Lords Sitting of 14 July 1955

Preamble
The House met at two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers
Several Lords—Took the Oath.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
2.5 p.m.
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, may I ask the Leader of the House what is to be done about the Business of the House to-day? Some of us are bidden to a function, and, indeed, bidden to a particular place at the function at 5 o'clock. It is going to be almost impossible, I think, to get back here at 5.45. Would it not be better, therefore, if we do have to come back—of course, if we could finish the business before we depart for the function I have mentioned so that we should not have to come back, that is a consummation devoutly to be wished—that we should come back, say, at 6.15, instead of 5.45. I do not see how we can get back at 5.45.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (VISCOUNT WOOLTON): My Lords, would 6 o'clock meet your Lordships' convenience?
EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, in reply to the noble and learned Earl may I say that, if your Lordships have to come back at all, I think it would be convenient that we should come back at 6 o'clock rather than at 5.45. We still hope that it may not be necessary to come back.
EARL JOWITT: I am much obliged; that is something, at any rate.

BIRMINGHAM CORPORATION BILL
Read 2a.
STOCK EXCHANGE CLERKS' PENSION FUND BILL
Read 2a.

KENT WATER BILL
2.7 p.m.
Read 3a, with the Amendments.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DROGHEDA): My Lords, the Amendments which I have to move to the Bill are all the Amendments on the Marshalled List apart from those which stand in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Teynham. I cannot say that all the Amendments which I am moving on behalf of the promoters of the Bill are purely drafting Amendments, but I can assure your Lordships that none of them is of much substance. They are not controversial, and, they are, in fact, agreed to by everyone concerned. I am, of course, prepared to go through the different Amendments and point out those which are slightly more than drafting Amendments, but in view of the other business on the Order Paper I feel that the House might wish me to move these Amendments en bloc; that is 10 say, to move all the Amendments standing in my name up to Part VII of the Bill. Later, when Lord Teynham's Amendments have been considered—and I think the House might wish to take those Amendments all together—I should move en bloc the rest of my Amendments. If, therefore, the House will allow me to do so I will move that Amendments Nos. 1 to 18 on the Marshalled List be agreed to.
Amendments moved—
Clause 4, page 5, line 5, leave out lines 5 and 6.
Page 6, line 37, after ("undertaking") insert ("transferred by this Act")
Clause 10, page 10, line 37, at end insert ("or so soon thereafter as they are appointed")
Clause 11, page 11, 1ine 47, after "undertaking") insert ("or part thereof")
Clause 23, page 18, line 21, leave out ("or") and insert ("and")
Clause 23, page 18, line 37, after ("undertaking") insert ("not defrayed from loan moneys")
Clause 25, page 20, line 43, leave out ("or stock") and leave out the third ("or")
Clause 25, page 20, Line 44, leave out ("stock")
Page 21, line 12, leave out ("or stock")
Clause 29, page 25, line 28, leave out ("arid")
Clause 29, page 25, line 28, after ("Peckham") insert ("arid Wrotham")
Clause 30, page 26, line 46, at end insert—
("(5) In their application to the officers and servants of the Cranbrook Company section 152 (Transfers of officers) and section 154 (Superannuation and pensions) of this Act shall have effect as if for the first day of January nineteen hundred and fifty-six there were substituted the first day of July nineteen hundred and fifty-five.")
Clause 39, page 30, line 43, after ("undertaking") insert ("or part thereof")
Clause 47, page 33, line 18, after ("undertaking") insert ("not defrayed from loan moneys")
Clause 48, page 33, line 44, after ("1930") insert ("as modified by the said Order of 1950")
Clause 49, page 34, line 31, leave out ("or stock")
Clause 49, page 34, Line 32, leave out ("or stock")
Clause 49, Page 35, line 16, leave out ("VII") and insert ("VI").—(The Earl of Drogheda.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD TEYNHAM LORD TEYNHAM had given notice of Amendments to leave out Clauses 51, 52, 53, 54 and 55, and in Clause 70, to leave out:
"and
(b) the parishes of Bobbing Iwade Lower Halstow and Newington in the rural district of Swale."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the permission of the House I should like to speak to my Amendments relating to Clauses 51 to 57 inclusive which comprise Part VII of the Water Bill and refer to the Medway area. At the same time I should like to speak also to my Amendment to Clause 70, which is consequential, in order to complete the area contained in the Chatham and District Water Company's original Bill. I wish to make it clear at the outset that I have no objection to the Kent Water Bill as a whole. My objection is only to the method proposed to be adopted in the Medway area for the amalgamation of the water units.
Many of your Lordships will no doubt recall the debate which took place on the Second Reading of the Bill. I then ventured to draw attention to the policy proposed for the Medway area which was in fact different from that for any other area. The method of amalgamation adopted by the promoters of the Bill in all areas except the Medway area has been to amalgamate small units around the principal undertakings. The largest undertaking in the Medway area is the Chatham and District Water Company; in fact 98 per cent. of the Medway area
764
water supply is company-administered and only 2 per cent. administered by local authorities. In the case of the Medway area the Bill proposes to form a water board, in spite of the fact that the largest undertaking is company-administered.
This Bill has no doubt been very carefully considered by the Select Committee to whom the Bill was referred before it reached the Floor of your Lordships' House. The Select Committee could, of course, have either amended the Bill so as to maintain company-administration in the Medway area or left it as it was, which would mean the establishment of a water board. The Select Committee, in their wisdom, chose to leave the Bill in its present state, for which, no doubt, they had very good reason. I am going to suggest that counsel for the promoters of the Bill in fact misled the Select Committee—no doubt inadvertently—by implying that the setting up of a joint board was the policy of Her Majesty's Government. On page 333, at paragraph 2 of the Minutes of Evidence of February 24 of this year, counsel for the promoters of the Bill used these words, which, with the permission of the House, I will read:
"I press upon your Lordships that the joint board idea—always our proposal—is a good idea. It is the modern trend. It is the course you might expect when you are constituting an area from four separate units —an area containing a quarter of a million people, a busy industrial area. The Minister, since the House of Commons decided the point from their aspect, has twice testified to the value of joint boards—once before the British Waterworks Association in July, 1954, and again a Minister spoke in favour of joint boards—in the House of Commons—in connection with water undertakings."
I think it cannot be denied that this statement implies that the Minister of Housing and Local Government was in fact in favour of joint boards. But a little earlier, on December 22, 1954, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, during a debate in another place on national water supplies and with particular reference to the Kent Water Bill, used these words [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 535, col. 2838]:
"I differ from my honourable friend in thinking that perhaps the best way, within the framework of local government, may be the joint board…"
Again, at a meeting of the Water Companies' Association at the Ministry of

765
Housing and Local Government on May 4 this year, the Parliamentary Secretary said that he wished to emphasise that it was not the policy of his Department to favour water boards at the expense of the companies. In reply to a statement from the President of the Water Companies' Association that it seemed from what had been said in Parliament on the Kent Water Bill that the Government had the intention of replacing the companies by boards wherever possible, the Parliamentary Secretary replied that he wished to reiterate his assurance that this was not Government policy, and he expressed regret that Government statements should have been interpreted in this way. I maintain that these Ministerial assurances are quite different from the views put forward by counsel for the promoters of the Bill. For the reasons I have given, I beg to move my Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clauses 51, 52, 53. 54 and 55.—(Lord Teynham.)
THE EARL OF DROGHEDA: My Lords, perhaps I should say a word on the procedural aspect of the matter. Of course, it is the absolute and undoubted right of every Member in your Lordships' House to propose an Amendment to any Bill on its Third Reading, whether it be a Public or a Private Bill. However, it is a right that is rarely exercised so far as Private Bills are concerned, and I have not been able to find many analogous cases. The last case I have been able to find is the Adelphi Estate Bill, 1933, when the Motion for the Third Reading of the Bill was challenged but later agreed to by the House. Lord Onslow, then Chairman of Committees, said at the end of his speech on that occasion [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 88, col. 151]:
"I do not think there has been a Bill rejected"—
he might, indeed, have added "or substantially amended"—
"on Third Reading after its consideration by a Select Committee, but of course it is open to the House, if it wish, to do so."
There have been a few other cases, and I should like to mention the London County Council (Spitalfields Market) Bill, 1900, a Bill which originated in the Commons and passed that House. In the Lords Committee the promoters of the Bill opened their case and called evidence. Counsel for the petitioners, the City of
766
London, then made a speech, but called no evidence. The Committee decided against the Bill. Lord Monkswell, a member of the L.C.C., moved to recommit the Bill. The Chairman of Committees, Lord Morley, said during his speech [OFFICIAL REPORT, July 10, 1900, col 1092]:
"To recommit a Bill which has been carefully considered by a Private Bill Committee is a very rare and most unusual step to take. I remember no case in which it has been I taken except where it is alleged that the Committee had refused to hear evidence either or against the Bill. I think your Lordships must give the Committee, which was an experienced Committee, and their Chairman, who is a very experienced Chairman, credit for being able to take the statements of counsel at what they are worth."
At the end of the debate Lord Monkswell withdrew his Motion.
It seems to me that everything that Lord Morley then said is equally true of this Bill. The Committee which considered it were an experienced Committee and their Chairman a very experienced Chairman. Nor should it be forgotten that Parts VII and VIII of the Bill were brought to the Committee's special attention by the debate which took place in your Lordships' House on the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, on Second Reading. The Committee, I am told, took over four days to discuss these two Parts, and I am quite sure that they could estimate the statements of counsel "at what they are worth."
As to the wisdom of the Committee's decision I can say nothing, for I do not know nearly enough about the facts of the case. As Ii see it, however, the House can accept these Amendments only if it makes two assumptions: first, that the Committee, after hearing witnesses and considering Parts VII and VIII of the Bill for a long time, came to a wrong decision; and secondly, that this House is more likely to reach the proper decision after a debate of perhaps no great length and hearing no witnesses. If we decide to make these two assumptions, I myself think that we shall be breaking new and very difficult ground.
2.20 p.m.
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, I know nothing about this Bill; I know only in the broadest possible outline what it is, and have no sort of interest in it one way or the other. But I have had considerable experience, both in your Lordships' House and as counsel at the Bar,

767
arguing matters before your Lordships' Committees. I think the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, is absolutely right to move these Amendments—there is no doubt about that: it is only a question of whether it is wise that we should agree to them. I venture to think that if we did we should deal a considerable blow at our procedure on Private Bills Committee. After all, we have an elaborate procedure. We send the Bill to a Select Committee of the House because the House is not physically capable of hearing all the arguments and evidence. The Select Committee have the whole case expounded to them by statements from counsel, though the statements, of course, are of value only in so far as they are supported by the evidence and by witnesses, who are examined and cross-examined.
The discussion on this Bill in Committee took something like twenty-eight days, and these particular clauses took four days. I am certain that the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, meant to be absolutely fair in what he said, but it was inevitable that it should be an ex parte statement—he will not mind my saying that—made in the course of a few minutes. On the strength of that, are we to overrule what our Committee have done after hearing this matter for days, after considering the evidence and so on? If we do so in this case, I would ask your Lordships to consider what is the future of the procedure of the House of Lords Committees. What is the good of people incurring great expense—as I know they did (I am glad to say) in the old days, and as they do to-day—in instructing counsel, calling witnesses to give evidence and having their case judicially considered, if, when we get through the Committee of the House of Lords, some noble Lord, as he is perfectly entitled to do, moves that we disagree with the consideration of the Committee, when we cannot know what the consideration of the Committee was and have not had time to devote ourselves to it? I think that would be most unfortunate. I can tell your Lordships, from the point of view of the Bar, that we always had the highest regard for the Committees of your Lordships' House; we always felt that if we went to a Committee of this House we had a fair deal and a fair hearing.
768
I beg your Lordships, in this changing and shifting world, not to do anything which by a side wind might destroy public confidence in the Committees of this House. If your Lordships were to overrule your Committee, on the strength of half an hour's discussion by a noble Lord who does not pretend to be judicial in this matter—he has a view, of course, to which he is entitled—I venture to think that it would deal a death blow to our whole system of Private Bill procedure. I know that this Bill has been considered by a Committee of this House, and I venture to think that we ought to stand by the Committee, which has given it great consideration and gone through it with care, and come to a conclusion, be it right or wrong, after hearing the evidence of those people they desired to hear. Therefore, I support the Lord Chairman most sincerely in the observations he has made.
LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, that is an astounding statement from the noble and learned Earl, the Leader of the Opposition: that we in this House, after a Select Committee arrive at conclusions, merely make ourselves "rubber stamps" and do everything they want us to do without in any way questioning the reasons why they have done it. That is what has drawn me to my feet. Like the noble and learned Earl. I know nothing about this Bill, but I have been written to by those who do, and I want to ask one or two questions of the noble Earl, the Lord Chairman of Committees, or whoever on the Government Front Bench is to reply. First of all. it seems to me that, in this particular interest with regard to the Medway area, there is a different procedure from that obtaining in the other areas of Kent. I believe that over 90 per cent. of the water supplies are administered by the Chatham undertaking. Why is it that the procedure here is totally different from what it is in the other parts of Kent? It seems to me that what is being done is taking this responsibility away from private enterprise—it is no good scowling about this —and taking a step towards socialising this particular undertaking. Why should it not be left in the condition which applies to other undertakings on a big scale in that area? I should like to know why the Chatham Water Company is treated differently.

769
I do not want to be controversial and I do not want to be rude to the Opposition, but I feel the greatest concern about removing any industry which is functioning properly and adequately from that condition of private enterprise into anything that can possibly be construed as towards nationalisation. We have had experience of nationalisation. We know perfectly well that the result of it is higher prices and larger staffs, and, in my view, where nationalisation has taken place the consumer has not received as good service as in the past under private enterprise. I have had personal experience of this—not in Kent, but in another area of the country—and I can assure your Lordships that there is a great danger. I am certain that the noble and learned Earl opposite is quite right in saying that the members of the Committee are men of the greatest ability, but I should like to know why they have altered their procedure in regard to this particular area. To me it strikes at a major principle of the policy of the Government and noble Lords on this side of the House. I hope that what I might call my erstwhile colleagues on the Liberal Benches will support me in this view. This seems to me to be in direct opposition to private enterprise, and something which we should deal with now, and not wait until it creeps in on various other questions of the same nature. I do not agree with the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, that, because the Bill has 'Seen before a Select Committee, we have blindly to accept their decisions. We are perfectly entitled, as the noble and learned Earl said, to raise any question that we want to raise without in any way upsetting the general conduct of the affairs of the House.
2.30 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, no-one would be more surprised than the Select Committee themselves to be told that they have been considering this question on the basis of whether they are in favour of nationalisation or not: I am sure that it was the last thing they had in their minds.
LORD TEVIOT: The noble Lord must not say that. So far as I am concerned, I did not say that they had. What I said was that it was my view of what had taken place.
LORD SILKIN: Furthermore, the case as put by the noble Lard, Lord Teynham
770
had nothing to do with the merits of this particular question. He was putting it simply and solely on the basis that the Committee had been misled, advertently or inadvertently, by learned counsel when they had accepted learned counsel's statement. Then he went on to say that on such evidence as was available the learned counsel's statement was wrong. For my part, I am quite content that the House should decide this question on the case the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, put to the House: Were the Committee in fact misled by learned counsel for the promoters?
I have had some experience of litigation, and in all litigation counsel for one side and counsel for the other make statements which are not always accurate. But it does not follow that, because counsel on one side or the other made a statement which turned out to be inaccurate, the Committee decided on the basis of that statement. There may men have been contrary statements by the counsel for the objectors, establishing that the statement of counsel for the promoters was inaccurate. Therefore, I would prefer to assume that, in the four days which they devoted to this part of the Bill, this experienced Select Committee considered it carefully and attached the right weight to the statements that were made in front of them and to the evidence that they received.
But when we come to the next point, whether the statement was inaccurate, what evidence has this House that it was inaccurate? We do not know.
LORD TEYNHAM: If the noble Lord will forgive me interrupting, I have already given him in my speech certain evidence showing how it was inaccurate.
LORD SILKIN: I was about to deal with the evidence that the noble Lord put before us and to ask whether we ought to accept that as justifying a reversal of the decision of the Select Committee. What was the evidence he put before us? He said that counsel for the promoters had attributed certain statements of policy to the Minister. He then went on to say that this was incorrect because the Parliamentary Secretary appeared to have made other statements. Speaking with some experience of these matters, it would not be the first time that the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister spoke with different voices. It

771
does not in the least follow that, because the Parliamentary Secretary made certain statements on certain occasions, the Minister did not make other statements on other occasions. I would rather rest the case on the fact that I would trust the Select Committee to assess these statements that were made at their true value; that they had spent four days in putting a proper evaluation on the speeches of counsel and on the evidence, and that they arrived at a reasonable conclusion. That conclusion may be what some noble Lords like, or what they dislike. Clearly the noble Lord who dislikes the decision was entitled to say so. But let us remember that this was a judicial decision, and that we ought not lightly to upset it. Indeed, while I do not suggest that we should never upset a decision of this kind, it should be done only for such reason as the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, wisely put before us—namely, that the Committee had been misled on material questions and therefore went wrong. Frankly, I can find no justification for this allegation and, looking at the matter as objectively as I can, I feel we should be wise to support the Select Committee.
2.34 p.m.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: My Lords, having gone as far as we have on this matter, I think we ought to get some arguments to put against those put forward by my noble friend Lord Teynham. I know nothing about the arrangements in Kent, but I want to say one word about this matter because it is a principle which might apply to other Bills elsewhere. I should be the last to say that, in certain cases and in particular areas, a board of some kind, or an undertaking owned by a local authority, is not the best thing. But I should not like it to be thought that it was the Government's policy, or indeed the policy throughout the country, that in every case of the reorganising of water supplies a public board is the best thing.
Furthermore, having decided that public ownership of a certain section of water supply is in any particular case the best thing, I think your Lordships will find that there are many people, particularly those connected with local government, who have a strong objection to an organisation of the type which is known
772
as a joint board. The Board proposed here has, I see, members from eight different constituent councils. Those members on the joint Board are never the elected representatives; they are always appointed by their fellow members of other councils. I am sure that many members of your Lordships' House will have had experience of working a set-up of this kind which is composed of members of so many different councils.
I should not venture to argue the case on the merits of whether or not a Select Committee should be contradicted by this House, but I have always understood that we could make Amendments on Third Reading of Bills here. I should be glad to know the reasons why it has been stated by, I think, the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, that this was a judicial decision. I understood it to be a decision by a Committee of the House on the facts of the case and one of policy as to what was the best thing to do in this part of the County of Kent. I feel that, having gone as far as we have, my noble friend's point should be answered by facts. Those of us who are doubtful about this matter would no doubt be persuaded if we could be shown that the arrangement which is proposed was the best thing. On the other hand, perhaps our minds would be set at rest if we were told that there was no fixed policy by the Government or local authorities in general in favour of joint water boards all over the country. It is on those grounds that I feel we should have some statement.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, to a large degree the high reputation which your Lordships' House justly enjoys in the country is due to the work of its Private Bill Committees. The only relevant ground for your Lordships' over-setting a decision and a finding of one of your own appointed Committees would be if some entirely new fact emerged in the interval between the publication of the Report of the Committee proceedings and the Third Reading of the Bill in your Lordships' House. My noble friend Lord Teynham alleges nothing of the kind. Everything that he has put forward has been before this Committee—and this is the Committee which your Lordships appointed to deal with it. They have heard witnesses; they have heard counsel, and they have come to their decision. They have made a Report and

773
a recommendation to your Lordships. If we were now to overset that, it appears to me that a great deal of what the noble and learned Earl who leads the Opposition has said would come to pass, and we should strike a blow at the reputation which we deservedly enjoy in the country.
There are many noble Lords opposite —there were more when we first entered the House this afternoon—who have sat with me upon these Private Bill Committees, and I can recall no case on any occasion where political principles entered into the questions that were before the Committee. They were always decided on the evidence and on the arguments of counsel in a resolutely objective manner. I should he very sorry if, in my time in this House, your Lordships were to break the rule which has been so wisely adopted by your Lordships in the past, and recommended to us by the Lord Chairman.
2.40 p.m.
LORD CORNWALLIS: My Lords, I hope I shall have to say little more than I said on the Second Reading. The noble Lord, Lord Teviot, said that he did not know Kent and therefore could not assess the merits of the case one way or the other. Well, I do know Kent, and the first thing I want to say is that this area has not been treated differently from any other area in the county. The negotiations which preceded the introduction of this Bill started in 1948, and in 1951 the local authorities and boroughs and everyone else concerned were brought into consultation with the Kent County Council. So it went on till 1953. And the sole reason why it is now suggested that this particular area should go under a joint hoard is that, after years of deliberation and months of careful study, and. I may say, foray-five days of consideration by two Select Committees, in another place and in this House, it has been considered that that particular area's needs will be served best by a joint board.
LORD TEYNHAM: May I interrupt the noble Lord? I have never heard from the Kent County Council that they had ever objected in any way to any lack of efficiency in the Chatham area.
LORD CORNWALLTS: I did not quite say that, and hope that I shall not have to; but I can give some
774
evidence, if necessary, which naturally I do not want to do. May I tell the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, that, when amalgamation was first thought of and discussions had been going some time, and when it was quite obvious that this particular area could not supply its own needs (and, incidentally, the Chatham Water Company have had to tell two of the largest industrial undertakings who have gone to that area that they cannot supply their needs), when that amalgamation question was being deliberated in every possible way, the Chatham Water Company wrote to the County Council to say they did not consider it desirable or necessary to carry out the amalgamations to the extent proposed by the County Council. The company were not willing to assist the County Council in arriving at a decision by supplying fact aid information about their affairs and, furthermore, were of the opinion that the water requirements of the area were adequately served.
We have already reached the stage where those water supplies are not adequate, and therefore the area must be considerably enlarged. It may even be necessary to go outside that area to get water. People who do not know Kent do not perhaps realise that it is bounded on three sides by the sea, and that we have to provide all our own water and cannot go to other watersheds and other places to obtain supplies. I hope that this House will follow the judgment of its Select Committee. What I asked your Lordships on Second Reading was that the Chatham Bill, the Sevenoaks Bill, the Tonbridge Bill and the Kent Bill, and every other Bill dealing with water supplies in the county should be considered by the same Select Committee, who would hear all the evidence—and, I may say, the evidence of Chatham was particularly heard. I believe that five and a half days —certainly more than four—were spent on this particular area and sub-area, and a unanimous conclusion was reached. I can only tell your Lordships that, if Lord Teynham's Amendments are carried, it will make a complete mess of the Bill and I do not know quite what will happen. Therefore, I ask the House in this case to support, not a Socialist measure (I dislike the idea of politics being brought into the matter) but a step which has been approved by those who were the elected representatives of the ratepayers on the

775
County Council. For when a resolution supporting Chatham was put to the County Council—a predominantly Conservative County Council, not Socialist—it was defeated by eighty votes to five. I cannot think that we ought now, at this stage, to vote against the decisions of two Select Committees and the considered judgment of the head local authority that looks after the county's affairs.
LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, I have here the Minister's report on this Bill. I will not weary your Lordships with reading the whole of it, but it includes this statement:
"…the promoters of the Bill have considered the desirability of designating the Chatham Company as the responsible undertakers for the Medway area, rather than a joint board of local authorities. The Minister is not aware of any reason why either of these alternative forms of reorganisation should not give a satisfactory service to consumers."
I am immensely impressed by what the noble Lord, Lord Cornwallis, has just said, but I am also very much impressed by the Minister's statement.
LORD CORNWALLIS: My Lords, I can only answer the noble Lord by saying that company administration, board administration and every other form of administration was discussed and thought about for months and months.
2.46 p.m.
LORD BURDEN: My Lords, I hope your Lordships will allow just one word or two from these Benches. I listened carefully to the evidence which the noble Lord. Lord Teynham, submitted, in which he said that the Committee had been misled. Frankly, I do not think the words that the noble Lord read out in any way imply that the Government were in favour of these specific proposals; nor could any reasonable body of men infer from what was said by counsel that that was the Government's position. The noble Lord, Lord Teynham, bases his case against these clauses on the suggestion that it is a question of nationalisation. If this is nationalisation, then the setting up of the Metropolitan Water Board was nationalisation; every undertaking by a local authority is nationalisation. There are many forms of boards in this country between various local authorities for specific purposes. I want to suggest to your Lordships that
776
this question ought to be judged on its merits. Obviously, one cannot be conversant with all the details, but we have heard from the noble Lord who has just spoken that a predominantly Conservative County Council, knowing the facts of local government, were overwhelmingly in favour of the proposals of this Bill. Therefore, it would be a case of turning down the considered labours not only of our own Select Committee, which went into the pros and cons of the matter with the utmost care, but also of a Private Bill Committee of another place. If Lord Teynham's Amendments were carried, it would not be a blow for private enterprise; it would be a blow at sane and decent local government in Kent.
2.49 p.m.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (THE EARL OF MUNSTER): My Lords, I think it would be appropriate if I rose at this stage of our discussions on these important Amendments to give the House some indication of the views which Her Majesty's Government hold on this matter. I agree that the proposal of the noble Lord that we should discuss all his Amendments together is the right one in these circumstances, because they all hang together, and the decision which your Lordships may take on the first one would, of course, apply to all the others as well. My noble friend who moved the first of his Amendments asks the House to delete a large number of clauses in Parts VII and VIII of the Kent Water Bill which deal, in particular, with the supply of water in the Medway and Sittingbourne areas. At the beginning of the discussion this afternoon, the House was fortunate to hear the views of the noble Earl, Lord Drogheda, who is Chairman of the Committees of this House and who, I venture to think, is very well qualified to speak on these subjects. He has suggested—and the Government fully concur—that it would in fact be most unusual to amend a Bill on Third Reading after it had been to a Committee upstairs.
This Bill has had a long and arduous journey through Parliament. Nevertheless, your Lordships, as is common practice on these Private Bills, decided to send it to a Committee upstairs, who spent no less than twenty-two days in considering its detail. Moreover, more than six days were spent in considering Parts VII and VIII of this

777
Bill, and the Chatham Water Bill as well. After listening to all the arguments which were put forward by learned counsel on both sides, the Select Committee reached a unanimous decision to let the Kent Water Bill proceed but to recommend to your Lordships the rejection of the Chatham Water Bill. It is important to note that the decision which the Select Committee reached was similar to that reached in another place, where the Kent Water Bill was considered by a similar Committee for a period of twenty-three days. It is more than interesting to note that the Select Committees of both Houses sanctioned every conceivable kind of transfer, and neither House was apparently wedded to any particular form of undertaking.
After hearing all the evidence which was put before it, the Committee came to a unanimous decision and recommended that the Kent Water Bill should come before your Lordships' House for 'Third Reading. Here I venture to suggest that when a discussion takes place in your Lordships' House on decisions which have been reached by a Select Committee, it is not the duty, it is not the responsibility of—indeed it would be most unbecoming for—the Chairman of that Committee to have to defend his decision before your Lordships' Mouse. In the opinion of Her Majesty's Government it would be utterly wrong, although the House has the power and anyone is entitled to move an Amendment, to amend a measure which has been considered by a Select Committee. The noble Earl who leads the Opposition says that it would be a death blow to Select Committees. I would go even further and say that it would reduce the work of every Select Committee to a complete and utter farce, and the House might well find it difficult in the future to secure the services of any noble Lord to serve upon it. What would be the alternative? It would be for every Private Bill which is promoted in Parliament to be considered on the Floor of this House: and that, I venture to think, is a course which your Lordships would most emphatically reject.
My noble friend behind me, who moved his Amendment in the most brief and admirable manner, called in aid the observations of learned counsel for the promoters, and although I have no wish to enter into any detail, I should like to
778
remind my noble friend that that was not the only evidence which the Committee heard on the Minister's views about the organisation in the Medway area. Indeed, the report made to Parliament by my right honourable friend on the Chatham Water Bill itself was read in full by learned counsel for the promoters of that Bill, and therefore the Select Committee was fully aware of the Minister's views, and it had the opportunity of considering this question in every possible detail. My only observation in reply to my noble friend Lord Teviot would be this. He asks why there was in the Medway area a different procedure from that in the other areas in Kent. I do not know. I have not read the evidence which was before the Select Committee for twenty-two clays; but I am prepared to accept the decison of that Committee, and I recommend that your Lordships as a whole should do likewise.
LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, I should like to be quite clear about this point. Is it a laid-down principle of this House and a matter of procedure, that once any question goes before a Select Committee of the House, we, as members of your Lordships' House, have no further responsibility at all with regard to that matter? Because that is what this means. I rose as a Back-Bencher merely to ask a question to elucidate some of my apparent misunderstandings. So far as I can make out, that is rather an improper thing to do, but I cannot see why. If a Bill is coming back to this House for final voting upon before passing into law, surely there is left to this House some responsibility, if we do not quite agree with or cannot quite understand the conclusions of a Select Committee and their reasons for arriving at those conclusions. I should like to know definitely whether we have any responsibility at all on the subject.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, this seems to be a point upon which the Leader of the House should give some guidance. I am sorry that I did not hear the earlier part of the discussion, but the point raised, by the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, is a perfectly simple one: namely, has the House any interest—discretion is probably the right word—in this Bill once the Select. Committee has reported? The,

779
answer is that the Select Committee is a Select Committee of the House, and the House is, as it were, the sovereign body in the matter. At the same time, if a Select Committee has reported, having given so many days of time to the most careful consideration of every point raised on this or any other Bill, then I should have thought there would have to be new and special considerations before the House decided to reverse a recommendation of that Committee. Otherwise, it seems to me it would knock a great hole in the whole system. The time of the whole House cannot be fully occupied with matters of this kind, and the House appoints a Committee to give special consideration to a Bill of this type. Once it has considered it, and reports to the House, if there are some special or new considerations it would, of course, be open to the House to take whatever action it thinks proper: but it would have to think most carefully before it reversed the recommendation of the Committee.
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, in the first place I should like to deal with one or two points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Cornwallis. I would say, as I said a few moments ago, that not even the promoters of the Bill, the Kent County Council, have had anything to say against the efficiency of company administration in the Medway area, until the noble Lord, Lord Cornwallis, suggested it in his speech, and I think in fact he gave no reasons why he thought they were inefficient. If my Amendments were to succeed there would be no difficulty in the supply of water, in spite of what the noble Lord, Lord Cornwallis, has said. The Chatham Water Company would again put forward this Bill for amalgamation under company structure. There is no difficulty whatsoever. The noble
Lord, Lord Silkin, said that I had not put forward sufficient evidence in the case. I should like to deal a little further with that. In the Report of the Minister of Housing and Local Government there appears this phrase:
"The proposal of the Kent County Council to replace the Chatham Companies undertaking and other undertakings in this area by a Joint Board is a departure from the general method which the Kent Bill seems to follow, the general method, with which the Minister is in broad agreement, of building the proposed new units around the principal undertaking in each area."
There, again, we have a reiteration of Government policy towards the amalgamation of water units.
I feel strongly about this matter. I have sat in your Lordships' House for some twenty years: I have been a member of a number of Select Committees as well as a chairman, and I have never yet seen a Private Bill reach the Floor of the House which is so contrary to the policy put forward by the Government of the day. There is no doubt whatever that the Water Companies' Association were assured, with particular reference to the Kent Water Bill, that the intention of Her Majesty's Government was not to replace companies by boards wherever possible; in fact, Her Majesty's Government expressed regret that statements should have been interpreted in that way. May I humbly suggest that it is the duty of this House carefully to scrutinise every Private Bill when it reaches the Floor of the House and amend it if there is reason to believe that a serious mistake has been made; and I maintain that, in this particular case, a mistake has been made. I beg to press the Amendment.
On Question, Whether the Amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided:—
Contents 9 Not-Contents. 73.

CONTENTS

Goschen, V.

Birdwood, L.

Somers, L.

Long, V.

Ebbisham, L.

Teviot, L.

Ridley, V. [Teller.]

St. Levan, L.

Teynham, L. [Teller.]

NOT-CONTENTS

Kilmuir, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Beauchamp, E.

Listowel, E.

Bessborough, E.

Lonsdale, E.

Salisbury, M. (L. President.)

De La Warr, E.

Lucan, E.

Lansdowne, M.

Fortescue, E. [Teller.]

Munster, E.

Reading, M.

Gosford, E.

Onslow, E. [Teller.]

Jowitt, E.

Radnor, E.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Lindsay, E.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Alexander of Hillsborough, V.

De L'Isle and Dudley, L.

Lyle of Westbourne, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Denham, L.

Macphcrson of Drumochter, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Derwent, L.

Mancroft, L.

Gage, V.

Digby, L.

Merthyr, L.

Hall. V.

Fairfax of Cameron. L

Milner of Leeds, L.

Hereford, V.

Greenhill, L.

MonkBretton.L.

Hudson, V.

Haden-Guest, L.

Moyne, L.

Stansgate, V.

Hampton, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Woolton, V.

Harris, L.

Pethick-Lawrence, L.

Hawke, L.

Rea, L.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Henderson, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Ashton of Hyde, L.

Hindtip, L.

Saltoun, L.

Baden-Powell, L.

Hylton, L.

Silkin, L.

Burden, L.

Jessel, L.

Sinha, L.

Carrington, L.

Kershaw, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Chesham, L.

Killearn, L.

Terrington, L.

Colgrain, L.

Lloyd, L.

Westwood, L.

Cornwallis, L.

Luke, L.

Winster, L.

Croft, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF DROGHEDA: My Lords, with the permission of the House I will move en bloc the remainder of the Amendments standing in my name on the Marshalled List.
Amendments moved—
Clause 56, page 37, line 14, at end insert ("or so soon thereafter as they are appointed")
Clause 56, page 37, line 16, after ("Council") insert ("to be held")
Clause 57, page 37, line 38, leave out ("became") and insert ("become")
Clause 60, page 38, line 31, at end insert ("in the pound")
Clause 63, page 41, line 46, leave out ("Contribution") and nsert ("Contributions")
Clause 72, page 45, line 23, leave out ("that part of")
Clause 72, page 45, line 24, leave out ("which is situated within the limits of supply")
Clause 72, page 45, line 28, leave out ("of the said part")
Clause 72, page 45, line 36, leave out ("the said part of")
Clause 72, page 45, line 45, leave out ("Board") and insert ("Sittingbourne Council")
Clause 79, page 48, line 4, at beginning insert ("the")
Clause 83, page 48, line 40, at end insert ("or so soon thereafter as they are appointed")
Clause 83, page 49, line 2, after ("Council") insert ("to be held")
Clause 93, page 53, line 1, after ("thereof") insert ("not defrayed from loan moneys")
Clause 94, page 53, line 46, after ("water") insert ("by the Company")
Clause 95, page 54, line 12, leave out ("or stock") and leave out the third ("or")
Clause 95, page 54, line 13, leave out ("stock")
Clause 95, page 54, line 30, leave out ("or stock")
Clause 111, page 58, line 2, leave out ("the") and insert ("a")
Clause 123, page 63, line 7, after ("let") insert ("to those persons")
Clause 123, page 63, line 8, leave out ("for those purposes")
Clause 127, page 63, line 34, leave out ("or stock")
Clause 128, page 63, line 38, after ("stock") insert ("or shares")
Clause 128, page 63, line 40, after ("security") insert ("or the number of shares")
Clause 128, page 63, line 45, after ("money") insert ("shares")
page 64, line 3, after ("money") insert ("shares") and after ("has") insert ("or have")
Clause 131, page 64, line 24, leave out ("shares or stock") and insert ("or securities")
Clause 131, page 64, line 27, after ("mortgages") insert ("or")
Clause 131, page 64, line 28, leave out ("or other securities")
Clause 131, page 65, line 5, leave out ("stock") and insert ("securities")
Clause 131, page 65, line 7, after ("shares") insert ("mortgages")
Clause 131, page 65, line 11, leave out ("shares") and insert ("securities")
Clause 131, page 65, line 12, after ("shares") insert ("in the company and of mortgages and debenture stock of the company (hereinafter referred to as the holders')")
Clause 131, page 65, line 13, after("send") insert ("by post")
Clause 131, page 65, line 14, leave out ("shareholders of the company") and insert ("holders") and after ("their") insert ("last known or usual")
Clause 131, page 65, line 15, leave out ("shareholders") and insert ("the holders")
Clause 131, page 65, line 20, leave out lines 20 to 27 and insert—
("(b) the scheme shall be submitted to the meeting for approval:
Provided that unless the scheme is approved by holders representing not less than three-fourths in value of the shares mortgages or debenture stock of each class voting thereat in person or by proxy it shall be referred to an arbitrator to be

783
appointed by the President of The Law Society who shall settle the scheme;
(c) the scheme approved at the meeting or if referred to an arbitrator settled by him shall be binding on all the holders.
(5) In this section the expression 'securities' means in relation to the holders of shares in a company or mortgages or debenture stock of a company whose undertaking is transferred to a board or a council the stock issued by that board or council under section 126 of this Act and in relation to the holders of shares in a company or mortgages or debenture stock of a company whose undertaking is transferred to another company the shares or debenture stock issued by that other company under section 127 of this Act.")
Clause 131, page 65, line 39, leave out ("stock") and insert ("securities")
Clause 131, page 65, line 41, leave out ("stock") and insert ("securities")
Clause 132, page 66, line 33, leave out ("stock and")
Clause 133, page 67, line 4, leave out ("or stock")
Clause 137, page 70, line 15, leave out ("is") and insert ("or shares is or are")
Clause 137, page 70, line 17, after ("stock") insert ("or dividends on such shares (as the case may be)")
Clause 140, page 71, line 7, leave out ("use") and after ("impound") insert ("use")
Clause 141, page 71, line 23, leave out ("Waterworks") and insert ("Water")
Clause 145, page 72, line 47, leave out ("may be") and insert ("were being")
Clause 154, page 78, line 47, after ("For") insert ("the")
Clause 162, page 81, line 35, leave out ("British") and insert ("Central")
Clause 163, page 82, line 7, leave out the first ("of")
Clause 164, page 82, line 20, at end insert— ("Section 49 (Inquiries by Ministers);
Section 50 (Power to revoke and vary orders);")
First Schedule, page 85, line 27, leave out ("Waterworks") and insert ("Water")
First Schedule, page 85, line 37, leave out ("(part of undertaking)")
Second Schedule, page 86, line 6, after ("year") insert ("after the year ending on the thirty-first day of March nineteen hundred and fifty-six")
Fourth Schedule, page 88, line 51, leave out ("1953") and insert ("1955")
Fourth Schedule, page 90, line 12, leave out ("1953") and insert ("1955")
Fourth Schedule, page 90, line 54, leave out ("1953") and insert ("1955")
Fourth Schedule, page 93, line 43, leave out ("1953") and insert ("1955")
Fourth Schedule, page 94, line 35, leave out ("Bay")
Fourth Schedule, page 94, line 36, leave out ("Bay")
Fourth Schedule, page 94, line 38, leave out line 38.
Fourth Schedule, page 94, line 39, after ("Waterworks") insert ("Company")
Fourth Schedule, page 94, line 44, leave out ("1922") and insert ("1902")
Page 95, leave out lines 1 to 5 and insert ("So much of section 7 (Limits of Act comprising the Gas and Water Districts) of the Canterbury Gas and Water Act, 1866 as describes the Water District ' and the following provisions of that Act (except so far as they relate to works for the supply of gas) namely").—(The Earl of Drogheda.)
THE EARL OF DROGHEDA: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(The Earl of Drogheda.)
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

LEEWARD ISLANDS BILL [H.L.]
3.12 p.m.
EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Lloyd. I beg leave to introduce a Bill to constitute the Presidencies of the Leeward Islands separate colonies and to confer upon Her Majesty power to make, or to authorise the making of, emergency laws therefor and to establish courts therefor; to amend the West Indian Court of Appeal Act, 1919; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid. I beg to move that this Bill be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Earl Fortescue.)
On Question, Bill read 1a; and to be printed.

MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (COLNE VALLEY SEWERAGE BOARD) BILL
Read 2a (according to Order).

EUROPEAN COAL AND STEEL COMMUNITY BILL
3.14 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE MARQUESS OF READING): My Lords, your Lordships will remember that not very long ago —in fact, on December 21 last year—an Agreement was concluded, and reported to your Lordships at the time, concerning relation; between the United Kingdom and the European Coal and Steel Community. That Agreement provided for a close contact between these two parties and for discussion of matters of common interest between them. I think it was the case, both in another place and in your Lordships' House, that this Agreement was cordially welcomed on all sides.
We have had, in fact, for nearly three years past a delegation in Luxembourg, where, as your Lordships know, the headquarters of the European Coal and Steel Community is situated, and that delegation has been watching our interests and maintaining the necessary contacts with the High Authority which is the executive organ of the Community. Article 5 of the Agreement that I spoke about provides that meetings shall he held alternately at the seat of the High Authority in Luxembourg and, in London, of the Council of Association which is the body established under the Agreement to maintain contact between the two parties. In order to continue that contact between the dates of the meetings in London or Luxembourg, we shall maintain in Luxembourg a small permanent delegation and the High Authority will maintain a similar delegation in London. The short Bill which is before your Lordships is a Bill to confer, once more, certain immunities and privileges on the representatives in the United Kingdom of the High Authority and their staffs, under conditions to which I shall refer in a little more detail later on.
In the course of the protracted negotiations which preceded the conclusion of the Agreement, Her Majesty's Government accepted the view as being a reasonable one—and such, I think, it will appear to your Lordships to be—that the two delegations, the United Kingdom delegation in Luxembourg and the High
786
Authority delegation in this country, should be treated alike from the point of view of the privileges and immunities accorded to each. In this case, it is not possible to use the procedure, with which your Lordships have become, possibly in your view excessively, familiar in the recent past, of proceeding by Order in Council to confer, with the assent of Parliament, certain privileges and immunities, because those Orders in Council owe their validity to, and spring from, the International Organisations (Immunities and Privileges) Act, 1950. But that Act applies only to organisations of which the United Kingdom is a member. The United Kingdom had accepted membership of several organisations of the kind which I brought to your Lordships' notice not very long ago, but the United Kingdom is not a member of the European Coal and Steel Community, and therefore a different procedure must necessarily be followed. The different procedure is the one which inevitably we have to adopt in this case, which is to proceed by virtue of an Act of Parliament.
I think it is also true to say—though it may be incidental to the general point—that the status and functions of the European Coal and. Steel Community delegation in London and ours in Luxembourg are perhaps rather different from those of the international organisations which we have recently been considering, and, indeed, approximate a good deal closer to the position and the functions of a diplomatic mission of a foreign sovereign Power.
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, would it be a trading community at all? Would it make contracts?
THE MARQUESS OF READING: It does little more than set up this Council of Association, which is an organisation for discussion between the United Kingdom and the High Authority, and which reviews and discusses points of common interest between the two. It has little executive function of any kind; it is deliberative.
VISCOUNT HALL: My Lords, I assume that trading representatives will form part of this High Authority and will meet their opposite numbers from other European countries.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: I imagine that they may come here in the

787
course of meetings of the Council in order to discuss matters, but I think they would not form part of the permanent delegation. At this stage it is a little difficult to nominate the capacity in which this, that and the other member on a delegation may be here. But that is how I should foresee the composition of the delegation which we expect to receive here.
The Bill sets out shortly the privileges and immunities proposed. It is to be borne in mind that they are less in this case, in certain particulars, than those which are normally accorded foreign diplomatic missions. Indeed, they are actually less than those which hitherto as a matter of grace have been accorded to our delegation in Luxembourg during the past two and a half years of its function there. They have been reduced in response to a feeling, which we know well to be current, that wherever possible these privileges and immunities should be kept within the narrowest possible bounds, to a point at which the United Kingdom delegation in Luxembourg will actually be on a slightly lower status as regards privileges and immunities than those of other countries represented by similar delegations at the headquarters in Luxembourg. The matter has been referred to the head of our delegation in Luxembourg. That course was suggested by the Opposition in another place in the course of discussion on Second Reading of the Bill, although in fact we had already set that machinery in motion. The head of our delegation has agreed that for practical purposes the slight diminution of what would be the normal privileges and immunities can be accepted in this case.
EARL JOWITT: The head of the delegation is still Sir Cecil Weir?
THE MARQUESS OF READING: I do not know whether he has gone out of office yet. His successor has been appointed, but whether he has actually taken over, I am not absolutely sure.
The Bill provides for a lower scale than that normally accorded to foreign diplomats. It gives general juridical immunity only to the actual head of the delegation and his family. The family of no other member of the delegation is given any form of protection at all. No taxation privileges are extended to
788
citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies and there is no concession to domestic staff. Although this is always rather a technical subject, the question of rates is also dealt with on a special and more restricted basis than is usual in cases of this kind. I commend the Bill to your Lordships on the basis that it provides only what are the reasonable requirements of a delegation resident in this country and of such persons from the seat of the High Authority as may visit the United Kingdom for meetings of the Council of Association. So far as can be judged at present, those normally resident here will amount to no more than ten persons, but of course the number who may conic when from time to time the alternating conference is held here I cannot at the present moment prophesy with any exactitude.
I know perfectly well that these privileges and immunities are not matters which commend themselves readily to your Lordships' House. At the same time, on this occasion it was fully conceded in another place—although, of course, that does not bind your Lordships—that they are reasonably necessary and reasonable in character. If your Lordships should decide not to grant them, the position established by that refusal would be one of extreme difficulty. The United Kingdom delegation in Luxembourg would find itself the only delegation without diplomatic privilege, and the proposed delegation coming to this country from Luxembourg would inevitably feel, however little it might be the intention of the House to give that view, that their presence was unwelcome to this country, since the privileges and immunities, though actually on a slightly lesser scale than those extended to so many other people, had been refused in their case, whereas they had been accorded to what I know many of your Lordships think to be too many other bodies. In those circumstances it might well be that they would be extremely reluctant to come and the whole arrangement which is established by the Agreement, which is of great benefit to all those concerned, might easily collapse.
On this general question I have observed that the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, has carried out—I will not say his threat, but his promise, to put down a Motion, which at present stands as "No day named," for the discussion

789
of the whole matter, Perhaps I may also he allowed to call your Lordships' attention to the Written Answer that appears in this morning's OFFICIAL REPORT to the question which the noble Lord, Lord Killearn, put to me, partly on my suggestion, when discussing this matter a short while ago. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. —(The Marquess of Reading.)
3.28 p.m.
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, I have had serious doubts as to whether I should not move that your Lordships reject this Bill. In view of the day, the temperature and the time, I have decided not to do so. But I am in this dilemma: I do not want it to be thought, because I do not suggest that course, that I think this is anything but a very bad Bill. I think that we have really to take this matter up and look at it. I have put down a Motion—I have not the terms of it before me at the moment, but I have used the framework of Dunning's great Motion—asking your Lordships to say that in the opinion of this House the extension of these privileges "has increased, is increasing and ought to be diminished." I believe that if your Lordships decide to pass that Motion, when we come to debate it, we shall strengthen the arms of our Government, who are placed to-day in a difficult position because of all these Diplomatic Immunities and Privileges Orders —we had four of them last week and we have this Bill to-day.
The principle which pervades the speech of the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, seems to be this: that if we want to welcome these people and extend to them courtesy, we have to grant them diplomatic privileges. I believe that to be completely ill-founded. It is a completely new conception. I would point out how odd it is. If our Prime Minister, our Foreign Secretary, or the Lord Chancellor, go abroad on some mission—I used to when I was Lord Chancellor; the Foreign Secretary does it every month, and the Prime Minister not infrequently —they get no diplomatic immunity: they do not ask for it, and they do not want it. Why on earth should we give diplomatic immunity to the representative of the European Coal and Steel Community when he comes to this country? I am all in favour of the European Coal and Steel Community; I welcome the repre-
790
sentatives here, and I do not want to seem to be guilty of the smallest discourtesy towards them. But I cannot think it is a necessary concomitant of showing courtesy to grant diplomatic immunity.
I will not specify times, places or people, but the granting of this diplomatic immunity has led to serious consequences. In my own experience, I have had cases where female servant, have been assaulted and have heel deprived of any sort of redress; I have had cases of shoplifting where we have been unable to do anything; and motor car incidents have been legion. The only reason why this has not become a screaming scandal at the present time is because of the quality and tolerance of our diplomatic corps. Although he has immunity, an ambassador in charge of the mission here of a friendly country, if one of his representatives has a motor car accident, is always ready to do the right thing and to assume the obligation to pay, as though he did not have that diplomatic immunity. We can rely on him to do the right thing—in my experience, he always has done. Had it not been far that, we should not have tolerated diplomatic immunity. I would point out to your Lordships again, and ask you to bear in mind, that what we call diplomatic immunity is nothing other than deprivation of rights, if looked at from the other point of view.
I do not want to say a word against the representative of the European Coal and Steel Community, but why should he not be responsible for his debts; and why should he not he responsible if he does the sort of things I have mentioned? Are not our laws reasonable and proper laws? Must we have some kind of system of capitulation in this country? I ask your Lordships to look carefully at this question—I had it when I was Lord Chancellor, and I had to concede this point. Quite frankly, I resisted the Foreign Office, so far as I could, and I used to be told in those days that the Foreign Office were being impelled by some irresistible force—they did not know quite where it came from; some back room boy sitting somewhere or other was pushing them. They said: "We are sorry. We quite see the point, but we cannot help it." The late Lord Simon, in those happy days, used to attack the whole principle. I feel, to some extent,

791
that the mantle of Lord Simon has fallen on me. He said this [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 167, col. 296]:
"I strongly share the view which the Lord Chancellor expressed in Committee on the Bill"—
I was then the Lord Chancellor. Lord Simon then quoted my words, and the following words are a quotation from me:
"I myself feel that we have gone perhaps a little too far in this idea of extending the whole doctrine of diplomatic privilege to include all sorts of people who take part in international discussions."
Lord Simon went on to say that he agreed with the doctrine
"that we should cut down the principle or, at any rate, not extend it unnecessarily."
The noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, took part in a later debate on this subject in his usual robust manner, and this is what he said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 168, col. 563]
"It never occurred to me, when going all over the world to attend diplomatic conferences…that I ought to have diplomatic privilege…it never occurred to me when I was in Rapallo, that if I drove my girl friend round the coast road and ran over some respectable Italian citizen I could expect to enjoy diplomatic immunity."
Is this not a time at which we ought not to be extending these immunities? The noble Viscount said, with regard to that particular immunity, which has since been granted:
"I could not possibly support it."
My noble friend Lord Henderson was trying to get it forward, but I, as Lord Chancellor, thought discretion the better part of valour and withdrew it then to consider it further. In due course, however, I was compelled to introduce it, and we have it now.
All these people who come to talk about postal conventions have diplomatic immunity when they come here. I welcome them here; we like discussing postal questions. But I cannot see why it should be necessary to have diplomatic immunity to discuss postal questions. It is nothing to the point that our representatives have the same thing in Luxembourg. I thought it was singularly naive for the noble Marquess to tell us that Sir Cecil Weir, our representative in Luxembourg, had been approached—
THE MARQUESS OF READING: It was a suggestion made by the noble Earl's Party in another place.
EARL JOWITT: It may have been made by anybody, but in my view, it is a thoroughly bad suggestion. Why should you approach him to find out his answer? And why should he say, as he did inferentially: "I think it is necessary that I should have diplomatic immunity, so that if I run anybody down in my car I shall not have to pay"? I cannot think that it was put to him in that wad at all.
I say no more now, but this is a matter which is deeply concerning many of us at the present time. I take my stand against this practice. It is not a question of lack of courtesy, or lack of welcome to these people. I think the European Coal and Steel Community is an admirable institution, but I cannot see why the representatives should be given diplomatic immunity. The noble Marquess said that it is not a training organisation. I should have thought that the European Coal and Steel Community must make contracts. If I made a contract with them, and some dispute arose under it, I should be in a difficult position. I should have to disclose all my documents, but all their documents would be privileged. This is but another illustration—we had four of them last week—of what is going on. I ask the Government to consider that these things are not just a matter of course which they can get through the House. I beg your Lordships to consider this fact. If you pass the Motion in the terms I suggest. that this practice has gone on too long and must be diminished, it will strengthen the hands of the Government in future when they come to make all these Agreements, because they will then be able to say: "We cannot give you diplomatic immunity, because we shall have such a bad time when we get to the House of Lords if we do." I hope that in due course, when this question is raised, your Lordships will give me your support in saying that this has gone on long enough and, indeed, has gone too far.
3.39 p.m.
LORD HAMPTON: My Lords, if I may intervene for a short time, I should like to say that I am in complete agreement with what has fallen from the noble and learned Earl, the Leader of the Opposition, and I shall look forward to his Motion. I should like to ask the noble Marquess whether he or the

793
Foreign Office have any information as to how this question of diplomatic immunity is regarded by other nations. One cannot help feeling that if there is a large body of opinion in this country which looks upon this diplomatic immunity with great doubt, then it must be the same in many other countries. The question may arise, if that is so—if it can be discovered to be so—whether it is not a matter which should be discussed, and perhaps decided, at a meeting of the United Nations. I do not know whether the noble Marquess can give any reply to that question, or whether perhaps he will let me have one later.
3.40 p.m.
LORD KILLEARN: My Lords, first of all, I should like to thank the noble Marquess for his Written Answer. As he mentioned to your Lordships, he invited me to put down a Question, which I did, and the Answer appears in the OFFICIAL REPORT of yesterday's proceedings. I do not know whether your Lordships have yet had time to see it, but perhaps not. It gave, shall I say, quite an impressive list. It did not include accredited diplomats, but the list of organisations mentioned is quite formidable. I have been totting it up and there are twenty-nine so far. The week before last two more were added, two more last week, and to-day there are two more. That is another six.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: They are included.
LORD KILLEARN: Then that is my mistake. As the Answer specifically says, it does not cover what I might call the peripatic element, which must be considerable. I agree that it is not easy to see how it could cover them; but obviously there are more in that category than the comparatively small number shown as being resident in this country. I was frankly surprised that the number shown as being resident in the United Kingdom was so small. But if you add all "peripatetics." or whatever the right word may be, it would be much Piper. Surely, it all comes to this. This question of diplomatic privilege has to be very carefully scrutinised in each case. It has been very wide-flung. A great many of us, including myself, are inclined to suspect that it has been too easily given. After all, it is a very special status. They are not
794
amenable to local jurisdiction, local taxation, and so many things. For myself, I am glad and relieved that the noble and learned Earl is bringing this matter up for thorough discussion. That might even lead to some form of inquiry to get to the bottom of this matter. There is certainly an uneasiness which I share.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, before the noble Marquess replies, could I ask him to clear up one piece of my abysmal ignorance on this subject? Are these various bodies, whose members have diplomatic immunities of various kinds, issued with diplomatic passports by which they can take goods from one country to another? If that is the case, is it not rather strange that our own diplomats, except, I think I am right in saying, ambassadors, are not issued with diplomatic passports? Therefore, there would seem no reason to issue passports to these other bodies.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, as regards the last question which has been put, frankly I do not know what particular form of passport the various persons coming from other countries carry with them. Of course, there is in these days no such thing as a diplomatic passport in this country.
The general course of the remarks which have been made on this Bill have perhaps rather anticipated the discussion which is likely to take place on the noble and learned Earl's Motion, whenever he attaches a date to its present dateless condition. He will perhaps agree that it will be as well to-day to confine ourselves to consideration of the particular Bill which is before the House, and not wander widely into the considerable field which the remarks directed to this Bill have opened out. I want to say only one or two things. The first is in relation to a specific remark which the noble and learned Earl made, and to assure him that the European Coal and Steel Community itself does not make contracts and is not a trading organisation in any way. So that particular trouble which was afflicting him may perhaps be alleviated.
The whole tone of the noble and learned Earl's speech was that we were handing out over-generously these privileges, whereas there was no particular reason to do so that anybody could detect, and that any impulse to make this

795
generous distribution came from some sort of hidden motive power in the inner recesses of the Foreign Office upon which he was unable to lay his finger. That is a quite inaccurate picture of the situation. It may be that the noble and learned Earl and other members of your Lordships' House do not like these particular privileges and immunities and do not think that they should be granted. But that does not mean that that opinion is universally held throughout the world. There are many countries which attach great importance to it and which, as a condition of entering into what are valuable agreements to this country, insist that these privileges and immunities shall form part of any accord which is entered into. Your Lordships may remember that as regards the Specialised Agencies of the United Nations there is an over-riding agreement in existence to which, so far as I remember, the then Government of which the noble and learned Earl was such an ornament gave its approval in 1947. That agreement places us under an obligation to extend to the Specialised Agencies of the United Nations the privileges which are allowed for under that agreement. It is not a question of caprice or of some strange influence working and persuading the Government to give these privileges, whereas in fact they do not wish to do anything of the kind.
The noble and learned Earl said that the mantle of the late noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, in this matter may have descended upon him. It may be so, but I must remind him that the Bill under which these privileges and immunities are granted to international organisations was a Bill which again the Government of which he was a member was responsible for introducing to this House and carrying through. I cannot help thinking that there there may be a slight separation of paths between him and the late noble and learned Viscount. We shall have a discussion on these subjects probably when we return refreshed to your Lordships' House. All I want to make clear to your Lordships is that this is not merely a matter of over-straining a doctrine in order to ex-
796
tend some unjustified and possibly unwanted courtesy to a body. I do not understand the noble and learned Earl when he says that it is a naïve argument, or that it is no argument, to say that these things are granted on a reciprocal basis. I should have thought it was an argument of considerable force and importance, because, perhaps wrongly, but over the course of years, the possession of diplomatic privilege has come to be looked upon as exalting the status of the person to whom it is accorded and confirming his position as being one of official responsibility and understanding.
EARL JOWITT: May I interrupt the noble Marquess for a moment to make it quite plain why I say it is of no relevance? I object to these privileges because they interfere with the right of the lieges in this country—the ordinary man in the street. They are the people I am concerned with and no one else. They are obviously not affected at all by the consideration of what our people abroad have in the way of privileges and immunities.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: I do not suggest they are, but we cannot look at this purely from the effect that it has upon the lieges of this country. These, after all, are reciprocal international privileges, and one has to look not only at the effect in this country but on the status of our own missions in foreign countries as well. You cannot reduce it merely within the confines that the noble and learned Earl was putting forward—whether people are going about doing harm to lieges of this country. I do not want at this day and at this time to carry this discussion further forward when, as I say, we are to deal with the whole matter later. I quite agree that it would be a most valuable discussion for your Lordships to have, and I trust that I shall be able to give your Lordships some useful and convincing information on the whole subject which I realise genuinely exercises the minds of many Members of your Lordships' House.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

INTERNATIONAL FINANCE CORPORATION BILL
3.51 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, the Members of the International Bank, of which Her Majesty's Government is one, have decided that there is need and scope for a new International Finance Corporation. This is a Bill to enable Her Majesty's Government to take its share in this institution. The Bretton Woods Convention set up two international financial institutions, the Monetary Fund and the International Bank. The Fund exists to provide foreign exchange for members who are short of it, and the Bank is to lend money to Governments or to enterprises with a guarantee of Governments This new institution has rather different aims and objectives from the Bank. In the first place, it is something of an appendage to the Bank, in that the governors, the directors, the office and quite possibly the staff will be the same. Its aim is to provide funds for the less developed parts of the world by lending to productive enterprise without Government guarantee. It can lend money in any way except by taking up capital stock. It is hoped that it will revolve its funds by selling its investments after nursing them, and it is hoped that the 100 million dollars capital, of which our share is 14·4 million dollars, will go rather further than one would think otherwise, if that were not the case.
There are three main points which may be asked. Why is it necessary that the capital of the Corporation should be subscribed in gold or dollars? We must admit that gold or dollars is still the only entirely free international currency, and if the Corporation is to function all over the world it must function in a currency which is truly interchangeable; but we have hopes that, when operating in the sterling area, it will make loans in sterling.
Then what do we get out of this? In the wider field, any Provision for the development of the under-developed parts of the world is to our advantage. We have a scope for exporting goods corresponding to the capital which is put into those countries, and of course any raising of their standard of living is naturally to
798
our advantage, too, in the long run. No one can deny that there is a great shortage of savings throughout the world, and particularly savings likely to take risk in these under-developed parts of the world. We hope that the setting up of this Corporation will be instrumental in attracting private investment into those channels, in that the participation of the Corporations should be considered to be a sort of hall mark which may stamp the quality of the investments.
The other question is the immunities and privileges about which we have spoken at some length. I would say here, however, that as the Corporation is not expected to have an office in this country the privileges and immunities given by the British citizen in this country will be of very little account; furthermore, that as the staff is expected to be largely the same as that of the International Bank who already have these privileges, no fresh ground is really being opened up. If 75 per cent. by capital of the sub-scribers are prepared to pay their subscriptions—and we believe they are—there is no reason why this institution should not start to function next year. The clauses with the aid of the Long Title are self-explanatory. I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.— (Lord Hawke.)
3.54 p.m.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: My Lords, my noble friends on these Benches authorise me to say that they are in support of the principle underlying the articles of agreement in this Bill. I do not think that the noble Lord opposite who introduced this measure, or anyone else, can claim that it is a very heroic Bill. A hundred million dollars may sound a large sum to people not acquainted with big international affairs, but it is a very small sum. It may be true that it is a rotating fund, but still, for what it is worth, it is worth proceeding on those lines. The matter of the exclusion of sterling is, I think, a little more important. I thought the noble Lord who introduced the measure here was a little less emphatic than was his right honourable friend in the other place, who said that the British Government were themselves disquieted about this matter, and still pressed for sterling to be recognised on partial equality, if not full

799
equality, with the dollar in this matter. In view of those points, in spite of what I may call the minor blemishes of the proposals, we on these Benches do not intend in any way to impede the passage of the Bill through this House.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE ADMINISTRATION BILL [H.L.]
3.57 p.m.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Clause 13 [Retirement or removal of recorder]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to add to the clause:
(" (3) The foregoing provisions of this section shall apply to a paid chairman or deputy chairman of the quarter sessions for the county of London as they apply to a recorder of a borough having a separate court of quarter sessions; and for the purposes of section twenty-two of the Administration of Justice (Pensions) Act, 1950. a chairman or deputy chairman vacating office in pursuance of subsection (1) of this section (as applied by this subsection) shall be treated as retiring after the end of the completed year of service in the course of which he attains the age of seventy-two years.
(4) Subsection (1) of this section shall also apply to a metropolitan stipendiary magistrate (whenever appointed) as it applies to a recorder appointed after the coming into force of this section of a borough having a separate court of quarter sessions.")
The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, this Amendment in my name applies the provisions of the Bill to the Chairman and Deputy Chairman of the London Sessions. This is done at the request of the London County Council. I have already explained the provisions which are applied. I do not think I need take up any more of your Lordships' time. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 48, at end insert the said subsections.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Clause 15 [Additional courts of quarter sessions in boroughs]:
EARL JOWITT EARL JOWITT moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "resolution of the borough council" and insert. "Lord Chancellor." The noble and learned Earl
800
said: My Lords, I can put this Amendment very shortly. I do not expect the Lord Chancellor to accept it here and now. I merely raise the point so that it may be considered when the Bill goes to another place, because there is here rather an important issue. On the one hand, it is obvious, if you are going to have more recorders than one, that the person who ought to decide whether a further assistant recorder is necessary or not is the Lord Chancellor. He has his finger on the pulse, and he knows what the requirements of justice are. At first sight, it is odd to find that the question whether such a gentleman can be appointed depends not upon the edict or wish of the Lord Chancellor but upon the resolution of the borough council. The reason underlying it is not difficult to see. The borough council have to pay—he who pays the piper calls the tune. Consequently, it has no doubt been felt reasonable that, as the local authority have to pay, therefore they should pass the resolution appointing the recorder. And so there is raised here, on this small Amendment, the whole question of the incidence and expense of the administration of justice as between the local authority and the Exchequer, and as between the rates and the taxes.
I believe I am right in saying (the Lord Chancellor will correct me if I am wrong) that the salary of a recorder is paid by the local authority. I believe also that in certain cases—I am not sure whether in all—there is a countervailing grant made by the Exchequer towards that expense. Broadly speaking, in these matters I think the responsibility ought to rest upon the Exchequer and not upon the rates. In order that the whole matter as between the two may be considered, and for that purpose only, I beg to move the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 13, leave out ("resolution of the borough council ") and insert (" Lord Chancellor ").—(Earl Jowitt.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): My Lords, I am sure all your Lordships are grateful to the noble and learned Earl for having raised this point. As he will appreciate, in this Bill we have built on the existing foundation, which is as he stated it. It starts, as he will remember, with the local authority deciding whether it will apply to have

801
a recorder at all. Unless it so decides and so applies, then it does not have a recorder. It it does decide to have a separate commission of the peace of its own, then of course it pays the recorder and suggests a salary, although now the appointment is made by the Lord Chancellor. The noble and learned Earl and I remember that there was a time when the appointment was made by the Home Secretary, but it is now the Lord Chancellor's appointment.
At the moment there is a grave limitation in regard to the number of those who can sit, and as I told the noble and learned Earl, we took the existing procedure and therefore left it to the council of the borough to decide whether it would authorise the money necessary to make the additional recorder. I assure the noble and learned Earl that I will look into both his points—the first one that he adumbrated on the Committee stage, and the wider one, with regard to finance, which he adumbrated to-day. As he will understand, it requires not only making general inquiries of the association but finding out how it would work in individual cases. I shall certainly try to do that before the Bill reaches another place. On that assurance, I hope the noble and learned Earl will not pursue his Amendment to-day.
EARL JOWITT: I am grateful to the Lord Chancellor, and I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 16 [Retirement of metropolitan stipendiary magistrates]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the third Amendment is consequential on the rearrangement of the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 16 —(The Lord Chancellor.)
In the Title:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, Amendment No. 4 is also consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out (" of metropolitan stipendiary magistrates ") and insert (" or removal of chairmen and deputy-chairmen of quarter sessions and of stipendiary magistrates in London,").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

LICENSING (AIRPORTS) BILL [H.L.]
4.3 p.m.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, I have to inform your Lordships that there will be a formal Sitting of the House tomorrow afternoon at half-past four to receive the Wireless Telegraphy (Blind Persons) Bill and the County Courts Bill from another place. Both these Bills the Government hope to pass into law before the Recess. The County Courts Bill has already been through your Lordships' House in the last Parliament, and was one of the unfortunates of the Dissolution. It now comes back to your Lordships from the Commons with certain Amendments, which will, I believe, largely meet the criticisms made here when the Bill was before your Lordships in the last Parliament. Noble Lords opposite have kindly promised to cooperate in the progress of this Bill to the Statute Book. The Wireless Telegraphy (Blind Persons) Bill is not expected to arouse any opposition in any quarter. We propose to take the Second Reading of this Bill on Tuesday, and the Second Reading of the County Courts Bill as first Order on Wednesday next when a Motion enabling it to have precedence will be tabled. Neither Bill is expected to occupy much parliamentary time.
CROSBY CORPORATION BILL LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.