpaid (that is, the £129 million which I have just mentioned) and the estimated capital cost of the pensions, which is £88 million. That is how the sum of £40 million, which will be repaid to the Government of India, is arrived at. There is one other capital sum which will be paid—namely, £6 million in respect of
408
income tax on pensions, which under this arrangement the Indian Government will forgo. These arrangements are acceptable to the Government of India and to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I hope that your Lordships will think that they are, on the whole, a convenient and sensible arrangement.
I have sought to give to your Lordships the number of pensioners affected and the amount of the anual payments which will be made in respect of India and Pakistan, and I have indicated that, while those arrangements are to begin at once with India, in regard to Pakistan we do not yet know the date of transfer, although Pakistan have agreed in principle to adopt the procedure under this Bill. This problem, as I have inherited it, has been an outstanding issue for a long time and it is one which your Lordships will probably be glad to see settled. The process was begun when the Government of noble Lords opposite was in power, and we are really completing it on the same main lines which they laid down. I hope your Lordships will be willing to accept this as a practical and sensible solution to a problem which has been outstanding for too long. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Home.)
2.55 p.m.
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, I rise to say a few words, and the first word I should like to say is to congratulate the noble Earl opposite on the honours which, not unexpectedly to any of us who have heard his performances in this House, have come to him, and to wish him all good luck in the great offices which he has inherited—so far as it is consistent with one's Parliamentary duties to wish good luck, at a time like this, to any member of the other side. But, saving all just exceptions, I wish him all possible good luck.
I certainly hope that this Bill will be saved from the bonfire, because I believe it to be a good and thoroughly sensible Bill. There are concerned 23,000 persons. Are they all the persons concerned? Are there any others left outstanding? This question was asked in another place, and I do not think that any clear answer was given to it. I should like to know, if it is convenient to the noble Earl to tell me, whether this cleans up the problem so far as India, in the modern connotation of

409
the word, is concerned. It it does, I think the Government are greatly to be congratulated. The wheels of government grind somewhat slowly. It is the fact that the proposals in the plan started in the lifetime of our Government, but it is surely right that pensioners who have done their service in India and now find themselves living over here should be able to look to our Government to see that they get their pensions, instead of having all the complication of corresponding overseas with India about these pensions. It has been suggested that there may be some disputed cases, where there is a question as to whether or not a man is entitled to a pension and what the amount of the pension should be. I feel that it would be desirable, if possible, that those questions, too, should be dealt with over here, and that there should not have to be litigation over these matters with the Indian authorities.
With regard to Pakistan, I hope very much that the arrangements which are now under way will be satisfactorily brought to a conclusion on the same lines as those for India. If I understand it aright, the Bill contains power, if and when such agreements are concluded, for them to be given statutory effect by Order in Council, on the same lines as the Indian provisions. With regard to Burma, it is apparently impossible to come to any such arrangement. I should like to ask the noble Earl whether there is any prospect of similar negotiations with Burma being brought to fruition, because, obviously, if that could be done, it would be desirable.
My Lords, we shall certainly do everything we can to collaborate with the Government in seeing that this Bill, notwithstanding all the vicissitudes of fortune at times like these, finds its way on to the Statute Book as an elementary act of justice to those people who rendered such splendid service to us in the old days in India.
2.59 p.m.
LORD HAILEY: My Lords, I wish to begin by repeating the congratulations which the noble and learned Earl has given to the noble Earl, Lord Home, on the happy augury of the fact that the first Bill he is introducing in his present office is one which not only is acceptable to the two Governments concerned but, I should like to add, will be heartily welcomed by the pensioned officers on whose behalf I
410
speak; for I am, of course, one of their number. It is a measure for which pensioners of the services in India, Pakistan and Burma have been pressing for many years. If I may speak not so much from the point of the two Governments, but from the point of view of the pensioners, I would say that those who drew their pensions from India and Pakistan (I will leave Burma out of account for the moment) have not been anxious for the security of their pensions because, under the arrangements made in 1948, the British Treasury were actually in possession of a sum representing the capitalised value of the pensions.
The difficulty was that when arrangements were made, in 1948, a concession was given to the Government of India enabling it to retain the control and the actual disbursement of the pensions. I will not complain that the Government of India misused that power. I desire to to say little more on that subject, save that, for various reasons, we have been continually pressing that the Legislature should apply a remedy to what we considered to be a mistaken concession on the part of the Treasury. That has now been remedied by the present Bill, and I wish to say nothing, either as regards the length of the negotiations or otherwise, which would detract from the general air of satisfaction that we feel that the Bill has now come forward. I shall confine myself to one consideration. It is a consideration which applies to the somewhat technical decision made by the British Treasury in 1948. Whether or not it was constitutional or justifiable or logical to hand over to the Indian Government control of pensionary conditions that had been laid down by the Secretary of State, who was himself under the control of Parliament, is a question which we do not now desire to argue, for the Bill has put it out of consideration; but that decision did actually show a certain lack of foresight on the part of the Treasury. The handing over to the Indian Government of control of the pensionary conditions enabled it to impose income tax on the sterling pensions which it otherwise could not have done. In consequence, the British taxpayer to-day has to find something like £6,400,000 for payment to the Governments of India and Pakistan in order to reimburse to them the cost of giving up that source of taxable income.

411
I come now to the question of the Burma pensioners. Burma had no sterling balances on which to draw for the purpose of purchasing these annuities, to use the technical term; consequently, it has been impossible for Her Majesty's Government to extend the scope of the present Bill to Burma. For this reason, pensioners who draw their pensions from Burma now depend on payments derived, directly or indirectly, from Burma itself. I do not wish to suggest that Her Majesty's Government have in any way disregarded their obligations or responsibilities towards pensioners from Burma—indeed, the whole course taken by Her Majesty's Government in regard to the pensions of the ex-servants of India, Pakistan and Burma shows that they have been alive to those obligations; and on behalf of the pensioners I wish to pay tribute to them for the action they have taken in various directions. We had a direct declaration from Her Majesty's Government in 1946 in regard to their sense of obligation towards pensioners from Burma. The exact words used were (OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 418, col. 523):
"It is the intention of my noble Friend that those officers who had been appointed by the Secretary of State and who elected to serve on in Burma after separation"—
that is to say, the separation from India in 1937—
"shall receive no less generous treatment in regard to service conditions generally than their fellow officers in India."
Moreover, as this Bill shows, Her Majesty's Government have extended to officers from Burma the system of compensation given to Indian officers for any loss to which they may be put by the imposition of Indian or Burma income tax. We feel assured—and pensioners are themselves assured—of the good faith and good will of Her Majesty's Government in this respect. But Burma is now a completely foreign country. Some aspects of her financial circumstances have caused, and are continuing to cause, grave concern to those who receive their pensions from that source. I do not think that is merely envy on the part of Burma pensioners for the security which Indian and Pakistan pensioners have obtained from previous Acts and the present Bill; it is a feeling of genuine concern on their part. They ask (I think with some
412
justification) that Her Majesty's Government should now take this opportunity of formally repeating the assurance given in 1946, when, of course, the circumstances were different, and let it be known that any shortcomings in the payment of pensions from Burma will receive the consideration of Her Majesty's Government, who are fully aware of their obligations in this regard.
It was suggested in another place, and has also been suggested in the Press, that the present Bill will be effective in giving an increase of pensions to India pensioners generally. That is neither the case nor the intention; and it would therefore be beyond the scope of the present discussion if I were to raise that issue here. I wish merely to make it clear that the associations who represent this large number of pensioners will not cease to press Her Majesty's Government to give consideration to the case of pensioners who are suffering from the great fall in the value of money. And we do so particularly in the interests of those pensioners who, through no fault of their own, had their careers cut short in 1947 and who, in consequence, have to depend on the very reduced scale of pensions available to them.
3.10 p.m.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, and the noble Lord, Lord Hailey, for the kindly welcome which they have extended to me. Necessarily one feels a sense of inadequacy on taking on a job with such scope as that of Commonwealth Secretary, but I am surrounded with much experience and much good will upon which, if I may, I will draw from both sides of the House; and in that way I hope to fill the office.
The noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt asked me two questions. First, he asked whether anyone is really left out and is not covered by the Bill. The answer is, I think, that everyone who was a servant of the Crown or of the Provincial Governments in India is included in the Bill. There are, in fact, some exceptions, those of Indians in certain Colonies—Kenya and Somaliland, for example—in which the paymaster is accountable to the Government of India. Other exceptions are those who served in the former Princely States, such as Hyderabad and Mysore. The first category consists of

413
Indians in a subordinate class who have no claim on Her Majesty's Government. Pensioners in the second category did not serve the Crown and the Secretary of State for India. So it will be realised, I think, that by and large the answer to the noble and learned Earl's questions is "Yes." Secondly, he asked me whether questions in dispute could now be taken over by Her Majesty's Government. There are some rather difficult questions involved here, and I should not like to give the noble and learned Earl a hasty answer. However, I think it is true to say that in cases that are now being decided an anticipatory
pension is being paid by the Government of India. After this date any dispute as to the amount of pension paid by Her Majesty's Government will be the responsibility of the United Kingdom Government to settle.
The noble Lord, Lord Hailey, of course speaks with immense personal experience. He has given to the Bill his blessing, for which I am indeed grateful He has raised, in particular, the question of Burma. The assurances which we have
obtained from the Government of Burma were, as he accurately said, enshrined in the Treaty of 1947. The Government of Burma then undertook to pay the pensions to which pensioners were entitled under the existing rules, and we have confidence that the Government of Burma will fulfil their undertaking and will carry out their part of the bargain. I would only say in general that I think that all over the world wherever the pensioners may be, they can have faith that the British Government, of whatever complexion it may be, will look after their interests should they fall on evil times. Therefore I hope that your Lordships will give this Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a; and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

CROFTERS (SCOTLAND) BILL
3.14 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I must do a quick change. This Bill is based on the Report of the Commission which sat under the Chairmanship of Sir Thomas Taylor, Principal of Aberdeen University, and which reported to the Secretary of State something over a year ago. The recommendations in that Report included recommendations that there should be some changes in the crofting law, and those are included in this Bill. The Secretary of State came to the conclusion, however, that the sensible course would be not to limit action merely to some changes of the law, but to bring in a comprehensive Bill dealing with the crofting counties and replacing the existing Acts dealing with those counties which have been in operation from 1886. The Crofting Commission under Sir Thomas Taylor made recommendations which do not need legislation—for instance, they drew attention to the part which forestry could play in rehabilitating some of the crofting communities of the Highlands. These recommendations naturally are not found in the Bill, but we hope to have the help of new Crofters Commission which is to be established in furthering and bringing to pass those recommendations of the Crofting Commission.
It is well to make clear at the beginning that the Bill does not set out to deal with the Highland problem as a whole, but with crofting conditions and with the development of the crofting communities, so that they may take a profitable place in the economy of the twentieth century. Crofting is the traditional way of farming in the Highlands of Scotland. But it is much more than that: it is a way of life, and the objective must be so to organise the crofting communities as to sustain a virile population on the land and to hold out a fair prospect for the sons and daughters of the crofters of today, so that they will want to live in the crofts and bring up their children in the Highland glens. The Commission expressed what I have tried to say in this way. They said that they thought that the provisions in this Bill

415
should be brought in so that the crofting communities should be
"firmly based in respect of their social, economic and cultural conditions and be capable of growth as well as survival."
So your Lordships will find that running through this Bill there is the theme of growth and development. Faced with de-population, particularly with the passing of the young in the last twenty years from the Highland glens into the towns, clearly this sort of dynamic approach is needed.
In the forefront of the Taylor Commission's Report—and therefore in the forefront of this Bill—your Lordships will find provision made for the creation of an administrative body charged with the functions of reorganising, developing and regulating crofting; and it will always have to keep prominently before it all matters relevant to crofting, and advise the Secretary of State upon them. This appointment of the new Crofters Commission is really the salient feature of this Bill. Clause 1 and the First Schedule will show your Lordships its constitution, and Clause 2 deals with its powers and duties, which are deliberately made pretty wide. But however carefully a Bill is drawn, it can never hope to capture and convey the human character of the problems with which the Crofters Commission will have to deal. The Crofters Commission's ability to reorganise the crofting communities with sympathy, tact and drive will be the most important part of their work, and on this much of the success of the Bill depends. The Secretary of State has given a good deal of thought to the composition of the Crofters Commission. It will consist of not more than six persons, who will be carefully selected by the Secretary of State to include persons who are qualified in every way for this delicate but vital work of social and economic reconstruction. One condition which the Secretary of State was able to concede in another place was that one of the members of the Commission will be a Gaelic speaker, which I am sure will commend itself to the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor.
First of all, therefore, the emphasis is on crofting and the reorganisation of the crofting communities; but, as your Lordships will appreciate, it is important that
416
there should be supplementary occupations available to the crofters, because most of the crofts are really too small to give a permanent livelihood. Therefore, in Clause 2 (1) a duty is laid upon the Crofters Commission to review the conditions of crofting and, where they think it necessary, to make recommendations to the Secretary of State on matters involving supplementary employment. One field which has proved to be a successful addition to crofting is the employment given by forestry, and there is a new provision, in Clause 12, that where part of the crofters' common grazing land is resumed for the purpose of planting trees, that resumption will be automatic where the majority of crofters has given consent and the Commission give their approval.
Sir Thomas Taylor's Commission revealed clearly the need for physical reorganisation in the crofting counties, as noble Lords who have visited them will realise. Many crofts are not worked to full capacity, for a number of reasons. There may be tenants who have been absentees for years; sometimes tenants have been abroad for as many as twenty-five years. There may be tenants who are too old to work. There may be tenants who can work, but whose producing unit is too small. There are persons who use the house for holidays, but neglect to cultivate the land. And there are many cases where tenants have died and no successor has followed; neither the landlord nor anyone else has taken any steps to find someone to work the croft, and it has become derelict. So the Bill provides that the Crofters Commission shall ensure that crofts are let to active crofters. Clause 16 secures that every croft that falls vacant shall be notified to the Commission and that the landowner must get the consent of the Commission to his re-letting arrangements, with the right to appeal to the Secretary of State. Where a croft remains unlet by the landowner, the Commission are given power to let it. We think that by providing that vacant crofts shall be notified to the Commission, that landowners must get the approval of the Commission to any tenants they may put in, and that, in the last resort, the Commission have power to let the crofts themselves, the object of ensuring that the crofts are let to active

417
people who will get the most out of them will be achieved.
Clause 17 gives the Crofters Commission discretionary power to terminate the tenancies of absentees. Whether or not a man is an absentee in law will be a matter to be decided by the sheriff court, but there will be no automatic dispossession; every case will be considered on its merits. If, in the opinion of the Crofters Commission, a croft should be added to another in order to get the best productive capacity—and it is often the case that very small crofts, if allied to those next door to them, could be worked in combination to make a successful productive unit—then the Crofters Commission are empowered to make an arrangement. Where, for instance, a man who is not working his land wants to remain in his house, the Commission can allow him to retain the house under a feu charter, while giving up the land to somebody else to farm more productively. So far as old people are concerned, obviously there can be no question of compulsion; but here again the Commission can make arrangements so that old couples can retain their houses while renouncing the working of the land to others who will farm it more productively. Clauses 10 and 11 simplify and speed up the procedure of determining a successor when a crofter dies. All these provisions, taken together, are designed to carry out the intention of the Bill in a sympathetic and humane way.
So far I have dealt with the individual crofter and the individual croft which has fallen vacant, but noble Lords who have travelled in the crofting counties will know that there are crofting townships which, for a variety of reasons, are almost derelict. There may be a high percentage of persons resident in a crofting township who are very old people and incapable of working the land. The Crofters Commission drew the Secretary of State's attention to this, pointing out that there are crofting communities where "a gradual adjustment would come too late to save them." And I think that is true. Under this Bill, the Crofters Commission can frame complete reorganisation schemes for such townships, provided they get the assent of the majority of residents. It is hoped that by these new powers the Commission can rescue the crafting townships which are hard pressed now and renew their life.
418
Clause 21 transfers to the agricultural executive committees the functions of controlling husbandry on the crofts. As I said at the beginning, a dynamic approach to this problem is necessary if we are to make the crofting communities play their full part in the twentieth century. In Clauses 22 and 23, therefore, the emphasis is laid on development. Under these clauses the Secretary of State has power to make schemes which will provide grants and loans which will aid agricultural production of crops, and the schemes can be administered through the Commission as an agency. Clause 22, in particular, re-enacts the powers under which grants or loans can be given for improving buildings. A similar provision is made so that loans and grants can be given to owner-occupiers who are substantially of the same status as a crofter. Some of your Lordships will know the islands of Orkney. Anyone who goes there will be immensely struck by the way the Orkney farmers are reclaiming land and increasing the numbers of their stock, and will soon realise that their buildings are far too small for the stocks which they anticipate they can carry on this reclaimed land. Therefore, the provision of building loans and grants to the small owner-occupiers, of which there are many in Scotland, and particularly in the islands of Orkney, will be of great advantage to them.
No Parliamentary Bill, with its rather arid clauses, can possibly convey the atmosphere of the Highland glens and crofts: they have a character of their own which defies definition. But these communities have a distinct quality. They represent much of the human wealth of Scotland and, I dare to say, of the United Kingdom, too, and if we were to lose these sturdy, self-reliant people, brought up on the soil, in the hills, there would be a dire social and economic impoverishment. The object of this Bill is to allow them to play their full part in the national life; to reaffirm the status of the crofter in the national life; to help to inject capital into the land and into that kind of farming where it is badly needed; and to provide an administrative machine which win deal with the problems of the crofters.
I have used the word "machine," but to describe the new Crofters Commission as a machine would be to do something very different from what the Secretary of

419
State has in mind. The relationship between the new Commission and the crofters, as we see it, will be almost personal. They will have to cultivate an understanding of the human problems in the crofting communities, and upon their sympathy and skill much of the success of the Bill, if not almost all of it, will depend. But, given all that, if the confidence of the crofters is won by the new Crofters Commission, and if this Bill is carried to its completion and the spirit of it is interpreted by the new Commission, then I trust we shall be able to justify the faith expressed by Sir Thomas Taylor's Committee, that the Highlands and the crofting counties may yet know a prosperity which they have never known in the past. I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Home.)

AUSTRIAN TREATY
3.34 p.m.
VISCOUNT WOOLTON: My Lords, with the indulgence of the House, I think it might be convenient if at this moment I read the statement which the Prime Minister is making in another place, in reply to a Private Notice Question. The statement is as follows:
"Her Majesty's Government will certainly welcome the statement in the communiquè issued in Moscow on the 15th April in which the Austrian and Soviet Governments placed on record their desire for the early conclusion of a State Treaty.
"For many years we and our Allies have wanted to conclude a Treaty with Austria which would restore her full freedom and independence. The House will recall that we offered at Berlin to sign the text with all the Soviet amendments. We earnestly hope that that Treaty can now at last be concluded. We note in particular that the Soviet Government have now agreed that the occupation forces of the Four Powers shall be withdrawn from Austria after entry into force of the Treaty, and in any event not later than the 31st December, 1955. The Soviet Government have thus removed one of the main obstacles to the conclusion of the Treaty.
420
"The next step will be for the representatives of the four responsible Governments to examine, with Austrian participation, the proposals put forward by the Soviet Government. I hope this examination will start very soon and that as a result it will be possible to proceed to the conclusion and signature of this long-delayed Treaty with our Austrian friends."
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for making that statement. I am sure that noble Lords on this side of the House for whom I speak would desire to be completely identified with it. We have long worked and hoped for the liberation of Austria, and that is what this comes to. Both this Government and their predecessor attempted to achieve this end, and we are happy to think that at long last there is the prospect of this liberation being brought about.

CROFTERS (SCOTLAND) BILL
3.37 p.m.
Debate resumed.
LORD MATHERS: My Lords, I want to join in the congratulations to the noble Earl, Lord Home, on the promotion that he has received. It is rather interesting to find that the first thing he did after undertaking a task in respect of his new office was to come back home and to deal with something in relation to his native land—namely, the Bill which is now before us, which I am sure will be welcomed by this House.
Before I proceed to say something about the Bill I should like to make reference to the death of the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, who passed from us during the week-end. If he had been in his usual health and strength, I am sure that he would have been here and would have been eloquent in respect of this Bill. If there was one thing that David Kirkwood was more than another, it was that he was Scottish to the backbone, and took a very great interest in all that pertained to the welfare of his native land. He was a great controversialist, fierce and strong, especially when talking about Scotland from the public platform. Yet there was much more to him than that. With all his strength, his fire and power of eloquence, he was a very kindly

421
man, and I remember vividly one outstanding incident that I experienced in his company.
He had been down, speaking at a memorial service in connection with William Wallace, Scotland's great hero, who was tried in Westminster Hall, and shamefully treated by the English. Coming back from that demonstration down at Elderslie, I was with him when an old lady came to him in the railway station at Glasgow. She was a constituent of his, and wanted to tell him of some problem. The patience and kindliness with which he listened to the story which she had to tell made a great impression upon me, and I confess to feeling that she was wasting his time to a considerable extent. Perhaps he sensed that when he parted with her, for he turned to me and said, "You see, you have to be kind to them, George; they like to tell you of their troubles." That was David Kirkwood at his best and kindliest. He had in his character many other traits that made him a good companion. I have been at times struck by the way in which he could quote passages from the Bible. I remember how he could talk so familiarly, as it seemed, about Eliphaz the Temanite who, I need hardly remind your Lordships, was one of Job's comforters. He was the one who said:
"Should a wise man utter vain knowledge, and fill his belly with the East wind?"
There are many other qualities of his which come to my mind, but I must not dwell upon them. He was a great man. He was a staunch trade unionist, and did big things in the Amalgamated Engineering Union, of which he was a notable member. His name is one which will be remembered for a very long time, and his memory is one that we can salute. We may consider ourselves the richer for having known him.
I now turn to the Bill. I do not find myself adequate properly to deal with all that is involved here, but I have travelled to a certain extent in the crofting areas in Scotland, which cover a wide field, from the Mull of Kintyre to the Shetlands, right up the western side of Scotland, including, of course, the Western Isles. This Bill deals with a big problem, and the Taylor Commission are to be congratulated on having looked at it with fresh minds. I say "problem," but there are many problems involved;
422
scores of problems are there for the tackling. Crofters' problems are many and varied, and they change every few miles. In conversation recently with a resident in the area, I was told that the problems of Balmacara are entirely different from those of Plockton, only six miles away. When we think of that difference, and of the wide area covered by the crofting communities, we realise how great and varied the problems may be.
But there is one overriding problem which this Bill seeks to tackle, and the Taylor Commission Report deals with it; that is, the problem of how best to arrest the decay of a civilisation—because it amounts, in my judgment, to that. The cynic would say—and I have been among the cynics—"let it die; it is not worth preserving." I do not take that view, and this Bill is an evidence that other views are held and that the crofter should be given an opportunity of helping himself. I agree with the noble Earl who introduced the Bill that there is real quality in these crofting communities. I call to witness the fact that there is evidence of the way in which those sons and daughters of crofters, going from these communities all over the Commonwealth—for which the noble Earl is now responsible in this House—have made good in other countries and have shown a character that is well worth preserving.
The cynic would say that the crofter is not prepared to help himself. This was said to me in one crofting area, when I had urged the need for helping the crofter. "Help him," I was told. "Go on and do it; and he will sit on his doorstep and watch you doing it." That is the low estimate of the crofter that is held by some people. As I say, I do not hold that view. It is the fact that new methods have taken away the need for the crofter to depend so much upon his own production. Travel in the West Highlands and Islands, and you will see where the staple food of the population comes from. It is a case of Beatties Bread from Glasgow being everywhere. I also state a fact when I say that milk for
Lewis is carried daily by rail and steamer from Wick to Stornoway, via the Kyle
of Lochalsh. Even the potato patch is missing from many crofts, and the sight of lorry loads of potatoes, in bags, being supplied to the crofters who could grow their own is a familiar one, though not less familiar than the steady

423
encroachment of rushes where cultivated land and good grass formerly existed. That is the problem.
I am not making these statements to indict anyone, but simply to enable this House to appreciate the task which is being laid upon the proposed Crofters Commission authorised by this Bill. The storms of the past winter, which had such a devastating effect upon the living conditions of the population in the crofting counties, showed how serious the position could become in a very brief period of time. I suppose that crofts and townships have been cut off before; but never, I think, have we known of such sudden and acute distress. What is the remedy? Must the crofter be a crofter indeed, instead of merely a railway or other employee living in a house on a croft? And must he make of the croft a full-time occupation? That involves drastic changes, for many crofts are unable to maintain a family. I am told that this requires fifteen acres of arable land, and an outrun on the hill for sheep. To think of that requirement, and then to contemplate the position of the occupants of runrig lands and common grazings, is to realise the burden which is being laid upon the Commission, and makes it imperative that the members of the Commission should have intimate knowledge and experience to enable them to discharge their onerous task efficiently. In passing, may I say that this Bill was greatly improved in another place by the Government's acceptance of Amendments which were put forward.
In another place, strong representations were made regarding the need for a
member or members with personal experience of crofting to be appointed to the Commission. Having had time to consider the matter, I hope that the Government are now in a position to insert such a provision in the Bill. I am sure that, if this is done, it will make the Bill more acceptable to the crofters in whose interest it is being promoted. It seems necessary to bring the crofting community behind the Bill and to remove certain apprehensions—or perhaps the noble Earl would prefer me to say "misapprehensions"—that they have regarding it. There is a real concern about the way in which it is proposed to set aside the Scottish Land Court and vest certain
424
powers in the Commission which will be enforced by the sheriff court. The Land Court has had a long experience, in the course of which it has earned the confidence of the crofters and farmers. It has a higher status than the sheriff court, in that it is presided over by a Chairman who ranks with Judges of the Court of Session. It is more accessible than the sheriff court because it can, and does, meet where necessary: it might be described as a peripatetic court, a fact which saves time, and transport and other expenses.
May I ask that this House be informed why such a departure from the practice of many years is being made? Full information will need to be forthcoming before this development of Government policy is acceptable to those who are affected by it. The Commission is to be an administrative body, with no legal members on it; yet it seems to me that a good deal of the work that is allotted to the Commission may be considered as legal work. The Minister will be aware that the Chairman of the Land Court has made public reference to the loss that would be suffered by the crofters in the areas covered by the Bill, but that the expert knowledge and experience of the Land Court would still be available to other small landholders. This seems anomalous and it appears that something should be done to put that position right. If it is not done, I foresee contention and litigation, whereas I feel sure that a decision by the Land Court would be readily accepted.
Referring to the clauses in the Bill, I would cite Clauses 11 and 17 as clauses which might lead to that kind of apprehension. Clause 11 deals with succession to a croft, and it is proposed that the succession should be settled within six months, or the matter will be taken out of the hands of those who may succeed. I quite agree that it is desirable to have these things settled as soon as possible, but I think there might be injustice in dealing with the matter quite so quickly as that. Clause 17 relates to absentee crofters. There again, there is the possibility of making an order for the ejection of the crofter and of the Commission's taking in hand and dealing with the croft. I am afraid that if that provision were applied to some of the big farms and big landowners, there would be some serious criticism of it. I am anxious that there

425
should not appear to be one law for the rich and another for the poor in connection with this Bill.
I hope that these apparent flaws in the Bill can be removed. If so, we can look forward with keen anticipation to the setting up of the new Commission and to the early rehabilitation of the crofting community, and the resulting development and benefit of a large part of Scotland which, notwithstanding its beauty and romantic interest, might otherwise become a desert. But the Commission must be of high quality. This is the greatest thing of all in connection with this Bill. The standing, status and quality of the Commission are of prime importance. It must be fully equipped with the resources that are necessary to carry out its important task. In order to see this through, much money will be required; but, if success is achieved—and I believe that it can be achieved—any money involved will be well spent. I welcome the Bill. I am sure that it will receive a welcome in all parts of the House and, apart from the few exceptional things to which I have made reference, will also commend itself to the vast majority of those who will be affected by it.
3.58 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, the noble Lord who has just spoken paid an eloquent tribute to the late Lord Kirkwood with which, if I may, I should like to associate myself, since in another place I had the privilege of enjoying a warm friendship with him for fourteen years, although we were sitting on opposite sides of the House. It has always been a regret to me that, owing to his health, I was not able to meet him again here. My noble friend Lord Home has already been congratulated on the new office in the Government which he now holds, but I hope I may be allowed to add one word of congratulation on the way in which he has fulfilled the office which he has just vacated and which he is now, retrospectively, occupying for a short time this afternoon. The office of Minister of Sate is a new office created by the present Government and is vitally necessary to the administration of our affairs in Scotland. It is never an easy thing to be the first man to hold a new office of this kind, but I think it will be agreed by all Parties that my noble friend has earned the approval and the admiration
426
of everybody by the work which he has done in all parts of Scotland.
One subject to which my noble friend has given a great deal of attention for the last three years is the regeneration of the Scottish Highlands, in which the crofting community must take a great part. The trend of our economic development in the last 150 years has not been too favourable to the small man either in industry or in agriculture, but the kind of society which most of us want to see in the Scottish Highlands is a society in which there will be a far greater proportion of families who are either wholly independent or partly independent of their employment as ordinary wage earners. I think that the prime need of the present crofting community in the Highlands is a much greater variety of local industries, in which the occupier of a croft may raise his standard of living by supplementing the income which he earns from the croft itself; and the possession of some such stake in the country is a very strong factor for social stability and for social happiness. One of the Amendments which I had hoped to submit to your Lordships at a later stage of the Bill is designed to protect the position of the worker who enjoys the occupancy of a croft as part of his contract of employment.
I am sure it is possible to envisage a state of society in the Highlands in which there will be a far greater number of small occupiers of land than there are at present. But this Bill is designed only to preserve and protect what we have got already. I think it is a good Bill and it deserves—indeed, I think it has obtained—the support of all political Parties. I cannot altogether say that I think it has been sufficiently digested in another place, and I consider there are several respects in which it would be capable of improvement by further amendment. There is the legal aspect. Are we quite sure that the opportunities given in the Bill to the crofter for appeals against the decision of the Commission are sufficient? I am not suggesting that the Land Court is by any means an ideal instrument for deciding all kinds of cases, but it does enjoy the confidence of the crofting community. I think that in our modern legislation we should always be exceedingly careful to make sure that the powers of the political authorities appointed by some Government are properly and adequately

427
checked at all stages by judicial authority as well. Then there is the question of financial liability. Are the Government quite sure that the provisions in this Bill in regard to the payment of compensation and to the making up of expenses which may have been incurred by somebody else are certain to work out justly between one man and another?
Finally, there is the question of clarity and simplicity which I suppose arises in nearly every Bill which is brought before us nowadays. It is perhaps particularly important in the case of a Bill which affects so many people who are not accustomed to writing a great many letters or to filling up a great many forms, or to any epistolary complexities, but who are rather accustomed to conduct their affairs by word of mouth or by verbal assurances. I think we ought to try and see that the provisions of this Bill are as simple and as straightforward as we can possibly make them.
A number of my friends who take a great interest in Highland questions, and myself, have done our best to draw up a few Amendments which we hoped might improve this Bill in the respects which I have just mentioned. We certainly do not wish to press any of these Amendments unreasonably, and we are fully aware that political circumstances over which we have no control may, perhaps, make it difficult for any Government to consider Amendments at the present moment. Most of us probably know for a fact, and many of us have probably learned by experience, that a man is not very likely to make himself popular if he tries to bring a large number of small household problems to the attention of a lady who is hurriedly dressing for dinner, especially if the lady is aware that a rival lady who is also dressing for dinner is busily using all her cosmetics with great skill to conceal the scars of some domestic conflict which may have temporarily disfigured her natural loveliness. But, my Lords, I hope that the Government lady at least will not utterly scorn a few finishing touches to her appearance. This is an important Bill which affects a great many people in Scotland, and I think it would be a pity if it were to go on the Statute Book without proper consideration from both
428
Houses of Parliament. I therefore hope that the Government may still find it possible to consider between now and the Committee stage the day after tomorrow a few of the purely constructive Amendments which have been put down in the hope of improving the Bill.
4.8 p.m.
LORD GREENHILL: My Lords, I think that a marked compliment has been paid to Scotland by the Government in asking the noble Earl, Lord Home, to move the Second Reading of this Bill, because the honour that has recently been conferred upon him, and upon which we all congratulate him, seems to me evidence that the Government regard him as being the able man we know him to be. I should like also, if I may (this may be quite out of order) to offer my congratulations to the noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack on having had conferred upon him the freedom of Dornoch. It is only Sassenach suspicion of him that would associate that honour with the passage of the Crofters Bill, and would lead them to imagine that there may be some influence exerted in favour of this Bill by the appointment. On the other hand, I gather that my noble and learned Leader was also favoured, in that a similar honour was conferred upon him by Dornoch, although at that time there was no Crofters Bill in the offing. It is possible that we on this side should have offered one or two criticisms on minor points in this Bill, were it not for the fact that May 26 is not far away, and noble Lords on the other side may find themselves in the equally comfortable, if less popular, seats on this side of the House.
The Report of the Taylor Commission which was set up by the Secretary of State of the time, outlines in great detail the nature of this complicated problem. I think the noble Earl, Lord Home, in his exposition of this Bill, struck a very proper note in declaring that it was not so much the contents of the Bill that mattered as the spirit in which the reforms in the Bill are carried out. The noble Earl will be aware that powers already exist to grant loans and to give finance for improvements and many similar things; but, as the Taylor Report itself indicates, these powers had not been operated with the vigour and to the extent that they should have been. One

429
would like to feel that the Crofters Commission, when set up, will operate the provisions of the Bill with the fullest possible strength, in order that the help which they can give in promoting the welfare of the crofting communities will be effective.
We agree, too, that the type of Commission to be set up is of the utmost importance, because the crofters themselves—partly by reason of the age distribution, the absence of young, vigorous people, and the great preponderance of older and, therefore, less enthusiastic people—cannot be expected to cope alone with the problems. They need people with a great deal of knowledge and drive, and with a greater realisation of what is necessary in order to make the crofting area a viable area. It is for the Commission to instil the enthusiasm which the area so badly needs, for I believe that all noble Lords, and everyone who has considered this matter, will agree that, whatever drawbacks there may be in the kind of life which the crofters follow, it is a way of life which they themselves would be the last to want to give up. It is the kind of life which we should encourage in every possible way. I do not take the view of the cynics, voiced by my noble friend Lord Mathers, that it is already a derelict area, and, therefore, should be allowed to remain derelict; nor, on the other hand, do I feel that the suggestion made in another place that the area should be repopulated by what was called Glasgow's "overspill" (a horrible word) would in itself be a solution. For natural and human reasons, one cannot industrialise the crofting area. It is essential, therefore, that the Crofters Commission should take upon itself the duty of guiding the crofters, with sympathy, understanding and skill, in the best means of making that area one in which they can live in comfort and happiness.
There are one or two points upon which I should like to issue a warring, and the first concerns the question of transport. The Taylor Commission Report, if the charges mentioned in it are to obtain under the Crofters Commission, indicates, in convincing figures, the hopeless problem presented by transport. I do not know what remedy to suggest to Her Majesty's Government, but the question of charges for transport must, I feel, be taken altogether out of the general run of charges made for transport and
430
treated ad hoc for that particular area. It is not only a question of the cost of marketing being affected by the charges which have to be paid by those consigning goods; there is the added cost in living and for the transport of commodities imported into the area. The whole question of transport must, for that reason, be given extraordinary consideration by Her Majesty's Government.
A further point arises from the numerous activities now going on in the crofting counties—for instance, those of the Department of Agriculture, of the Hydro-Electric undertaking, of the Transport and Tourist Board and of the Forestry Commission. All these organisations may overlap in their functions and, unless there is some definite scheme of liaison between different bodies for the one purpose of furthering the interests of the crofting communities, instead of being helpful may hinder their progress. It is curious to note that in the Department of Agriculture, for example, there are already some twenty-two committees manned by 230 or 240 members; and it is almost inevitable that there should be some kind of conflict from time to time between these different bodies in their functions, or between them and other bodies, in carrying out their duties. One would like to think that all would regard this particular problem as one to which each of these bodies can contribute its quota without getting in each other's way.
Finally, there is the question of finance. A considerable amount of money is already being spent in the crofting area in grants and under different schemes, but one hopes that Her Majesty's Government will be able to indicate that they are prepared to spend a very large amount of money, without reference to any immediate economic return, and having regard rather to the longer view which one must take in dealing with the resuscitation of a community such as this, and that they will not hesitate to encourage the spending of money if the value of this very desirable community in the crofting area can thereby be increased. With those words I, too, should like to add my own blessing to the passage of this Bill.
4.15 p.m.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I should like first to associate myself with the expression of the sorrow of the noble Lord, Lord Mathers, at the death of the

431
noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood. He was a man with whom I found it very easy to differ on almost every question; but in this world or any other I should always find it very difficult not to love him. With regard to this Bill and the problem with which it pretends to deal, I would remind your Lordships that we owe the problem and the present situation to one fact. The original Crofters Commission made an excellent Report and a Bill was produced in Parliament in fulfilment of that Report; but for reasons which, I have no doubt, were the best in the world, Parliament made a good many Amendments to that Bill, and the problem we have to-day is due to the Amendments made in the original Crofters Bill. I will celebrate the Earldom of the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, by a misquotation, and say "Tantusne animis caelestibus error." For that reason I am perfectly ready to acquiesce in the desire of Her Majesty's Government that there should be no Amendments in this House and that this Bill should go through as quickly as possible.
I do this the more readily because I am a little doubtful about some Amendments which were moved in another place. For example, I feel that in a country where everybody, without exception, speaks English, it is entirely unnecessary to insist that a member of the Commission should be a Gaelic speaker. In a business where we want the ablest men we can possibly get for a very tricky and difficult task, it is a mistake to make conditions of that kind. The question we have before us has been bedevilled not only by the Amendments to the original Crofters Act but also by the legislation of 1911, which I very well remember. I saw its effect going on before my eyes and I mention it because it contains a very important lesson.
First of all, one of the bad effects of that legislation was the complete destruction of the proprietor's interest in his crofting land. He ceased to derive any profit from it at all, and it became merely a source of rather difficult questions. I remember that at the time legislation was accompanied by the most terrific propaganda I have ever seen carried on in Scotland. There seemed to be propagandists in every parish. They went round discussing the benefits and the
432
effects of the Act with all the crofters, and, as a result, a lot of silly men let down the cultivation of their holdings in the spring in order to get their rents reduced by the Land Courts when they came round in the summer. That had a very dramatic effect, because it was accompanied by a very great catastrophe. Smallholders—in my part of the world at any rate—up to that time had an important ancillary occupation in summer—that of carting. At that time, however, in 1911, the motor lorry became popular and numerous in the country, and summer carting as an ancillary occupation utterly failed the crofters. They sat there with reduced rents but with the fertility of their holdings reduced, and without the one necessary thing that is essential to make any crofting community prosperous—an ancillary occupation. I do not think that in the areas referred to by Lord Greenhill, where these hydro-electric schemes have been carried out, there is anything like the same crofting problem, because there is there an ancillary occupation. This ancillary occupation is provided by the hydro-electric schemes and it employs a lot of people, as I know to my cost, because I cannot get any local labour.
LORD GREENHILL: It occupies them for the time being.
LORD SALTOUN: That emphasises the point. I know that the Crofters Commission will have this matter in mind. They will remember that these people require an ancillary occupation. That is so unless they have wonderfully fertile land. If my noble friend who sits in front of me could give us Orkney land in every part of Scotland, then we should have a very prosperous crofting community; but of course that is not possible.
There is only one Amendment I should like to see in the Bill, though I certainly shall not move it. In all Scottish legislation I should like to see the word "landlord" taken out and the proper Scottish word "proprietor" substituted. The word "proprietor" has the sanction of the Valuation Roll, it has no political connotation at all, and I submit that in legislation that is a desirable object to achieve. I hope I shall have the sympathy of the noble Earl in that matter, and that in future legislation he will see to it that the proper word is used to describe these people.
4.24 p.m.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: My Lords, I should like at the outset to associate myself with the words of the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, in regard to the new and old offices of the noble Earl, Lord Home. This Bill is a very valuable contribution as it stands, but, in common with many of your Lordships, I should like to see certain minor Amendments made. But whether amended or not, the Bill, I feel, will play a very great part in doing the work which it sets out to do, and will be of great service to those members of the community whom it is designed to benefit.
I should like to pay tribute to the work of three notable pioneers in the crafting counties. Largely owing to the fairly narrow remit of the Taylor Commission, justice, in my opinion, has not been done to some of the large-scale work that has been carried out; there has not been a full indication of the fruitful results of methods which have been adopted in dealing with this very difficult crofting problem. I refer particularly to the work done in the Great Glen cattle ranch by Mr. Hobbs, the work done by Lord Lovat and the work done by the Duke of Westminster, which is well covered in the Report. But the work done by the Duke of Westminster in forestry has one drawback, if I may be allowed to say so. That arises from the transport difficulty, which has been stressed by the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, and which is universally applicable to the whole of the crofting problem. So far as I can see, it is no good getting extra production if you are going to start off with an initial handicap, in the case of cattle, for instance, of £3 a head. Exactly the same thing is very shortly going to hit the Forestry Commission "in the teeth," if I may put it that way. It is all very well growing trees, but how are you going to get them to market? Unless Her Majesty's Government manage to tackle this very difficult problem it will be a millstone round the neck of this Bill. The Bill, of course, does not set out to solve this problem, but I think it should be stressed when considering the Bill because in my view the two matters hang together.
In that connection, one of the notable points with regard to the differences between the crofting communities of the old days and those of to-day is that
434
crofters formerly survived hard winters because they grew their own potatoes and their own oatmeal, and had their own milk. Now, apparently, they are still prepared to produce those commodities, but they have to send them away, often to England—or anyway to Scotland—to have them processed. After being processed, the commodities are put into tins with labels and returned to the original producers. This has to be done nowadays, apparently, before these things are fit to consume—and, of course, it all adds to the transport problem. Whether the Commission will be able to do anything to help in this regard I do not know, but I sincerely hope so. Then there is the very big point that the actual key to increased production, so far as cattle are concerned, is increased winter keep. You can graze any amount of cattle in the Highlands in the summer, but unless you can produce winter keep on the spot you are faced with enormous transport charges—these are quoted in the Report and they are common knowledge to all of us.
In that connection, I should like to refer again to the Great Glen cattle ranch. The area is of the order of 10,000 acres. Voluntarily, some fifty crofters (that, I believe, was the approximate number) were bought out by Mr. Hobbs and are now employed by him. But there are other crofters living on and working their crofts on the fringe of this ranch who are also employed on the ranch. I feel that in certain cases it might be possible for a private proprietor to develop on his ranch large-scale production of winter keep and various other things, so giving employment to the people of satellite crofts, round the edge of the central area. I should not object if this were done by the Government—I am quite broad-minded about that.
I think it unfortunate that the remit was not wide enough for the Taylor Commission to be allowed to consider anything other than pure crofting. What I have just been referring to is not pure crofting, but I feel that in certain cases—for example, where townships have deteriorated or decayed to such an extent that something drastic has got to be done—other methods might well be considered to help in the solution of the problem and with a view to providing other ancillary work, as well as forestry, for the crofter.
LORD GREENHILL: May I interrupt the noble Viscount for a moment, in order to make clear what the Taylor Commission says in connection with ranching and crofting. On page 37, paragraph 111, this is what we find in the Taylor Report:
"We think that there may be parts of the Highlands where cattle ranching can be conducted without harm to any other interest, but we are clear that crofting and cattle ranching cannot live together in the same district."
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: That is in complete disagreement with my own view, and on the Great Glen cattle ranch I have seen, as any noble Lord who wishes to go there may see, the two living happily side by side. I put the suggestion forward for what it is worth.
One of the problems is the housing of the old folk, a problem that is not confined to the crofting areas. Many old people are living in cottages which are not up to modern standards, but they are paying rents of the order of £2 10s. to £4 a year. It is no comfort to them to be put into council houses at a rent of £4 a month, which they cannot afford. Surely we might be able to consider the problem on a basis of retirement houses, providing the minimum of sanitary necessities and comfort. I would suggest, for example, two rooms and a scullery porch, which is the amount of accommodation to which these old people have been frequently accustomed; and they do not really desire more, especially if it means paying a large rent. I feel that we should start to think more along this line, rather than insist that people who are in the evening of their lives should pay exorbitant rents for comforts which they feel they do not require. If the Commission think along this line, I believe they may be able to provide a solution to a great housing difficulty which, as I have said, applies not only to the crofting counties. With those few remarks, I should like to welcome the Bill as it stands.
4.31 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, as so often before, your Lordships follow tradition in another place and look on it as a breach of procedure for a Sassenach to engage in a debate on a Scottish Bill; but we welcome with such open arms the appointment of Scottish Peers and Members of Parliament to high offices of State
436
that I think that, as a Sassenach, I might be allowed to comment on a Scottish measure. I join in congratulating the noble Earl who has assumed his new high and responsible office in the last few days and wish him personal success in it—although I hope we shall change the holder of the office very soon. I should like to join in the tributes paid to the late Lord Kirkwood. There are few of us left on this side of the House who associated with him in the troublesome period of 1922, and it was the thought of his service that has led me to say a word on this Bill. I should like to recall his wonderful service in the war. During all the time I was at the Admiralty he was a great help to me in keeping the right spirit on the Clyde when we were dealing with the enormous problem of supplying the needs of the Merchant and Royal Navies. I shall always remember him for that reason, apart from his great personal qualities.
I wonder what Lord Kirkwood would have said about the background of Clause 16 of the Bill. Though noble Lords on this side of the House are in complete accord on the general necessity for the Bill, I want to try to recapture for them a little of the spirit of Lord Kirkwood. I wonder what his position would have been in regard to Clause 16. I may entirely misunderstand it, and I do not want the noble Earl to reply at length to-day, because it might become largely a Committee point. But, from the point of view of spending the taxpayers' money, I wonder whether we ought to be required to accede to the provision that the Secretary of State should be legally bound to purchase buildings on a property still belonging to a private landowner which are no longer of any use. That looks to me to be an extraordinary procedure and I wonder what my late friend would have said about that, not in 1955 but in 1922, when I was associated with him in some of those great campaigns in another place for justice and the right spending of public money.
My knowledge of the history of the crofters is very limited, although one can read a great deal about it in Tom Johnston's History of the Working Classes in Scotland, a great book which I hope all noble Lords interested in Scotland have read. The general history of the crofters during the last century or

437
two makes us all, whether we are Sassenachs or not, wish to provide the best we can for their future. The noble Viscount, Lord Stonehaven, seems to think we should have an excuse for not providing old people with more than two rooms and a washbasin. I cannot believe that because people grow old they will never require the great benefit of a bath and other modern amenities. We should not be certain about that; we should find out whether they require them or not, before coming to such a decision. Nothing like that would be accepted as a general line of policy. I doubt if the noble Earl can give me a reply to-day to my intervention, but perhaps he could say a word on Clause 16 on Committee stage or, if he can, give us complete justification for it.
LORD SEMPILL: My Lords, I should like to join with noble Lords who have spoken in congratulating the noble Earl, Lord Home, and in particular with my noble friend Lord Mathers and the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, in all they have said about the noble Earl. I should like to make one point. I heard with great disappointment my noble friend, Lord Saltoun, speak against the Gaelic as a language to be used by the Commission. With all respect to the noble Lord, the Chief of the Frasers, I think he is entirely wrong in that, for reasons stressed by my noble friend Lord Mathers and by the noble Earl, Lord Dundee. It is essential that there should be at least one or two fully Gaelic-speaking members of the Commission, for traditional and practical reasons. I feel that the Chief of the Campbells, the noble Duke, the Duke of Argyll, will be of the same opinion, and I hope that when the noble Earl comes to reply he will assure us that a Gaelic speaker will be part and parcel of the Commission.
4.39 p.m.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I should like to associate myself with the tributes paid by the noble Lord, Lord Mathers, and by other noble Lords to the late Lord Kirkwood. I remember the noble Lord's criticism of noble families, but I am glad to say that before the end of his life he took a kindlier view of your Lordships than he took in his earlier days. Although sometimes a violent political
438
opponent, nevertheless he was the kindliest of friends and a man as large of heart as anyone could wish to meet.
I am grateful to my Scottish colleagues and other noble Lords for the kindly encouragement that they have given me on entering a wider field. I have one great satisfaction. Your Lordships have been exceedingly kind to me in any Scottish Bills that I have had to deal with during the past three years. Commander Galbraith, who has not yet been able to take his seat, succeeds me, a matter which is of immense satisfaction to me, and will be to your Lordships. Your Lordships will know what a great part he has taken in Scottish affairs in another place. When he comes to your Lordships' House, I know he will be sustained with the same kindliness you have given me—extending from May 26 for many years, of course.
The general welcome which your Lordships have given to this Bill is what I expected from those who know the condition of the crofting counties and the problems with which we have to deal. My noble friend Lord Dundee and the noble Lord, Lord Mathers, both raised the question of whether the crofter was not being deprived of something which was very valuable to him—the services of the Land Court. I am not surprised that this impression has got abroad, but it may be some comfort to the noble Lord, Lord Mathers, if I say that it is really misleading to suggest that the crofter is being deprived of the services of the Land Court. May I take a few minutes to try to remove that misleading impression? The functions remaining with the Land Court are these: registration of tenants as crofters; determination of fair rents for crofts, and subsequent variation of rent; the making of records of crofts; the authorisation of resumption; the making of orders for the removal of a crofter on breach of statutory conditions, on the application of the landlord or on the application of the Secretary of State where the crofters' rights to compensation have been transferred to the Secretary of State; determination of the amount of compensation for permanent improvements to crofters who renounce their crofts; assessment of compensation payments and new rents where reorganisation schemes are proposed; and the dealing with appeals

439
against proposals for the dispossession of crofters on the grounds of bad husbandry. Indeed, the powers of the Land Court have been whittled down very little.
The functions transferred to the Crofters Commission are the authorisation of assignations and the approval of bequests, both of which form part of the general scheme of control of the letting of crofts which is in the hands of the Commission. They also have the oversight of matters concerned with common grazings, a function which the Taylor Commission regarded as absolutely necessary from an administrative point of view. What we propose is, I think, the common-sense and practical thing: that the Land Court should continue to exercise the judicial functions, and the Crofters Commission should exercise functions which demand discretion concerning who should be the tenant of a particular croft, and matters of that kind. We should not let the two overlap and thus cause possible confusion. I think that on further study of the Bill noble Lords will find that the suggestion that the crofter will be deprived of the protection of the Land Court is far removed from the facts. If the noble Lord, Lord Mathers, would like me to send him these details before the Committee stage, I should be glad to do so.
LORD MATHERS: I am grateful to the noble Earl for giving way. There is provision for functions formerly exercised by the Land Court to be taken by way of the Commission to the sheriff court. The sheriff courts are dotted about in different places and a considerable amount of travelling is involved for those who have to appear before them to plead their case, whereas the Land Court goes to the litigant, as it were, in order to provide for a hearing of his case. I do not think that point has been met by what the noble Earl has said.
THE EARL OF HOME: I think it will be found that in the matters which have been transferred to the Crofters Commission none of the pleading parties will be put to inconvenience. I will look at the point and communicate further with the noble Lord. By and large a great many important functions are still reserved to the Land Court. The noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, was perfectly right when he said that one important part
440
of the Bill is that dealing with development, and that capital in one way and another should be pushed into the Highlands, whether into the agriculture of the Highlands or into supplementary industries. Again, I know that there are in existence statistics which show the amount of capital which is being put into the Highlands, and for what purposes, and I should like to send those to the noble Lord. It is rather an impressive picture and it shows that the emphasis in the last two years, at any rate, has been more on the positive development of agriculture and industry in the Highlands. The question of transport, as the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, and my noble friend Lord Stonehaven both said, is one that cannot be included in this Bill. I can only say that it is a matter which the Secretary of State lives with all the time, so far as the Highland counties are concerned. The problem of the Highlands and their need for special treatment has constantly been brought to the notice of the Transport Commission, and the various public hearings on the published charges schemes will, I think, begin in the not too far distant future.
Then there is the question of whether it will be possible to improve this Bill. During the last three years I have tried to make it absolutely certain that Party politics and Party policies in no way enter into the problem of the Highlands. Indeed, on this particular Bill, as it has gone through another place, there has been all-Party agreement all the way through, and each Party has contributed a good deal to the Bill in its present form. I agree with what the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, said earlier, that we must make Amendments to Bills if Amendments are shown to be necessary, and the time factor must give way to that; but a very nice balance has been achieved here with all-Party agreement. The noble Lord, Lord Mathers, may want a provision that there should be an individual on the Crofters Commission who is a crofter, or has a close knowledge of crofting, and he may want to put down an Amendment in that form. My noble friend Lord Dundee may want to put down an Amendment involving compensation to landowners, or something of that kind. I hope we shall avoid any more Amendments to this Bill, if we possibly can. I do not think the Bill

441
can be improved much further, and, as I say, we have reached a general agreement and a unify of purpose which I should not like to see disturbed. We cannot, as Scotsmen, to whatever Party we belong, see this Bill lost—that would be a tragedy for the country.
Noble Lords will decide what Amendments they wish to put down (the noble Lord, Lord Sempill, need not worry, as there will be at least one Gaelic-speaking member on the Crofters Commission) but I hope that the extraordinary Party unity
which we have achieved all the way through the Bill will be left undisturbed. I think that on further examination the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, will not quarrel with the principle or indeed the practice underlying Clause 16. I have not refreshed my memory on the point he raised, but I think it is that where by action of the Commission buildings are made redundant, compensation shall be paid to the landowner. I do not think that his Party, or indeed ours, would quarrel with that principle. I will have another look at it, but I believe it is properly carried out in Clause 16 of the Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL
4.50 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, the relations between the Isle of Man and the mainland for the levying of Customs duties are interesting and ancient. Customs legislation has to be passed here in Parliament, but that legislation is invariably based on resolutions of the Tynwald, the Isle of Man Legislature. In the last resort, of course, Parliament could legislate without a Tynwald resolution and, moreover, is not obliged to implement such a resolution. But in practice such a situation does not arise, because there are consultations, and if there are any differences of opinion they are ironed out before the stage of resolution or legislation.
The Isle of Man Customs tariff follows our code pretty closely, being sometimes lower, though I think never higher, than ours, and it is on an annual basis. That
442
means that legislation is necessary every year to renew the duties from August 1 to July 31, and at the same time to make any adjustments the Island thinks necessary in the light of any changes we have made in our Budget—or, indeed, of course, any other changes they may wish to make, irrespective of our Budget. This situation has two disadvantages. The first is a practical one, in that Parliamentary time has to be found here for an annual Isle of Man (Customs) Bill. The second is sentimental, as the Islanders must feel that their resolutions are subject to our Parliamentary control.
For some years talks have been going on between the Island authorities and our authorities on the question of constitutional and financial reform. It may be some time before these talks come to full fruition, but it seems to us that at any rate we can go forward in this one matter of customs procedure where agreement has been reached. Our proposals are that if a Tynwald resolution is passed in respect of customs duties it should automatically come into effect if confirmed by Her Majesty by Order in Council. At the same time, we seek in the Bill to bring up to date a financial situation which arises from the Isle of Man Customs Harbours and Public Authorities Act, 1866, whereby the Island makes a contribution of £10,000 a year to the Imperial Exchequer from its customs revenue. In 1949, an agreement was arrived at with the Island whereby for the five years from 1950 to 1955 the Island would contribute instead of £10,000 a year, 5 per cent. of the proceeds of certain customs duties. This would have the effect of increasing the Island's contribution from £10,000 to about £90,000 a year. No resolution of Tynwald could overrule the Act of 1866, and so they have not been able to pay over these amounts and they have been accumulating, pending legislation here. By now there is something like £450,000 waiting for us to receive, and in Clause 2 of the Bill we make it possible for this sum to be handed over.
To sum up, the effect of the Bill will be that there will be no more annual Isle of Man (Customs) Bills and the Imperial Exchequer will receive something like £450,000 as contributions for the years 1950 to 1955. The island representatives have informed the Governor of their

443
approval of the terms of the Bill, and I ask your Lordships now to give it a Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Hawke.)
4.55 p.m.
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, when I first looked at this Bill it struck me as rather odd. Ever since I can remember Parliamentary procedure, we have had these Isle of Man (Customs) Bills, and there has never been any great difficulty about passing them. This has given rise to the very old Parliamentary practice of "Grievances before Supply"; and grievances have been redressed as a condition of passing the Bill. Why is it, I asked myself, that this ancient Parliamentary landmark is being swept aside by this revolutionary Government, and why are they quite deliberately substituting the passage of a mere resolution, in place of the old-established procedure of Act of Parliament? Have not this Government proclaimed on many occasions their dislike of mere resolutions instead of Acts of Parliament? Here they are doing that very thing.
Further examination, however, has convinced me that there is no reason for anxiety about this change. I understand that the Tynwald regard it as a point of prestige that a resolution of theirs shall have statutory effect, without the passing of an Act of Parliament. They apparently derive some satisfaction from that changed procedure and, that being so—assuming that they do derive satisfaction from it—I see no reason whatever why we should not give them the satisfaction they desire. For the rest, seeing that the Bill makes possible a payment to us of something of the order of £400,000, which, by reason of some Parliamentary difficulty, would otherwise not be payable, I think that that part of the Bill should have our cordial support and approval. In those circumstances, this is certainly one of the Bills which can be rescued from the bonfire which noble Lords opposite have lit.
On Question, Bill read 2a; Committee negatived.

AIR FORCE BILL
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without Amendment.

ARMY BILL
5.0 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord De L'Isle and Dudley.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[LORD MERTHYR in the Chair]
Clauses 1 to 74 agreed to.
Clause 75 [Provisions for avoiding delay after arrest]:
LORD MATHERS LORD MATHERS moved, in subsection (2), to add to the first paragraph:
"and in no case shall a person be held in custody awaiting trial for a period longer than sixty days:"
The noble Lord said: I raised the matter with which this Amendment deals when we had this Bill before us on Second Reading. I am anxious that there should be in the text of the Bill some words to guard against the possibility of the kind of occurrence that took place not long ago, when a British soldier was in custody for 114 days before he was brought to trial. I pointed out previously that the law of Scotland provided that if a Scottish subject was not brought to trial within the period of 110 days he was deemed to have tholed his assize, having been in prison all that time, and that, under the law of Scotland, he had to be liberated.
The first point in the process of liberating a man from a Scottish gaol at the end of 110 days was the point that was reached at the end of sixty days, when consideration had to be given to the fact that this man was in custody awaiting trial, and special arrangements had to be made before that imprisonment could be continued. That is why this Amendment appears in the form in which I have put it on the Order Paper. I know that this probably would not finish the matter, because there might be circumstances that made it necessary to go further than sixty days, in the collecting

445
of evidence or in meeting the circumstances that caused the man to be kept in custody for as long a period as sixty days. It might even be longer than that. I have put down this Amendment as an indication of what is required to meet this position, knowing full well that, if the Government accepted this, it would probably be necessary to make a further consequential Amendment to take the period to a further point. But I hope that the Minister can accept this Amendment. I am not tied to its exact wording, so long as the object I have in view can be achieved. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 39, line 9, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Mathers.)
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR AIR (LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY): I should be keeping the noble Lord in undue suspense if I did not say right away that I cannot accept his Amendment, but I should like to explain to your Lordships' House a little more fully why I think it is unnecessary for me to do so; indeed, it would be disrespectful to the noble Lord if I did not do so, since he has come here this afternoon, with great eloquence, to defend Scotland and justice—not necessarily, very often, co-terminous phrases. In his remarks on Second Reading, the noble Lord informally gave me notice that he would raise this point on another occasion. I am sure that, both in England and in Scotland, we all wish to achieve the same end: that any officer or other rank in any Service (we are dealing to-day particularly with the Army) should not remain in open or close arrest, or in any form of custody, longer than is absolutely necessary for the prosecution of justice. I do not think there is any difference between us upon that.
The question is, how is it to be achieved? On Second Reading the noble Lord, as I understood, was endeavouring to persuade us that, if we adopted the Scottish code, at least for Scotsmen, they would be in a superior position in this respect. I have done my best to study the Law of Scotland as it applies to this particular point. In his speech on Second Reading (OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 192, No. 42, col. 295) the noble Lord said:
"Scottish law has made it impossible for any accused person to remain so long in custody without trial."
If one reads Section 43 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1887, there is
446
in fact a very important proviso at the end of that section to which, with great respect, I feel I ought to draw the attention of the noble Lord It says:
"It shall be competent for the High Court of Justiciary in any case brought before it under this section, upon it being shown to the satisfaction of the court that the trial of a person accused ought to be suffered to proceed after the lapse of 110 days as aforesaid, when the delay in prosecuting the verdict is owing to the illness of the accused or the absence or illness of any necessary witness, or the illness of a judge or juror"—
then these are the important phrases—
"or any other sufficient cause for which the prosecutor is not responsible, to order the person accused, notwithstanding the expiry of the said period of 110 days, to be kept in custody with a view to trial for such further period or periods as to the said court may seem just."
It seems to me clear that Parliament, in passing that Act, had it very much in mind, as indeed it was in the mind of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for War, and as it is in my mind, that sometimes, in practice, delays, and even protracted delays, are inevitable.
So the law of Scotland does not make it impossible for a man to be kept in custody after 110 days. It provides in one way a means by which protracted custody can be looked at by higher authority. Under the Army Act as it now exists, as the noble Lord knows, a soldier (I use the word "soldier" to include both officers and other ranks) cannot be kept in custody for more than eight days without the fact being reported by that soldier's commanding officer to the competent authority—that is, the authority which is competent to convene the court-martial; and that has to be repeated every eighth day. Furthermore, the noble Lord knows that a soldier cannot be kept in close arrest for more than ninety days without a special procedure taking place: that is, under Rules of Procedure 1A, where he cannot be kept in close arrest for more than ninety consecutive days without trial unless a General or other officer authorised to convene a court-martial directs in writing that he shall not be released from close arrest. I will deal a little later with the question of close arrest, open arrest and custody, if I anticipate the noble Lord's intervention.
That is under the existing Act. This Bill proposes a somewhat altered procedure. It retains the system by which, if a man is not brought to trial or a court-martial

447
is not ordered to be assembled, his commanding officer has to report to the competent officer every eight days. But now, under the proposals which my right honourable friend hopes to put into the Rules of Procedure (I think this has been stated in another place in broad terms), it is proposed that the commander-in-chief of the soldier in question shall be required, after receipt of the eighth report and where it is proposed to keep the man in custody, to give a direction for the continuance of that man's custody and at the same time to inform the Army Council of such a direction. I submit that the object which the noble Lord seeks to achieve will be achieved by this means: that in a case of protracted custody the case will be brought before the highest competent authority to ensure that the man is brought to trial in the shortest possible time and shall not be at the mercy of any administrative delay.
I should like further to point out to the Committee that under Clause 53 of the Bill, which I now recommend to the House, any person, not necessarily the commanding officer or convening officer, who unnecessarily delays the taking of steps which it is his duty to take to investigate allegations or who fails to release an accused expeditiously, is himself guilty of an offence. So that in regard to delay there is quite a severe responsibility on those dealing with courts martial. That shows the spirit in which this Bill has been drafted and I think indicates the spirit in which my right honourable friend will make these regulations. Therefore, although by different paths, we pursue the same object, and I feel convinced that under these provisions everything that is administratively and practically possible will be done to see that soldiers are not held in custody longer than is necessary.
There is one further point about open or close arrest or no arrest at all. Clearly it is most desirable, as we all thoroughly agree, that nobody should be kept in apprehension longer than is necessary. My right honourable friend intends to review the procedure for keeping a man in close arrest, and I think I can say that as a result it is likely that the proceedings in both the Army and the Air Force will, if the Bills become law, be closely assimilated, and both will ensure
448
that the risk that a man may be kept in close arrest longer than is necessary will be reduced to a minimum. One further point. Under the power which my right honourable friend now possesses under the existing Army Act, and in anticipation that the new Bill will become law, he proposes to introduce such an improvement in procedure. So that he and I both hope profoundly that any administrative delays which may have taken place will be cured by a more up-to-date procedure and that the cases of men in protracted arrest will be kept constantly before the highest authority. For these reasons, I am afraid I cannot accept the Amendment proposed by the noble Lord.
LORD MATHERS: I had thought that to have this Amendment embodied in the Statute would be the surest way to make certain that the kind of event where a soldier was kept without trial for 114 days would be effectively avoided. The noble Lord has, however, gone a very long way by making the declaration that has just come from him, and, especially as this Amendment is not, as I have admitted, in the proper form to convey all that I intended, I feel that it would be churlish of me to press it. It has proved to be a useful vehicle for bringing forward this matter, and I am grateful for the pains that the noble Lord has taken to make clear what is to be the new position. My fear was that, by allowing the matter to go by default, the keeping of a man, even with the regular eight days' intimation of the fact that he was in custody, would simply become a matter of routine. I am glad that there is a point at which that routine is interrupted, at very nearly the sixty days that I propose in my Amendment—as I understand it, eight times eight days makes it sixty-four days.
LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY: After the end of the eight period. I would not be precise to a few days.
LORD MATHERS: It is very nearly the sixty days for which I was contending. I will not quarrel about a day or two, but ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 75 agreed to.
Remaining clauses and Schedules agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.

REVISION OF THE ARMY AND AIR FORCE ACTS (TRANSI TIONAL PROVISIONS) BILL.
5.17 p.m.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

POLICE (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read, and discharged.

SANDOWN-SHANKLIN URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
House adjourned at eighteen minutes past five o'clock.