Lords Sitting of 27 June 1957

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The EARL OF DROGHEDA on the Woolsack.
Prayers

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL
2.36 p.m.
Read 2ª, and referred to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.

PORTSLADE AND SOUTHWICK OUTFALL SEWERAGE BOARD BILL
Read 2ª, and referred to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.

ABERDEEN HARBOUR (SUPER- ANNUATION) ORDER CON- FIRMATION BILL
BAIRD TRUST ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
GLASGOW CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
KILMARNOCK CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Read 3ª (according to Order), and passed.

EGGS (GUARANTEED PRICES) ORDER, 1957
2.38 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (EARL ST. ALDWYN)THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (EARL ST. ALDWYN) moved, That the Eggs (Guaranteed Prices) Order, 1957, reported from the Special Orders Committee on Tuesday the 4th of June, be approved. The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Order makes arrangements for providing guaranteed prices and an assured market for eggs through the British Egg Marketing Board. The Order will replace an existing Order, also made under Section 4 of the Agriculture Act, 1947, giving authority for the Government's, present interim arrangements
428
which have operated since rationing and price control of eggs ended.
The Board has now been set up, and will start exercising its marketing functions from 30th June. In future, as with milk and wool, the guarantee will be to the Board and not to individual producers. The level and conditions of the guarantee are, of course, determined each year at the Annual Review. The detailed financial arrangements under which the Board will administer the guarantees will be set out in an Agreement between the Ministers concerned and the Board, and copies of the Agreement will later be made available in the Printed Paper Office. The present Order merely lays down the following procedure for determining each year how much is due from the Exchequer to the Board to implement the guarantees.
At each Annual Review, Ministers will determine, for hen and duck eggs, the standards of eggs to be eligible for guarantee and:—

(a) a guaranteed price per dozen;

(b) an estimate of the average selling price per dozen for the coming year; and

(c) a rate of subsidy (which will be the difference between the guaranteed price and the estimated average selling price).

The Board will then be paid this rate on each dozen eggs which it buys.
The Order also provides for arrangements which give the Board an incentive to get the best out of the market. Differences between the average selling price estimated at the beginning of the year and the actual average selling price ascertained at the end of the year will be shared between the Board and the Exchequer. The Board will bear or keep the first twopence a dozen on any difference there is, but if the actual average selling price is more than twopence below the estimate, the Exchequer will make up 90 per cent. of the excess deficiency and, if the actual price is more than twopence above the estimate, the Exchequer will get back half of the excess.
As the Government will have been operating the guarantee for the first three months of the current financial year, the results of our operations during this

429
period will have to be taken into account in determining what is due to the Board or to the Exchequer at the end of the year under this risk-sharing arrangement. The Order contains transitional provisions to cover this point and also provides for financial adjustments to be made when the Board takes over from the Government. After this the Board will be answerable to the producers for the way in which they market eggs. They will buy all the hen eggs which pass through packing stations and will themselves determine the prices at which they buy eggs from producers. The Government will no longer be fixing these prices.
The Board have said that they do not at present propose to make any substantial change in the physical channels through which eggs are marketed, but subject to the limitations imposed by the financial agreement between the Board and the Government, they will nevertheless be free to use their powers under the Egg Marketing Scheme to market eggs as they think best. The Board are certainly taking over a tricky job at a difficult time, but I am sure that, supported by the producers who voted it in by such an overwhelming majority, it will tackle the problems in front of it with energy and resolution. I am sure your Lordships will join with me in wishing it every success. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Eggs (Guaranteed Prices) Order, 1957, reported from the Special Orders Committee on Tuesday, June 4, be approved.—(Earl St. Aldwyn.)
2.42 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, we thank the noble Earl for his explanation of this Order which to the ordinary citizen, as I am sure he will agree, must appear somewhat complicated. When I look at the three separate calculations that have to be made in the course of dealing with the matter, it makes me think that most G.C.E. candidates would be almost forced to turn to some algebraic terms or symbols in their endeavours to find a proper answer. Certainly I find great difficulty in making an estimate of the result of these adjustments. I think that it is a pity the farming community have to labour under this kind of complicated mathematical problem.
430
However, the first thing one ought to say about the Egg Order, which is the first to be introduced since the new Egg Marketing Board began operating, is that we must heartily wish the Board success in their operations in what is obviously a difficult period for them. The fears of many people of whether commodities of this kind will be brought into the new agreements that may come out of the European Common Market discussions must remain until a final settlement of that question is reached. For reasons good to themselves, the Ministry have felt bound to utter words of general discouragement. Eggs are apparently under a black cloud, because producers are producing too many and the Ministry want production reduced. Therefore, the spirit in which these new mathematical processes through which settlements will be made will be worked out is fundamental.
If your Lordships will look at paragraph 5 of the Order—very interesting to me—you will see that it reads:
"At the end of each year the average selling price of hen eggs and duck eggs respectively for that year shall be ascertained by the Ministers in accordance with arrangements agreed with the Board or in default of agreement in accordance with such principles as the Ministers shall decide."
I think that one is fairly entitled to ask the Government whether that means that the general discouragement of egg production is to be helped forward by the fact that the Minister will have absolute control of the price of eggs; because there is no appeal to arbitration, or anything of that kind, if there is disagreement between the Egg Marketing Board and the Minister on this matter. I should like a word from the noble Earl on that point, because all those engaged in farming who are affected by the tendency to discourage further production of eggs, and also of pigs and milk, will be looking to see what happens under this Order as some sort of guide to the spirit in which these commodities will be administered under Government schemes in the future. I was going to ask some rather complicated mathematical questions about the working of the adjustments, but I think that the generalisation made by the noble Earl on the calculations is sufficient for the present. We shall have to watch with interest exactly how the first set of adjustments work out.
LORD GRANTCHESTER: My Lords, before the noble Earl replies, may I ask whether he can form any estimate of the cost to the taxpayer in the first year of this arrangement?
EARL HOWE: My Lords, before the Minister replies, may we have some assurance from the point of view of the consumer? Does it mean that we are going to get our eggs more cheaply?
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, may I deal with the two last points first? I am afraid that at the moment I cannot give the estimate for the ensuing year. A provisional estimate was made last November which put the figure at somewhere about £30 million. I appreciate that that may not be an entirely realistic figure to-day, but I am afraid that I cannot at present give the noble Lord anything more accurate than that.
LORD GRANTCHESTER: My Lords, does the noble Earl think it right to give these blank cheques in the present financial difficulties of the country?
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, it is not a question of a blank cheque. There will have to be a Supplementary Estimate which will be available for discussion by your Lordships.
LORD GRANTCHESTER: My Lords, the expense is incurred first and the Supplementary Estimate is put forward afterwards. Is that not the wrong way round?
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I do not think that it would be quite the wrong way round, because I anticipate that the Supplementary Estimate will be available before the original Estimate has been entirely consumed. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, asked whether we were going to have cheaper eggs. I would point out to him that, at their present price, eggs are probably the best value of any commodity on the market to-day, and I hope that he is not suggesting that we should hope to see even cheaper eggs. They are cheaper in proportion to other forms of food than they were before the war.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, arising out of that answer, may I ask the noble Earl whether it is not a fact that, owing to supplies from elsewhere coming into this country, eggs have been at such a low
432
retail price in the last few months that they have been sold in the shops at below their actual cost of production in this country? I am sure that noble Lords who have asked questions on this point do not want to reduce labour costs.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, it is true, as the noble Viscount says, that the retail price has been exceptionally low and near the actual cost of production, but that is not due to excessive importation. It has been due to excessive home production.
LORD REA: My Lords, may I ask a supplementary question, following that of the noble Earl, Lord Howe? The noble Earl, Lord St. Aldwyn, said that the producers had given their overwhelming support to this measure. Can we have it from him that the Government consulted the consumers, or is that going to be left to a General Election?
EARL ST. ALDWYN: As the noble Lord is fully aware, we have not had a referendum of consumers on the matter, but I can assure him that we considered the consumers' interests just as carefully as those of the producers.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Is it not a fact that under the Marketing Acts proper inquiries have been held, at which representations could be made?
EARL ST. ALDWYN: As the noble Viscount says, there has been a public inquiry, where representations were made, and although some opposition by certain sections was put up, it was not overwhelming. The noble Viscount asked me earlier about paragraph 5 of the Order. I am sure he will appreciate that the guaranteed price, which is (shall I say?) a in his algebraical problem, is fixed at the Annual Review. I can assure him that the last words of the paragraph which refer to the Minister's discretion do not conceal any intention to do anything prejudicial to the interests of the industry. They are inserted merely to cover occasions where the Minister disagrees with the Board's estimate and he cannot, in fairness to the Exchequer and the nation, agree with them. I can assure the noble Viscount that there is no intention of using this power to deprive the egg producers of what they would be justified in thinking they would get as a result of the reduction.
2.52 p.m.
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, I believe in this policy. I do not believe that there is a complete divergence between the interests of the consumer and the interests of the producer. I believe that the policy the Government are pursuing is right, and that the producer should be given a fair return for what he does. In that way, we best consult the interests of the consumer. However, I am rather concerned at the answer which the noble Earl gave about the estimated cost of this scheme. He seemed to think that, just because a Supplementary Estimate is required, therefore the matter is effectively under Parliamentary control. But if a policy is adopted, and it then turns out that a Supplementary Estimate is required to carry out that policy, really the House is not free. Its hands are bound; it has adopted the policy, and it is difficult not to pass the Supplementary Estimate. I think that to produce an Estimate, which he says may be £32 million—and heaven alone knows how much it will be! it may be more or less; we have not the least idea—is the wrong way to set about the nation's housekeeping. The only answer is: "Well, you know, whatever it does cost, there will have to be a Supplementary Estimate." Well, there will. And, in practice, whatever the Supplementary Estimate comes to, it will have to be approved to give effect to this policy. As I say, I believe this to be the right policy—I have never believed in the simple dictum of "Set the people free!"; and this is the policy which my Party adopted a long time ago—but I venture to express my feeling, in the present financial condition of the country, against the Minister's getting up and saying: "We do not know in the least what this will cost, but it will be all right, because there will be a Supplementary Estimate some day."
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I can assure the noble and learned Earl that we are not in any way complacent about this matter and at the last Annual Review we considerably reduced the guaranteed price for eggs with the intention of discouraging production, and thus reducing the Exchequer liability in this matter. I would refer him to an answer which my right honourable friend gave in another place. He said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 570 (No. 112), col. 865]:
"I think, however, that it would he right to warn producers now that, unless there is
434
some major change in circumstances between now and next February, a further reduction in the level of the guarantee, within the long-term assurances, must be expected."
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I think the point on Parliamentary procedure which my noble and learned friend raised is an important one. I should like to ask whether, in fact, the Supplementary Estimate referred to is one which arises under the past system of dealing with this subsidy for eggs and which probably will not arise in the case of this new Order. First of all, there is to be an Estimate, and as there is now a Marketing Board operating between the producers and the Government they will themselves make their own adjustment with the Minister of Agriculture, either by receiving what is too low under the Estimate or by themselves paying back to the Ministry what is found to have been too much.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: I think the noble Viscount is quite correct in his assumption.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

FERTILISERS (UNITED KINGDOM) SCHEME, 1957
2.56 p.m.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, this scheme extends for a further year the arrangements for the payment of fertiliser subsidy. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Fertilisers (United Kingdom) Scheme, 1957, reported from the Special Orders Committee on Tuesday, June 4, be approved.—(Earl St. Aldwyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

WHITE FISH AND HERRING INDUSTRIES (CONVERSION GRANTS) SCHEME, 1957
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, this scheme implements the provisions made for conversion grants in the White Fish and Herring Industries Act, 1957, which your Lordships considered before the Easter Recess. I beg to move.
Moved, That the White Fish and Herring Industries (Conversion Grants) Scheme, 1957, reported from the Special

435
Orders Committee on Tuesday the 4th of June, be approved.—(Earl St. Aldwyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned during pleasure and resumed by The LORD CHANCELLOR.

ABERDEEN CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1ª, and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936) deemed to have been read 2ª and reported from the Committee.

MATRIMONIAL CAUSES (JURISDICTION) BILL [H.L.]
2.58 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD MESTON: My Lords, I beg to move the Second Reading of this Bill. It is exactly 100 years ago since divorce was handed over to the jurisdiction of the civil courts, and in that century there has been a good deal of change in the law and practice relating to nullity and dissolution of marriage. Coming immediately to modern times, we all remember the admirable Report of the Royal Commission. In that Report there were some non-controversial recommendations, and one of them relates to the jurisdiction in connection with the various matters which are dealt with by this Bill. I ought to say that this Bill is based upon those recommendations, but does not follow them precisely in every detail. In order to allay any possible fears, I would point out that the Bill does not create any new grounds for divorce, nor does it extend any existing grounds for divorce. In non-technical language, the main object of the Bill is to help the limping marriage. In some cases people are regarded as divorced in one country and as married in another. That is hardly a state of affairs which is satisfactory, either in morals or in law.
Coming to the Bill itself, I would say that Clause 1 deals with the instances where an English court may hear a divorce petition. At present a petition for divorce may be presented where the parties are domiciled in England. Since
436
husband and wife are in this respect considered as one, the domicile of a husband and a wife is always the same. To alleviate this hardship two concessions are made by Section 18 of the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1950. In one of these cases, after three years' residence in England a wife may present a petition. The present Bill widens the jurisdiction so as to confer power on the courts to hear petitions if both parties are resident in this country, but only to grant a decree if the personal—that is to say, the domestic—law governing the parties has power to grant a decree. Let me give your Lordships an example. If A and B are Italians residing but not domiciled in England, the English court will be able, under the Bill, to hear the petition; but since Italy has no divorce laws, no decree can be granted in England. This is the effect of the proviso to paragraphs (c) and (d) of Clause 1 of the Bill.
I wish to emphasise the fact that this Bill expressly avoids allowing this country to be a dumping ground for broken marriages which cannot be validly dissolved elsewhere. Let me give your Lordships a positive example of the operation of Clause 1. H and W are Ruritanians—may I say that Ruritania is an imaginary country—living in England. The marriage breaks up, and the wife seeks to get a divorce in England. The court will have jurisdiction under Clause 1, but the proviso to that clause states that the court will give her a divorce only if by Ruritanian law—that is, her personal law—a Ruritanian court has power to grant a decree for cruelty, desertion, adultery, and so forth. To put the matter in a nutshell, the idea of the Bill is to transpose, as it were, the Ruritanian court to England, in order to make it unnecessary for the wife to go to the expense of proceeding in Ruritania.
Clause 2 deals with the dissolution of a marriage where a spouse is presumed to be dead. I respectfully submit that no possible harm can be done by substituting residence for domicile as the basis of jurisdiction in this rather rare type of case. Clause 3 of the Bill deals with nullity, and merely states the existing Common Law position. Clause 4, in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c), deals with voidable marriages. These are mostly concerned with the ground of wilful refusal to consummate a marriage.

437
It states the Common Law position with slight modifications in paragraph (b). It is comparable to Clause 1 (c) of the Bill. Paragraph (d) of Clause 4 of the Bill is new, but there is reason to believe that this is not entirely unacceptable. In fact, in 1955 there was a decision of the High Court in Northern Ireland which supported the principle. That paragraph provides, in effect, that a petition for the annulment of a marriage alleged to be voidable may be presented to the court where the marriage was celebrated in England.
Clause 5 of the Bill gives a new remedy. At present, the principle of law is that there is unity of domicile as between husband and wife. That is effected by the wife taking the same domicile as the husband. I appreciate the fact that this is one of the fundamental principles of our law, and anybody who tries to change a fundamental principle is in the same position as the man who spoke disrespectfully of the Equator—I never knew what happened to him, but I am quite sure he was never seen again. At all events, I have taken the bull by the horns, so to speak, and the Bill provides that for the limited purpose of jurisdiction in divorce and nullity a wife can have a separate domicile. She is to have a separate domicile if, but for the fact, she would be domiciled in England.
To take an example, Mrs. Jones is married to a Utopian, and they live and become domiciled in Utopia. I may tell your Lordships that Utopia is a country which one has never seen but of which one has only heard. Subsequently they part, and Mrs. Jones returns to England to her family, intending never to go back to Utopia. As the law stands at present she remains, during her husband's lifetime, domiciled in Utopia, and if Utopia has no divorce she cannot, by virtue of her residence, take the benefit of Clause 1, paragraphs (c) and (d), of the Bill, because only one of the parties is resident here, unless, of course, the parties last resided together in England. This provision of the Bill will, in effect, take the place of the existing three years' ordinary residence rule which is to be found in Section 18 of the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1950. The Utopian wife can thus establish the jurisdiction of the English court under Clause 1 (a) of the Bill and obtain a decree on grounds allowable
438
under English law, irrespective of what Utopia might say.
Part II of the Bill is, so to speak, the reverse side of the picture. If Mrs. Jones obtains a divorce in Utopia, is she a divorced woman according to English law? Until 1953 an English court would only recognise a foreign decree if, at the time of the petition, that foreign court had jurisdiction in the eyes of English law—that is to say, it was necessary that the parties should be domiciled in Utopia at the time of the petition. However, an extension of that principle was provided by the Court of Appeal in 1953 in the case of Travers v. Holley, which stated that if an English court took jurisdiction on the basis that immediately before the husband deserted the wife he was domiciled in England, the English courts would recognise a decree of a foreign court, where the foreign court took jurisdiction for substantially the same reasons.
Part II of the Bill sets out the identical terms of Part I, except that Part II deals with the situation of a foreign court which pronounces a decree on the same, or substantially similar, grounds as an English court. If it has done so, then the decree of the foreign court will be recognised in this country. Clause 10 of the Bill deals with the type of extra-judicial divorce, usually religious, as a decree by the Mohammedan Talak-nama or the Jewish Ghet. Clause 10 seeks to enact the Common Law position. The English court is to recognise such a divorce, but not if the marriage was celebrated in England.
In conclusion, I will say only this. It is not for me to say what the courts of the country feel or do not feel about a certain matter, but, reading the cases, one has the suspicion that the courts are frequently embarrassed in not being able to grant a decree on account of various technical obstructions. There is the difference between "void" and "voidable". There are cases where domicile is the basis of jurisdiction, and cases where residence is the basis of jurisdiction. There is endless ground for argument and the spending of money—which, of course, is a good thing, except for the unfortunate public. I am not suggesting for a moment that this Bill deals with a matter of the highest importance. But it does try to clear up the complicated position which exists to-day in the lives

439
of an appreciable number of unhappy people. With that modest view of the matter, I beg to recommend it to your Lordships' House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(Lord Meston.)
3.10 p.m.
LORD MERRIMAN: My Lords, as I am likely to become somewhat deeply involved in the problems raised by this Bill, I think I ought to say a word or two about it. I should like to begin by expressing my admiration for the full and scholarly way in which the Royal Commission dealt with this rather thorny and difficult problem. If rumour speaks truly, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keith of Avonholm, had as much to do with it as anybody. I should also like to express my admiration for the courage of the noble Lord, Lord Meston, in tackling this matter and introducing this Bill.
As has been said already, the Bill mainly follows the code which the Royal Commission set out as a synopsis of their recommendations. But the code itself was simply intended as what might be called the skeleton framework for a Bill, and I am very strongly advised that a good deal more elaboration and draftsmanship would be required before this Bill could be really made workable. I am particularly anxious not to appear in any way to be indulging in captious criticism and, if I call attention in the Bill to one or two omissions or departures from the code set out in the Report, it will only be by way of leading up to what I hope may be a constructive suggestion.
The first one to which I want to call attention is this. In Clause 1 of the Bill there is a proviso with regard to divorce in cases where the jurisdiction is, to put it shortly, founded merely on residence, and the qualification is that the personal rights of the spouses would give them similar rights in their own law. That is, quite bluntly, expressly intended by the Commission to be repeated in connection with nullity suits as well as with divorce, but that repetition does not appear on the face of the Bill.
Then Clause 3 (3) deals with cases of nullity otherwise than because of lack of formality—that is, cases of nullity where there is some serious defect. It is declared in the Commission's code that the
440
marriage shall be declared null and void if it is invalid by the personal law of one or other of the parties. In other words, if either of them has a personal law which will not bring what is wanted, the decree cannot be pronounced; but to that there is a most important exception in the proviso. It is that
"a marriage which was celebrated elsewhere than in England or Scotland shall not be declared void if it is valid according to the law of the country in which the parties intended…to make their matrimonial home, and such intention has…been carried out."
That would obviously be a very important extension of the jurisdiction, and one which would help a great many people; yet it is omitted from the Bill. I ought to say that the reason for that particular extension is fully set out in a series of clauses in the Report, which are, I think, numbered 886 to 891.
Finally, with regard to a matter which the noble Lord, Lord Meston, specifically mentioned, the acquisition by a separated wife of a separate domicile, there is the proviso that, if she had been a single woman, the courts would have been likely to hold that she had an English domicile. That, again, has been omitted from the Bill. Those, so far as for the moment it is necessary to go, are all the omissions. On the other side, there are one or two points which have been added in the Bill and for which I can find no warranty in the Report. One is in Clause 4 (d), where jurisdiction in nullity is given solely on the ground that the marriage was celebrated in England. I know that there has been some judicial controversy about this question in times past, but, so far as I can see, this provision is completely outside any recommendation which the Royal Commission made. Another addition which I confess I cannot understand is in Clause 10, that, where the court is enjoined to recognise as valid any grounds of divorce which are recognised by the personal law of the parties, an exception is made in the case of a marriage celebrated in England. As I say, I am not pointing out these matters merely from the point of view of captious criticism, but to lead to the suggestion that it is essential that the Bill should be redrafted, as I think, from top to toe.
There is one other notable respect in which this Bill departs from the recommendations, and certainly from the inten-

441
tions, of the Royal Commission. In Clause 12 (3) it is laid down that:
"This Act shall not extend to Scotland or Northern Ireland."
If there is one thing that is plain on the face of the recommendations of the Royal Commission, it is that their avowed object is to diminish and not to increase what the noble Lord, Lord Meston, has called "limping marriages", where a party is divorced in one country and is left married in the other. One prolific source of "limping marriages" is the traditional conflict between the strict application of the law of domicile, in its most rigid form, on which this country, with certain statutory exceptions to which the noble Lord, Lord Meston, referred, has insisted during the whole of the last hundred years.
On the other hand, there is the conception elsewhere that a divorce depends either on nationality or on residence, or on both. If the object is to try to produce some sort of uniformity over the world at large, surely, at any rate, the United Kingdom should be united in itself. I cannot imagine any way to create greater confusion than to pass separate legislation with regard to England, leaving Scotland and Northern Ireland out of it. Here, I am certainly not going to trespass on the peculiar jurisdiction and knowledge of my noble and learned friend Lord Keith of Avonholm, but I do not think that this particular defect would be remedied merely by taking the word "not" out of Clause 12 (3) and saying that the Bill "shall apply to Scotland and Northern Ireland." After all, in Scotland they have their own legal terminology, and I am quite confident that any draftsman would say that it would be necessary to have regard to that in covering the application of this Bill to Scotland.
The suggestion I should like to make about this Bill is this. I hope that your Lordships will give it a Second Reading—it certainly will have my voice. But having given some illustrations of the necessity for redrafting the whole Bill, I think that if the Lord Chancellor could arrange to place at the disposal of the promoter of the Bill the Parliamentary draftsman, with a view to complete redrafting de novo of a comprehensive Bill; and if the noble Lord, Lord Meston, when the time comes, would withdraw
442
the present Bill, although it has obtained a Second Reading, and substitute the revised Bill, say in the next Session, the most desirable end which we all want would be attained in the simplest and best way.
3.20 p.m.
LORD KEITH OF AVONHOLM: My Lords, I personally welcome this Bill, first of all, as a constructive attempt, and I think for the first time, to secure by legislation a greater comity among nations in the recognition of divorces and annulments of marriage; and secondly, because it recognises important work done in this field by the Royal Commission on Marriage and Divorce. As has been said by both noble Lords who have spoken, there are too many limping marriages in the world to-day—cases where people are regarded as married or divorced id one country and as not married or not divorced in another. Even as between England and Scotland to-day, as the law stands it is possible, where the wife in a marriage has been resident in England and has secured a divorce in England, for that divorce to be not recognised in Scotland. Accordingly, one finds a couple divorced in England, who will not be regarded as divorced in Scotland.
This is a quite ridiculous position, but it is a position which can arise, as I see it, as the law stands to-day in Scotland; although perhaps the reverse would not apply if a divorce was obtained in Scotland in similar circumstances, and the question whether it was a valid divorce in England came to be considered. I think in England the English courts would probably say that it was a good divorce, but I am not at all satisfied that the reverse position holds in Scotland. Then again, a French woman who has resided in England for three years may obtain a divorce from her husband, a Frenchman, on the ground of insanity. But that divorce will not be recognised in France because France does not recognise divorce on the ground of insanity. Those are just examples of what are called "limping marriages." Many others may be adduced. I am not going to weary your Lordships by further illustrations; those are two illustrations of what may happen.
The Bill may not remove all such anomalies, but it goes a long way. Part I introduces certain rules as to when the

443
English courts may exercise jurisdiction in the case of persons whom for the moment I will call foreigners (they may not be all foreigners; some may be English people not domiciled in England, but domiciled somewhere else) and may grant a divorce to them. But the great point about this—this is the point that was made and recommended by the Royal Commission—is that, where such a divorce is granted, regard shall be paid to the personal law of these foreigners; and divorce would not be granted by the English courts unless the law of England and the law of the person concerned would allow such a divorce to be granted. We hope that the introduction of such a basis of jurisdiction in this country would secure, or might be more likely to secure, recognition by other countries of divorces given in this country in such circumstances.
On the other hand, in Part II of the Bill a greater liberality in the recognition of divorces granted by other countries is introduced. For instance, if this Bill were to go through, the courts here would recognise divorces granted abroad on the ground or on the basis of the nationality of the parties to the divorce. As many of your Lordships know, at the present time a divorce granted abroad on the ground of nationality will not receive recognition by the courts of this country. That is one matter in regard to which Part II of the Bill introduces what, if it were to go through, would be, as I think, a valuable and important reform. For these reasons I would support the Second Reading of this Bill. I think it is sound in principle. It may be only a beginning, but it is at any rate a beginning.
I agree, however, with what my noble and learned friend, Lord Merriman, has said: that the Bill suffers from grave defects in draftsmanship and from certain omissions. In my opinion, it does not really go far enough, and if it goes to Committee I hope to see it considerably amended and improved. It certainly does not fully carry out the recommendations of the Royal Commission. Certain points have been indicated by my noble and learned friend on that matter. One of them was with regard to Clause 3 of the Bill. Subsection (3) of that clause is as follows:
"If the marriage is alleged to be void on a ground other than that of lack of formalities,
444
such issue shall be determined in accordance with the personal law or laws of the parties at the time of the marriage."
In my view, that is a sound principle, but if carried out without any qualification it may lead to grave injustice.
I take the illustration of a Dane domiciled in Denmark who has married his divorced wife's sister. I will assume that the divorced wife's sister is an Englishwoman and is domiciled in England at the time of the marriage. As your Lordships are aware, under the present law it is not lawful for a man to carry through a marriage with his divorced wife's sister. But if the marriage that I am assuming were carried out in Denmark or in Paris, or probably in any other country in Europe, certainly in some cases it would be a perfectly lawful marriage; and if the parties thereafter, or at least the wife, without ever having put a foot in England again, went off to Denmark and lived and died there, the marriage would be regarded as a perfectly valid marriage. That would be the seat of the marriage and the children would be lawful children of the marriage. But if a question should arise with regard to the legitimacy of these children with a view to succession to some English estate, at the present time the English courts would have to hold that the children were illegitimate and were deprived of their succession as lawful children.
It was from that point of view that there was introduced by the Royal Commission a qualification upon this general rule which my noble and learned friend who preceded me has read but which I should like to read again. It is in paragraph 891 of the Report of the Royal Commission and is as follows:—
"We recommend, therefore, that where a marriage is alleged to be void on a ground other than that of lack of formalities, that issue should be determined in accordance with the personal law or laws of the parties at the time of the marriage"
That is what the Bill says as at present drafted. Then there follows in the Report this proviso:
"provided that a marriage which was celebrated elsewhere than in England or Scotland should not be declared void if it is valid according to the law of the country in which the parties intended at the time of the marriage to make their matrimonial home and such intention has in fact been carried out."
That is a very important qualification upon the terms of Clause 3 (3), and is a

445
proviso which I should certainly hope, and would strongly move, would be added to the Bill if it receives a Second Reading and goes to Committee. There is a similar omission on slightly different lines from Clause 4 of the Bill. My noble and learned friend has already referred to that, and I do not propose to go over the point again.
There are many other points of omission. I would refer, in particular, to the reference in Part II of the Bill to oversea decrees. That does not cover Scotland, but, so far as I can see, the operative parts of the Bill would cover Scotland. I entirely endorse what my noble and learned friend Lord Merriman has said: that it would be really quite absurd to have a Bill of this kind if there were not at any rate a corresponding Bill on identical lines for Scotland, or an omnibus Bill which included England, Scotland and Northern Ireland. There is, and can be, no difference in the principles to be applied as between these countries. There are no peculiarities of Scots law which would preclude Scotland from being brought into a code such as is envisaged in this Bill; and in my opinion it would be an absolutely essential requirement that Scotland should in some way be brought into a code such as is proposed by this Bill.
There are other clauses of the Bill which suffer from serious defects. Clause 11, for instance, is not really intelligible to me—but I pass over these matters. There are certain recommendations of the Royal Commission which have not been included—recommendations, for instance, in matters of evidence, in facilitating the admission of evidence in cases of divorce; and there is a recommendation which I think is rather important in the Lord Chancellor's Private International Law Committee which was set up and which dealt with the rules to be applied in the ascertainment of domicile. I believe that these also should be included in a Bill of this kind. I do not propose, however, to take up your Lordships' time on these matters at this stage: they can be dealt with on Committee. As at present advised, however, I should be prepared to support a Second Reading of this Bill as a Bill that is very necessary and based upon sound principles.
3.35 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, before the noble and learned Viscount gives us the view of Her Majesty's Government on this Bill I should like to add a few words in support of it and in support of what has been said by earlier speakers. Obviously the matter is one of substantial importance. The noble Lord, Lord Meston, has explained that the substantive law of divorce is in no way concerned in the terms of this Bill, but, of course, the jurisdiction which the English courts accept over petitions for divorce and nullity is often a matter of great importance, and, as a result of what I think is generally agreed as the narrow view which the English courts took when divorce was introduced in the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1857, of the way in which they would found their jurisdiction, a great deal of hardship has been caused over a number of years.
The English courts had had no experience of dealing with this kind of thing because before that time divorce had to go through Parliament on the basis of a legislative enactment. Corning to handle this new problem—as the noble Lord, Lord Meston, has in effect described—the English courts had to apply, in regard to all cases involving conflict of laws, the English concept of domicile which had been laid down in earlier cases of a quite different kind and which, introduced to this subject and applied in the rather rigid way in which it has been applied over the last century, has undoubtedly led to great hardship, as I believe everybody agrees.
That appeared clearly from the evidence given before the Royal Commission, and as a result the Royal Commission made these definite proposals—proposals directed to bringing the English procedure in regard to divorce and nullity cases more into line with that which has been followed in almost all other civilised countries; and the object of this Bill, which is a very important one, is really to bring our procedural system into line with that of other countries. It seems to me and to many other people that it is high time that this was done, and I hope, therefore, that Her Majesty's Government will be able to say that they recommend your Lordships to give this Bill a Second Reading. At the same time, however, I find myself very thoroughly in support of what has been said by the noble and

447
learned Lords, the President of the Divorce Court and Lord Keith of Avonholm, who have given so much thought to this matter.
There are parts of this Bill which I, as (I hope) an ordinarily competent lawyer, find it exceedingly difficult to understand. Clause 10, which has been referred to, seems to me to be doing not what it was explained by the noble Lord, Lord Meston, it should do—dealing with Mohammedan and Jewish marriages—but going far beyond that so as to cancel out what is provided in an earlier part of the Bill; and similar criticisms which have been advanced by noble and learned Lords seem full of weight. It would be a pity if this really important topic were not handled by an expert draftsman. The noble Lord, Lord Meston, himself referred to the fact that on a number of points in the Bill he himself felt that the draftsmanship was far from satisfactory. I should like to add my voice to those of the noble and learned Lords in saying that while it is to be hoped that Her Majesty's Government will accept the principle of this Bill, it is hoped at the same time that they will lend the services of one of their expert draftsmen in order that in the Committee stage the Bill may be properly handled and a very respectable piece of legislation may go on to the Statute Book.
3.38 p.m.
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, before the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack speaks, may I make this suggestion? I take it, subject to what he may say, that we shall give this Bill a Second Reading; but we shall not, of course, commit it to-day. I believe I am right in my recollection that it is open to the House to commit a Bill to a Select Committee. It seems to me that the matters involved in this Bill are so technical and difficult that it might be convenient not to settle it to-day but to consider that procedure in order that noble Lords who have the vast experience of the two noble and learned Lords sitting on the Cross-Benches to-day and noble Lords in a similar kind of position may have a chance of considering the Bill. Then, of course, subject to what they say, the Bill would go through in the ordinary way. I do not expect an answer now, but I thought it would not be out of place if I pointed out that it is open,
448
even though this is a Public Bill, to adopt that particular procedure with regard to a measure so highly complicated and technical as this one.
3.40 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, my first duty is to apologise to my noble friend Lord Meston for not being here for the first few sentences of his speech. I hope that he will forgive me. I had another public duty, and I got here as soon as I could. I think I heard most of what he had to say. I wish to make clear that this Bill, in the opinion of the Government, and, of course, of myself, deals with a most important problem, and I repeat the congratulations that have already been tendered to my noble friend Lord Meston for having prepared the Bill and raised the problem in your Lordships' House.
The Bill is intended to give effect with some modifications, which have been mentioned, and to which I will return, to the recommendations made by the Royal Commission on Marriage and Divorce in Part XII of their Report about the problems of private international law involved in ascertaining the basis on which the courts should assume jurisdiction in matrimonial causes and in giving recognition to foreign decrees. I respectfully agree with my noble and learned friend Lord Merriman that the recommendations of the Royal Commission are set out in a most admirable and scholarly way. But there are nearly a hundred paragraphs and they require (I am sure Lord Meston will agree) most careful consideration and reconsideration before they can be put into a legislative form, though the Royal Commission were good enough to frame a draft code which appears in Appendix IV at page 394 of the Report. That is, as it is bound to be, rather a skeleton matter which, again, requires consideration before an ultimate form can be found. But that there is a problem to be dealt with is, in my view, beyond any doubt and dispute, and if I may just put it shortly to your Lordships it may be some advantage to those who want to consider it further.
So far as the basis of jurisdiction recognised by the English and Scottish courts is concerned, the old principle which in divorce cases required the petitioner to be domiciled in this country at the commencement of the proceedings has now

449
to some extent been departed from, particularly by the alteration made in 1949 which enabled a woman ordinarily resident for three years in this country to present a petition notwithstanding that her husband was domiciled elsewhere outside the United Kingdom. While this was a beneficial provision so far as women resident in this country were concerned, objection has been taken to it on the ground that it tends to increase the number of "limping marriages"—that, as your Lordships have heard, means marriages which are recognised in one country though dissolved in another. Moreover, the fact that the Matrimonial Causes Act contains no provision for the recognition of foreign divorce decrees is another factor tending towards the creation of limping marriages, because courts in this country and in Scotland have hitherto broadly refused to recognise decrees not granted, or not recognised as valid, by the courts of the country of domicile. I agree with Lord Meston as to the importance of the Travers v. Holley case. The Scottish courts have not, so far as I am aware, taken a similar view.
May I put it this way—I apologise to my noble and learned friend Lord Keith of Avonholm for summarising one hundred paragraphs in a very few words. The main effect of the Royal Commission's recommendations can be briefly summarised by saying that the Commission thought that in deciding whether or not to grant a decree the courts in this country should have greater regard to the personal law of the parties concerned, that being either the law of the country of domicile or of the country of nationality, as the case may be. It is suggested that the court should grant a decree only on grounds regarded as sufficient not only by the law of England or Scotland, but also by the parties' personal law. That is, as I understand it, what is stated in paragraphs 828 to 831 of the Report. If this were done there would be no objection to the court's assuming jurisdiction in any case in which either, first of all, the petitioner is in England at the commencement of the proceedings and the place where the parties to the marriage last resided together was England; or, secondly, the parties are both resident in England at the commencement of the proceedings. This is, in substance, the effect of Clause 1 of the Bill.
450
As your Lordships have heard to-day from my two noble and learned friends—and Lord Chorley, I think, agreed—while Lord Meston's Bill attempts to give effect to part of the recommendations of the Royal Commission, in so doing it raises a number of difficulties. I agree with my noble and learned friend Lord Merriman, that the most important of these, perhaps, is that the Bill is limited to England, but it is clear that any alteration on the basis of the court's jurisdiction and the grounds on which foreign decrees are to be recognised should also apply to Scotland as well as to Northern Ireland. Let me hasten to say with regard to Northern Ireland that I think the procedure should be that we should enable the Northern Ireland Parliament to legislate on the subject, as was done in a similar context in 1949.
Apart from that, there are a number of other points of substance on which the Bill departs from the recommendations of the Royal Commission, where again, in my view, the recommendations of the Royal Commission are to be preferred. My noble and learned friends have given examples of this, and I do not think it would be a profitable use of your Lordships' time if I were to repeat and complete the list. Your Lordships have heard enough to realise that there are important points which, in my view, must be considered.
That brings me to the matter of what we should do. I agree with everyone who has spoken that we ought to give a Second Reading to the Bill. As I have said, I think that there are two broad aspects where it must be reconsidered—first, that of bringing the United Kingdom into line; and, secondly, the various points where it would have been better, I believe, to adhere closely to the recommendations of the Commission. I think that the Bill requires careful examination. The method I had in mind—and I would say to the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, that this does not exclude consideration of his suggestion—is that your Lordships might think it profitable to have a considerable period before Committee stage, because part of the value of the noble Lord's Bill is that it brings this subject into public discussion and thereby collects views which might not otherwise be expressed. I thought that on

451
Committee stage we might carefully consider the problems, some of which have been adumbrated by noble Lords and myself to-day. I want your Lordships to understand that I am anxious to give any help I can to my noble friend Lord Meston in improving the Bill.
When we have discussed it, I think that we should then be in a position to make up our minds whether the Bill, at this stage in the Session, and knowing that there is another place, would be the best instrument for getting these reforms into operation, or whether the noble Lord might then consider whether he would redraft the Bill and introduce a new measure in the next Session, which, in the ordinary way, would start in November of this year. Of course, as noble Lords who have been Ministers will understand, I cannot give at once the guarantee of the assistance of Parliamentary counsel, but I want your Lordships to know that I am most sympathetic and anxious to help in this matter and I will put it to my colleagues in that way.
I think that by this method we might at the beginning of next Session get a Bill which would command general assent in your Lordships' House and which would meet all the points which have been made from every part of the House to-day. I want to say again that this suggestion does not mean that my noble friend Lord Meston has conducted an unprofitable exercise in introducing this Bill. We are really grateful to him for doing it. I believe that we can examine this matter profitably as well as carefully, and eventually in the next Session the noble Lord may be able to produce a Bill which will command general assent. I hope that your Lordships will consider what I have said, give the Bill a Second Reading, and allow for delay before the Committee stage; and in the meantime I will consider what the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, has said. At the moment, I am disposed to think that it is not necessary to hold the matter up so long as he suggests. May I put it this way for his consideration? When we have seen what comes out of the Committee stage, let us then have a look at the proposal he has put forward. I hope that I have grasped and expressed the sense of your Lordships' House. I am
452
sure that I speak for all noble Lords in expressing our gratitude to my noble friend Lord Meston for the service he has done.
3.54 p.m.
LORD MESTON: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor very much for the kind and friendly remarks which he has made about the Bill and about my humble effort in this direction. I should like to thank also all noble Lords, of enormous experience, who have spoken in support of the Second Reading of the Bill. I will not take up any more time, but will say that I respectfully agree with everything that has been said by the noble and learned Viscount about future procedure. I am prepared to fall into line and do anything which he regards as suitable in the circumstances. I should like to thank the Government and your Lordships for giving this rather technical subject such a fair and patient hearing, and I now leave the Bill in your Lordships' hands.
On Question, Bill read 2ª, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

SMOKING AND LUNG CANCER
3.55 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (LORD STRATHCLYDE): My Lords, I beg leave of the House to interrupt our Business to enable me to make a statement on the subject of lung cancer and smoking similar to that which is now being made in another place.
In their Annual Report, and more particularly in their special report on tobacco smoking and cancer of the lung (which will be available in the Printed Paper Office at 5 o'clock this evening), the Medical Research Council have advised the Government that the most reasonable interpretation of the very great increase in deaths from lung cancer in males during the past twenty-five years is that a major part of it is caused by smoking tobacco, particularly heavy cigarette smoking. The Council point to the evidence derived from investigations in many countries in support of this conclusion, in particular to identification of several carcinogenic substances in tobacco smoke.

453
The Government feel that it is right to ensure that this latest authoritative opinion is brought effectively to public notice, so that everyone may know the risks involved in smoking. The Government consider that these facts should be made known to all those with responsibility for health education. The Minister of Education included in his recently published Handbook for Teachers on Health Education advice about the dangers of smoking and he is circulating copies of this statement to local education authorities and education authorities generally. Corresponding action will be taken by the Scottish Education Department in Scotland. The Government now propose to bring these views to the notice of the local health authorities who are concerned under Statute in the prevention of illness and who are responsible for health education as a means of prevention. Local health authorities will be asked to take appropriate steps to inform the general public and in this task they will have the assistance of the Central and Scottish Councils for Health Education. Once the risks are known, everyone who smokes will have to measure them and make up his or her own mind, and must be relied upon as a responsible person to act as seems best.
The Medical Research Council are at present supporting an extensive programme of work designed to discover the way in which tobacco smoke exerts its effect and the relative importance of other factors, such as atmospheric pollution, which may also play a part in the causation of lung cancer. The recent expansion of this programme has been greatly assisted by a substantial grant made in 1954 by a leading group of tobacco manufacturers. On the advice of my right honourable friend the Minister of Health's predecessor, the present Minister of Labour, this sum was given to the Medical Research Council with complete discretion as to the choice of research projects to be supported and to the publication of results.
The work at present in progress consists largely of chemical and biological studies of the many different constituents of tobacco smoke and atmospheric pollution. In addition, surveys of the rôle of atmospheric pollution and of specific industrial hazards in the causation of the disease are being undertaken. Work along these lines is being supported in
454
many centres in different parts of the country and the Council have also established as part of their own organisation three new research groups in Exeter, London and Sheffield, where long-term studies of different aspects of the problem are being carried out. Every opportunity will be taken by the Medical Research Council to pursue any promising new lines of research which may become apparent.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, we are obliged to the noble Lord for making a similar statement to that made on behalf of the Government in another place. No one can afford to underestimate the importance of the statement that has been made. Of course, the wording, as I look at it now (the noble Lord was kind enough to furnish me with a copy of the statement), wants careful examination before one draws any final conclusion. The Medical Research Council have apparently
"advised the Government that the most reasonable interpretation of the very great increase in deaths from lung cancer in males during the past twenty-five years is that a major part of it"—
those are important words—
"is caused by smoking tobacco, particularly heavy cigarette smoking."
I am always very doubtful about the word "reasonable" when it is included in a matter like this. There have been many arguments in the courts from time to time as to the proper interpretation to put on the word "reasonable". But the conclusion by the Medical Research Council that "a major part" of the increase has been due to tobacco smoking is a much more serious question.
It is apparent, too, that the steps the Government may quite properly be taking to see that this information is broadcast in educational circles, and the like, must have certain reactions. The first thought I have is for the workers in the tobacco industry. That is a large and important industry in the country in which a great deal of employment is given. Surely it is a matter for some consideration by the Government as to whether any steps can be taken to deal with any marked increase of redundancy that may become apparent in that industry. As to those who have large investments in the tobacco industry, I am afraid

455
there would be no possibility of providing any adequate remedy for a reduction of their capital assets.
I hope your Lordships will not think it an impertinence if I say that I personally do not feel so alarmed about it as perhaps some people think I should. I am now seventy-two years of age. I have been smoking for fifty-eight years—I started very young. I have smoked a lot of cigarettes; I have smoked even more pipe tobacco; and when opportunity has afforded I have smoked plenty of cigars. I imagine that I should be described by most medical officers as a very heavy smoker. I am a little concerned when I think of all the other contingent factors in the general life of man which may contribute at least as much, if not more in some cases, to the development of cancer, a disease about which we still know far too little for us to be confident of known and efficient remedies. But, as I say, for myself I am not greatly alarmed about it. On the other hand, if it is finally proved that there is a definite contribution to lung cancer by smoking, then I think the Government are quite right to circulate the information in the widest possible sense, and the Minister of Education (who has just come into the Chamber) has apparently already taken some steps in the matter—there will be no quarrel with that. In the meantime, I hope that some inquiries will be made by the Minister of Labour, who obviously was interested in this matter previously as Minister of Health, to see what kind of effect there might be in the way of redundancy in the tobacco industry and to make such provisions as can be thought of.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, I can assure the noble Viscount that the Minister of Labour will watch the situation most carefully.

MATRIMONIAL PROCEEDINGS (MAGISTRATES' COURTS) BILL [H.L.]
4.6 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to consolidate the Summary Jurisdiction (Separation and Maintenance) Acts, 1895 to 1949, and related enactments, with corrections and improvements made under the Consolidation of Enactments
456
(Procedure) Act, 1949. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1ª.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 1ª, and to be printed.

HOUSING AND TOWN DEVELOPMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL
4.7 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, I rise to move the Second Reading of this Bill. It is a Bill of very definite importance to Scotland, and I commend it to your Lordships. The Bill is in two main parts. The first, which gives effect to revised rates of subsidy for new houses built by local authorities, is designed to put housing finance in Scotland on a more rational basis. The second breaks new ground and sets out a code of provisions, chiefly relating to matters of administrative machinery, for dealing with the overspill problem. I shall say something about each of these two parts of the Bill in turn. A subsidiary part of the Bill proposes a number of miscellaneous amendments of the Housing (Scotland) Acts, but I do not think that at this stage I need detain your Lordships with them, although I shall be happy to answer any questions that may be raised.
Your Lordships will remember that the Housing Subsidies Act, 1956, reduced the subsidies payable for houses built by local authorities in England and Wales; and since that Act was passed the general needs subsidy has been abolished, except in the case of one-bedroom houses. The new subsidy provisions contained in Part I of the Bill now before us are framed on a basis which has full regard to the different circumstances in Scotland and the requirements of the housing problem that yet remains, not least the urgent problem of overspill.
The Bill makes provision for a basic subsidy of £24 a house for sixty years. This will be available for all houses built to meet approved needs. By this I mean houses provided to rehouse people living in unfit or overcrowded houses, or to house those who are sharing houses and need homes of their own, and those who

457
need houses on grounds of ill-health or disability. And my right honourable friend the Secretary of State is, of course prepared to consider any other category of genuine housing need that may be put to him by a local authority.
Under the Bill higher rates of subsidy will be payable for special needs, particularly a subsidy of £42 a year for sixty years for houses provided under overspill agreements and of £30 a year for houses provided, under approved arrangements, to meet the urgent needs of incoming industry. There is also a special subsidy for houses in high blocks of flats, calculated on the footing that the Exchequer will carry two-thirds of the additional tender cost over that of ordinary houses. The existing additional subsidies will be continued for houses built by local authorities in remote areas or for the agricultural population.
The new subsidy structure was framed in the light of the facts given in the Report of the Working Party on Housing Subsidies in Scotland, published at the end of July, 1956, the Working Party, consisting of representative officials appointed by my right honourable friend, so far as the Scottish Office was concerned, and by the three local authority associations. In determining the new subsidies, we have been guided by two straightforward principles: first, that subsidies should not be given to those who do not need them: and, secondly, that no one in genuine need of a house should be asked to pay more rent than he can reasonably afford. With these two considerations in mind—and against the background of the facts brought out in the Report of the Working Party, such as that the average rent of a local authority house in Scotland varied between £11 and £18 a year, while the average earner's income was £450—we came to the conclusion that Exchequer subsidies for housing should no longer be related to the cost of building a new house, but that any subsidy received by local authorities in future should be regarded as a further contribution towards the total pool of Exchequer subsidies at their disposal.
The fact is that the large bulk of local authority houses were built when costs were much lower than they are to-day, and the annual charges which the local authorities have to meet on these houses
458
are small in comparison with the annual charges on new houses. On the other hand, there has been a very material rise in wages and earnings, as also in the majority of other sources of income, and it is scarcely reasonable that the tenant of a pre-war local authority house should continue to pay the, comparatively, very low rent that was thought appropriate before the war.
Many local authorities have, in fact, been charging extremely low rents, and balancing their housing accounts at the expense of the ratepayers as a whole by requiring a heavy contribution from the rates. I think it right that I should give to your Lordships some examples in that connection In the county of Lanark, the average local authority rent is £8 15s. 7d. per annum, and the charge the ratepayers have to meet is £25 5s. 7d. In the county of Ayr the rent is £10 1s. 10d., and the charge which the ratepayers have to bear is £24 19s. 0d. In Stirling county the average rent is £8 13s. 10d. and the amount the ratepayers have to find, £35 16s. 10d. Even in the City of Glasgow the rent charged is £15 5s. 0d., as against £21 5s. 0d. which the ratepayers are called upon to contribute towards the economic rent.
Under the Bill local authorities will no longer be required to pay a fixed amount per house from the rates, since the statutory rate contribution is abolished by Clause 5. This means that they will be free to decide for themselves how much of the total of their housing expenditure is to be met by the tenants by way of rent and how much by the ratepayers by way of the housing rate.
The new rates of subsidy are framed on the assumption that the net rents of local authority houses in Scotland will rise over the next few years to an average of £39 a year, or 15s. a week, on all existing houses. This hardly seems unreasonable when one considers that the average level of earnings was £450 per year in 1956, as brought out in the Working Party's Report. And it has to be remembered that there are two or more earners in at least two houses out of five. We are not suggesting for one minute that the individual tenant must pay more rent than he can reasonably afford. What we do say is that there must be some limit to the burden falling on the taxpayer and the ratepayer, and

459
that this can be brought about by a more rational rent policy. There are, of course, families with incomes under the average, but hardship in any individual case can be avoided by a scheme of rent rebates.
I put it to your Lordships that, given a fair rent policy, including provision for rent rebates, the subsidies provided in the Bill will enable most local authorities that are still faced with an urgent housing task to go ahead, at least until 1961, without financial difficulty. We believe that there should be no falling off in the output of houses in these districts, and it remains the Government's policy that the local authorities concerned should press on with their programmes as quickly as possible. It may be that some local authorities will be able to show that they are faced with an urgent housing problem which they are not in a financial position to tackle unaided. In appropriate cases my right honourable friend will be ready to consider asking the Scottish Special Housing Association, within the limits of its annual programme, to come to the aid of these authorities by building a number of houses without any charge on the local rates.
I acknowledge that the provisions of Part I of the Bill have given rise to many protests, but this is to be expected when subsidy reductions are proposed. Many of the protests that have been made failed to fake account of the fact that the local authorities have at their disposal a large pool of Exchequer subsidies on their existing houses built at a time when costs and interest rates were much lower than they are at present. It is our conviction that the new subsidy proposals will put housing finance in Scotland on a sounder and healthier footing.
The main problem now dominating the field of Scottish housing is what has come to be known as "overspill". This is recognised in Part I of the Bill by the provision of a specially favourable rate of housing subsidy. Now I turn to Part II of the Bill. Part II is wholly devoted to the creation of new means for dealing with the problem, which arises principally because, as Glasgow's crowded central areas are cleared and redeveloped with houses up to modern standards, and with reasonable density of population, it will ultimately be necessary to provide homes outside the city boundaries for 300,000 people.
460
The congestion in the City of Glasgow is unparalleled anywhere in this country and, I believe, anywhere in the Western World. There are some 700,000 people living within the three square miles in the centre of the City. The highest densities, where there are up to 700 people per acre over an area of eighteen acres, are generally accompanied by the lowest housing standards, and in the long run the only solution is to clear away the old houses, and the factories with which they are inextricably mixed up, and to build modern houses in their place—which can rarely provide accommodation for anything like the same total number of people; and in any event no reasonable person would desire that it should.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has approved the Gorbals redevelopment plan as a first step in this process, and the Corporation have a number of other schemes at various stages of preparation. This is a truly massive task and we wish them success in carrying it out. Altogether, the Corporation have built over 40,000 houses since the war, most of them in large new schemes on the outer fringes of the city. But in about two years or so virtually all the possible housing sites will have been exhausted. Homes will have to be found outside the city not only for the families that, even now, are still without homes of their own, but also for the families who must be displaced by redevelopment. The two new towns of East Kilbride and Cumbernauld will make a substantial contribution. Already, almost 5,000 houses have been built at East Kilbride, and about half of these have been let to Glasgow families. Among the recent tenancies the proportion is higher, and we hope that it will continue to rise. At Cumbernauld building is just about to start—indeed, my right honourable friend is to cut the first sod in the housing scheme at Cumbernauld to-morrow morning. It is intended that 14,000 of the 15,000 houses to be built there should go to Glasgow families.
Another new town to assist Glasgow at the right time is not ruled out, but the Government are convinced that the best way to supplement the efforts of the existing new towns at present is by enabling other local authorities to lend a hand. Part II of the Bill provides the framework necessary to enable fruitful

461
partnerships to be created between Glasgow and other authorities on these lines. The Bill contemplates that an "exporting authority" (that is, an authority with a recognised overspill problem) will arrange for meeting their needs in three ways. One way is for the exporting authority to use the powers they already possess under the Housing Acts to build houses outside their district. The overspill Exchequer housing subsidy of £42 a year would be forthcoming for a development of this kind which was of substantial size and was clearly detached from the built-up district of the exporting authority. But operations of this kind by one authority in the district of another are not easy, and we should be unwise to expect too much to be done in this way.
Another way of meeting overspill requirements is for an exporting authority to enter into an overspill agreement with a receiving authority, under which the receiving authority would undertake to provide a specified number of houses to be let to people coming from the exporting area. The essential features of overspill agreements are dealt with, as your Lordships will see, in Clause 9. The receiving authority must get a payment for each house of at least £14 a year for at least ten years from the exporting authority, and this is in addition to the Exchequer subsidy of £42 a year. The tenants of the houses would have to be acceptable to both the receiving and the exporting authority—to the former, as being likely to fit into the new community in terms of qualifications for the right kind of employment, and in other respects; and to the latter, as being persons whose tenancy of the new houses will contribute to solving the overspill problem. Co-operation between the two authorities will be essential, with a degree of give and take on both sides.
A third method of providing houses for overspill is through the medium of the Scottish Special Housing Association. The Government intend to give a prominent place to overspill needs in determining where the Association should build in carrying out their future programmes. Receiving areas for overspill building by the Association will be selected in the light of the financial situation of the receiving authorities concerned, but it is not intended that the Association should
462
take over the whole job of overspill building in any particular area. It will accordingly be a standard condition that the receiving authority should build a number of overspill houses at least equal to the number provided by the Association. Houses provided by the Association in this way will form a valuable bonus of new rateable valuation to assist the receiving authority in meeting the additional expenditure incurred by them in undertaking overspill development.
While housing is the primary purpose of overspill development, it is by no means the only essential. Where an overspill development comprises any substantial number of houses, whether they are provided by a receiving authority, the exporting authority, the Scottish Special Housing Association or a combination of these agencies, special arrangements may be necessary in advance of buildings for the basic services of water supply and sewerage, and special provision will have to be made in the course of development for the setting aside of land for shops, factories and other places of employment, schools, recreation grounds and other social requirements.
To this end, Clause 10 provides a procedure by way of a town development scheme. This type of scheme, which will be prepared by the receiving authority in consultation with the local planning authority—if that is a different body—and will not become effective until approved by the Secretary of State, has three main purposes. In the first place, it rearranges the powers and duties of the local authorities concerned so as to enable houses, water supply and sewerage services to be provided as efficiently and economically as possible. Secondly, it serves as a blueprint for the whole development, in that it indicates the areas of land proposed for the various kinds of non-housing development which will have to be provided in order to round off the community. But while it will indicate that particular parts of the area are proposed for schools, recreation grounds and so on, it cannot in itself oblige the authority responsible for any of these services to carry out the proposed development. The position of these authorities will continue to be governed by the appropriate existing statutes.
The third purpose of a town development scheme is to provide a means by

463
which Exchequer grant can be made available in respect of certain kinds of expenditure incurred by a receiving authority. The acquisition of land and the installation of main water supply and sewerage services represent the principal services on which the main expenditure is expenditure of a capital nature which has to be incurred in advance of the erection of overspill houses and the receipt of rates from these houses. Accordingly, these are the items which Clause 14 of the Bill selects for the purpose of Exchequer grant.
The basis of grant will be laid down in regulations to be made by the Secretary of State after consultation with the local authority association. The awkward period for a receiving authority is the first few years, when there is little new income in the shape of rates levied on new valuation created in the course of the development. Accordingly, we propose to adjust the grant in such a way that the maximum relief is given at this stage and to do this by drawing up a kind of income and expenditure account year by year for each town development scheme. The intention is that the Exchequer should contribute three-quarters of the resulting deficit year by year leaving the remaining one-quarter to be met by the receiving authority, less any contribution the exporting authority have bound themselves to make under the overspill agreement.
There remains the problem of securing that there is enough employment near at hand for the overspill population. I am sure that your Lordships will agree that this problem is fundamental and that the degree of success we achieve in the whole operation will be in large measure dependent on the attraction of suitable industry to the reception areas. This is not something which can be achieved by legislation, and, although the Bill contains certain important provisions to which I shall refer in a moment, success will depend on the creation of a flexible administrative procedure which will enable full and timely co-operation between the interested Government Departments, the exporting authority, the receiving authorities and the interested industrial firms.
The Bill helps in three ways. The first is Clause 17, which relates to an exporting authority who have incurred an
464
obligation in connection with the rehousing of industry displaced in the course of redevelopment. This clause will enable the exporting authority to discharge that obligation by arranging for the displaced industry to be offered facilities within or near the general neighbourhood of an overspill development. Then as regards the provision of industrial sites, any receiving authority—including a small burgh—operating a town development scheme will have power to acquire and develop land for industry. Any charges falling upon the receiving authority from expenditure which they incur on the acquisition and the preliminary development of industrial sites will be one of the elements attracting grant under Clause 14.
Then, Clause 25 enables the receiving authority to construct factory premises for letting or sale in all suitable cases, and not, as at present, only outside the scheduled Development Areas. The important thing to remember here is that the overspill process will be closely linked with the redevelopment carried out in the City of Glasgow. We believe that priority of consideration in the dispersal of industry should be given to those industrial firms whose premises will be displaced by redevelopment, and who will in any case have to secure new sites and new buildings. Such firms will receive compensation for the loss of their existing premises, which will, in practice, represent the present market value of these premises plus compensation for disturbance.
While one must be cautious about generalisations in matters of this kind, the conclusion reached after careful interdepartmental study and consultation with the Inland Revenue Valuation Department is that the compensation payable for displacement will, in a considerable proportion of cases, go a long way to provide the funds needed for re-establishment. Not all of the displaced firms can operate successfully at a distance from the heavy industries established on Clydeside, but we believe that a sufficient number could do so.
There will be attractions in moving to areas where good living conditions are being provided for workers formerly living in Glasgow; and to assist this process the Government have authorised the Corporation to spend £250,000 a year on the

465
advance purchase of industrial premises which will be affected by redevelopment, where the firms concerned are proposing to move to an overspill reception area or a new town. The Corporation will get an Exchequer grant of 50 per cent. on the annual deficit arising from loan charges on this expenditure under the existing Planning Acts. As redevelopment goes ahead in Glasgow there will be a steady flow of acquisition of industrial premises. Already since the £250,000 offer was made in February two of the largest firms in the Gorbals area, employing together over 600 workers, have asked the Corporation to purchase their premises now in order to allow them to get ahead with their plans for resettlement.
The procedure we envisage is that, on being approached by such firms, the Corporation will arrange discussions with them and with the Scottish Controller of the Board of Trade. The Controller will have at his disposal all the information about sites, services and factory building costs in the new towns and the other receiving areas where overspill housing is being planned. He will be able to recommend the firms to any one or other of the areas and to discuss their requirements with the New Town Development Corporation or the receiving authority concerned.
When the firm has selected an area or a site it will either itself build with the compensation it gets for its old premises or with other capital procured from private sources, or it may ask the New Town Development Corporation or local receiving authority to help. The help which the Development Corporation or receiving authority can give may range from the offer of a factory site to the actual construction of the factory either for leasing to the firm or for disposal on amortisation terms.
The Board of Trade are prepared to arrange for Scottish Industrial Estates Limited to put their knowledge and experience at the service of receiving authorities contemplating the promotion of industrial development as part of their contribution to the relief of Glasgow's overspill. This arrangement should be of particular value to the smaller authorities who may feel the need for a guide, philosopher and friend in their initial ventures into what will be for most of
466
them an entirely new field. The part which Scottish Industrial Estates will be able to play in any particular case will depend on the scale and character of the industrial development required as well as on the circumstances of the receiving authority, and any outlay incurred by Scottish Industrial Estates will be defrayed by the authority. The main task of Scottish Industrial Estates will, of course, still be to cater for new industries coming into the Scottish Development Area to relieve unemployment, and this must remain their primary and pre-dominant function.
We cannot hope to solve the overspill problem in one generation, and its solution cannot be secured by the Secretary of State alone or by the exporting authority or by the receiving authorities. Full and frank co-operation on all sides will be needed. The present Bill makes such co-operation practicable, and I, personally, am confident that with a continuation on all sides of the good will which has already been shown, conditions will soon be created in which steady progress can be made. Anyone who is as closely associated with the City of Glasgow as myself must feel strongly as to the need for the Bill and the importance of making it work, and it is with all sincerity that I commend it to your Lordships. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(Lord Strathclyde.)
4.38 p.m.
LORD MATHERS: My Lords, when the noble Lord opposite brings a Bill before this House he always makes a clear exposition of its terms. I think I can say on behalf of all of us that he has excelled himself to-day in the way in which he has presented this Bill. There are difficulties about it, but certainly he has explained clearly what the Bill is intended to carry into effect.
The Bill is complicated and, as we saw from the discussions in another place, it seems to be admitted to be experimental. Indeed, I think that could be read into part of what the noble Lord said in the speech that he has just delivered. This Bill was the subject of keen debate in another place and there was some uncertainty, even on the part of Government supporters, about its provisions. I believe that there is justification for the

467
feeling of some doubt about how the arrangements, financial and otherwise, embodied in the Bill will work out in practice. Part I of the Bill makes drastic changes in the rates of Exchequer subsidies to local authorities payable after August 1 of this year. No doubt there is justification for examining the subsidy position, but to do justice and, at the same time, prevent hardship upon individuals would require practically an individual means test, a principle which would be repugnant to Her Majesty's Government and local authorities alike.
Whatever different local authorities may think of the provisions as set out in the Bill, and as they have no doubt been explained to representatives by Government spokesmen, I feel that there must arise differences of opinion in the working out of the arrangements as between authority and authority. The case of the City of Glasgow seems particularly odd. Under the overspill arrangements, that great industrial capital of Scotland is to lose ratepayers and industry in the working out of the Government's plans, yet Glasgow is called upon to pay £14 per house to each authority to which her citizens are transferred as industrial workers. This comes at a time when Glasgow is still struggling to meet her continuing need for houses—a need which not only continues but, I understand, even increases. But I should not be talking about Glasgow: that I should leave to my noble friend Lord Greenhill, who has so much more knowledge and experience of that great City.
It appears that the Bill is not designed to help in non-development areas. Surely some arrangement of that kind should be made as a matter of course for the development of industry in areas to which overspill population is to be transferred. I believe that experience will prove the wisdom of what has been urged by my right honourable and honourable friends in another place in this regard and that Her Majesty's Government may have cause to regret their failure to accept some of the advice proffered to Ministers. As I read this Bill, there is a kind of artificial atmosphere about it. It is not as if the conditions of its application are already to any extent in existence. Fresh conditions are apparently to be created
468
and then dealt with. How else can we describe the intention to provide factories which it is hoped will be taken up by industrialists who will require workers to be transferred from the old city areas to new districts where it is hoped work will become available? Many personal problems will arise in such transfers. It will require skilful planning to coordinate the work and the supply of workers, and I do not envy Her Majesty's Government their task in achieving this desirable end.
It has been clearly demonstrated that Her Majesty's Government are determined to pursue the course mapped out by the Bill and it would be churlish of me to predict failure. Certainly I have no wish to do so, for I believe that some good may come out of the Bill and I desire every ounce of that possibility to be secured. In any case, the responsibility is that of Her Majesty's Government and they are entitled to reap any reward the Bill may bring. On the other hand, in the event of the Bill proving unpopular, as well it may, who am I to worry about the fate that is in store for Her Majesty's Government when next they face the electorate? Believing opposition to be futile, I shall not impede the passage of the Bill in any way. It will receive a Second Reading and will become an Act of Parliament. We shall watch with interest to see how it works out in practice.
4.45 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, the Minister of State, for his clear explanation of this Bill, whose progress in another place has, no doubt, been followed by most of your Lordships. The Bill is really three separate Bills, two of which are of major importance to Scotland, combined into one measure, but it has already been very exhaustively discussed by Scottish Members of another place, who seem to have pretty well exhausted themselves as well as the Bill in doing so, and I do not think it is necessary to add much to what has been said there.
The first part of the Bill deals with subsidies and consequently with rents, and this has given rise to a violent controversy in another place and in the country, but I propose to say nothing on that subject except this: all our Scottish

469
housing legislation for the last forty years has resulted in anomalies of such extraordinary dimensions that they probably had to be straightened out sooner or later. One can go on disputing indefinitely how much of the cost of these subsidised municipal houses ought to be borne by the occupiers, how much by the occupiers of other houses, some of which may be under-rented and some fully rented, and how much by the housing pool which every local authority ought to have.
It is easy to find numerous examples of families earning very large incomes living in the most modern type of council house, paying an absurdly uneconomic rent, at the expense of other people who are earning very much less; and it is no doubt possible to find examples on the other side. But whoever may have to pay a bit more and whoever may have to pay a bit less, I do not think Part I of this Bill will have any adverse effect on housing progress in Scotland or on our endeavours to abolish slums and overcrowding; and it is upon that subject that I should like to say one or two words.
I think that the housing record in Scotland of the present Government is a good record. From the end of 1951 to the end of 1956 we have built 187,000 houses in Scotland. That is an average of about 38,000 a year, which is exactly double the average for the previous six years, from the end of the war until 1951, when the annual average was only 19,000; and it is 50 per cent. higher than the record which we achieved before the war, in 1938. In some parts of Scotland, though not in all parts, we are almost in sight of the time when there will be no more slums and no serious overcrowding. But we are not in sight of that goal—indeed, we are nowhere near it—in the City of Glasgow, and it is the special problem of Glasgow which Part II of this Bill is primarily intended to meet. The pre-war housing record of the Glasgow Town Council was utterly lamentable. In order to get rid of their slums and overcrowding in twenty years, the Glasgow Town Council would have needed, in the 1930s, to build at the rate of 10,000 houses a year; and had they built on the same scale as the most progressive housing authorities in Scotland in proportion to their population and rateable value, they would have built more than that. But the peak figure,
470
which they reached in 1934, was only 4,000; and after 1934, when all other Scottish local authorities were increasing their programmes, Glasgow's figure fell to something between 2,000 and 3,000—an absolutely miserable figure which was hardly enough even for normal replacement, so that no real progress at all was made.
During the war no building, of course, was possible. After the war, Glasgow was faced with an astronomical deficiency in housing, and now, on the Second Reading of this Bill in another place, the Secretary of State for Scotland stated that he hoped Glasgow's present output of 5,000 houses a year would not be reduced. By this time, I should have thought that 5,000 houses was a good deal less than half what Glasgow ought to be building in order to keep pace with the rest of Scotland. But the problem is not only one of numbers, it is also one of space, and we are told in this Bill that there will soon be no more room for any more new houses in Glasgow and that 300,000 inhabitants of Glasgow are unable to be rehoused within the city at all, so that they will have to become emigrants. They are now officially described as "an overspill".
I hope that this estimate of 300,000 is not too low, but, having been concerned in one way or another with the Scottish housing problem for about twenty-seven years, I feel bound to say that I have never yet heard any official statement of the housing requirements in Scotland which did not prove to have greatly underestimated the true dimensions of the problem. However, let us take this official figure of 300,000 people who have to emigrate, who have to get themselves "spilt" out of Glasgow. How long is it going to take to do it? The new town of East Kilbride was started after the war in order to receive surplus population of Glasgow. Five thousand houses have been built there. Until this afternoon, my information was that only 1,500 of those had been occupied by families from Glasgow. But my noble friend Lord Strathclyde, in his speech just now, told us that half of them had been occupied by Glasgow emigrants. That would be 2,500, which is a little better, but, of course, not much out of 300,000.
I am sure that many of the receiving authorities will do their best to help. I

471
was particularly glad to hear my noble friend say that half the houses would be built by the Scottish Special Housing Association, a most excellent body in the establishment of which Mr. Walter Elliot and the late Lord Clydesmuir played prominent parts. It is a body which has done fine work, but which has never been used by Scottish local authorities to anything like the extent to which it ought to have been used. But these receiving authorities have their own problems, and I am afraid they will not be keen to be "spilt on" to a really uncomfortable extent. I can hardly see as many as 300,000 people being received within a reasonable period of time.
There is also the question of moving the industries on which these people now depend for their livelihood. How long is all that going to take? I have nothing whatever to say against the provisions of Part II of the Bill; I entirely support them, and I hope that they will be applied very successfully. But it seems to me that we shall be fairly lucky if the Bill, as it stands now in Part II, succeeds in solving 20 per cent. of the problem within the next twenty years. We can, if we choose, resign ourselves to the perpetuation in Glasgow of some of the worst slums in Europe for the rest of our own lives. But if we do not choose to resign ourselves to this prospect, and if Glasgow cannot any longer expand outwards, the only alternative is that Glasgow should expand upwards in order to rehouse not, of course, the whole but at least some of these 300,000 people.
I am not a particular admirer of skyscrapers though they can be very imposing buildings. I should not, I think, particularly like to live in a skyscraper myself, though I do know a good many people who like living in them. But it is not a question between skyscrapers and cottages; I think it is a question between skyscrapers and slums. To live in a flat in the twentieth storey of some megalithic block of residential apartments may not be entirely in accord with all our conceptions of ideal family life, but surely it is better than living in a leaky and worm-eaten single room with a growing family of children, and with a mother-in-law as well, sharing a common lavatory with twenty or thirty other people at the head of the common stair. Surely it is better to live in a skyscraper than to live like
472
that. And these conditions are going to continue for the rest of our lives unless something more is done than is contemplated at the present time. I know very well that the building of very large residential blocks of great altitude is extremely expensive. But is it not also going to be very expensive to scrap all the industries on which these 300,000 people depend and rebuild them again fifty or a hundred miles further away?
In the proceedings on this Bill in the other place, a week or two ago, the Secretary of State announced (I think my noble friend referred to it again just now) that authority had been given to Glasgow to spend £250,000 to acquire and demolish two small factories which employed 600 people. I suppose that 600 employed persons might represent a total population of about 1,000 persons including children. If it is going to cost £250,000 to destroy the livelihood of 1,000 people before it is reconstructed elsewhere, it will then cost £75 million to destroy the livelihood of 300,000 people before that livelihood is reconstructed elsewhere, and the reconstruction, of course, is going to cost a lot more. Would it not be better to spend some of this money on rehousing not all of these people but as many as you can where they are now, and not destroying the industries, which was done in Vienna before the war and has also been done in New York?
Clause 3 of this Bill provides that:
"In respect of any approved house which is a flat contained in a block of flats the major part of which, as determined by the Secretary of Slate, is of six or more storeys…"
the Secretary of State may give an additional grant consisting of two thirds of the additional cost over the normal cost of an ordinary house. I think that that is a very good provision, but I doubt if it is good enough to induce an authority like the Glasgow Town Council to go in for a really bold and imaginative policy of building the type of residential blocks of enormous size which are really required to meet this problem. And I wonder what the effect on our national finances would be if we were to give the whole of the additional cost instead of only two-thirds, and try to induce the Glasgow Town Council to go in for a really bold and imaginative policy in high building. I would not suggest that this should be done all over Scotland. Indeed, I do not think the question would arise

473
in any other part of Scotland. But Part II of the Bill is especially designed to give special financial assistance to the special problem of Glasgow housing. It seems to me that in the long run this would not cost any more than the long and painful process of negotiating with all the receiving authorities and scrapping and removing all these numerous industries from one place to another.
In any political discussion on the housing problem it is usual for everybody to try to put the blame for the present state of affairs on to somebody else. I am not particularly interested in blaming anybody for the present state of affairs, which is constantly done in another place and at political meetings, although I think that if anybody is to be blamed, the miserable housing record for the Glasgow Town Council for the last twenty-five years certainly cannot escape criticism. However that may be, the fact is now that Glasgow is the lame duck which we have all to try to help. We cannot be content to solve our problem everywhere else and to leave it unsolved in Glasgow. I would not have made the suggestion which I have made if this Bill did not propose special measures of financial assistance to deal with the Glasgow housing problem which I think would be equally expensive and which I think would take far too long. My noble friend spoke about not doing it in one generation; but are we going to be content with that? In spite of the progress which has been made, the last generation did not solve the Scottish housing problem. It must be solved in this generation. We cannot leave it to be solved by our grandchildren.
5.2 p.m.
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, other noble Lords have dealt with aspects of the Bill which concern housing and housing subsidies, but I think that it would be wrong if no Member of the House were to say something about its impact on industry in Scotland. First, we must all welcome any effort to deal with this appalling problem, of which a number of your Lordships are so well aware and of which we have heard to-day. Of course this is first a housing Bill—it abounds in jargon, such as "overspill", "exporting authorities", "receiving authorities", and so forth. But do not let this blind us to the fact that we are
474
not dealing simply with the problem of housing; we are dealing with an immense human problem.
As the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, has told us, the Bill envisages the removal of some 300,000 people from the centre of Glasgow—that is, one-fifth of the population of Glasgow and 6 per cent. of the whole population of Scotland. It does not affect only them: it affects their homes; it affects their jobs and their family relationships. That is the measure of the importance and also the complexity of the problem with which the Bill sets out to deal. In fact it is nothing less than a major surgical operation that is proposed on the heart of the Scottish industrial economy. It is no use thinking only of providing so many cubic feet of housing accommodation, and so many square feet of garden, in new areas. We have to consider the economic consequences of what is proposed in the Bill. It reflects on the industry and commerce on which all these people depend for their jobs. It was Adam Smith who said that
"Man is a difficult baggage to transport."
That remark has been borne out time and again when efforts have been made to secure major movements of population and industry.
Industry is an even less transportable baggage. This Bill makes provision for the transport of industry, but I wonder if those responsible for drawing it up realised the difficulties involved. In the Glasgow area, industry is remarkably varied. It has a variety that is the result not of chance but of logical development over decades—indeed, over centuries. Your Lordships will have read this morning of the placing of orders for £80 million worth of tankers. Over one-third of these ships are to be built on the Clyde. That does not involve only shipbuilders; it involves steelmakers, makers of machinery, pipes, valves, wires, furnishings, and all manner of things. In fact, this is a vast interwoven industrial complex and the movement of many of the individual firms out of this area may be difficult, or even impossible. Some of the industries are easily moved, but there are those that have been more recently attracted—the lighter industries, which it is highly desirable to have in order to diversify the economy. It is not these industries that we wish to move.

475
The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde spoke of the consultations that had taken place between various Government Departments on the adequacy of compensation and the effect it will have on the movement of industry. I think that we ought to know more about the nature of these consultations and the results obtained from them, because it seems to me that this is the key point in the whole question of the movement of industry. I think that it will not be just a question of consulting industry as a whole, chambers of commerce and bodies such as that, but a question of most detailed survey of many individual firms and companies. Unless that survey is completed and made available for general study, we may well go off in the wrong direction at the start.
The alternative to moving industry out into the areas to which the population is going to be moved is to try to attract new industry to establish itself in these new areas of population. To some extent that is highly desirable, but if we do this we run the risk of starving the industries that remain behind in the congested area of their labour force. There is a third possibility—that of finding employment for the population that has been moved to travel back daily to work in the city. Those who are familiar with the position in London will agree, I am sure, that the less this occurs the better. I believe that, somehow, the solution to the problem of finding employment for people moved out is to be found in a combination of these three methods. Undoubtedly some people will travel back to the city—they will have to. Clearly, new industries must be attracted to these new areas, and certainly selected established industries must be encouraged to move out. This process must be not a brutal, uprooting of them from their surroundings and connections, but a delicate transplanting. Putting it bluntly, people have to be moved. If, on the one hand, we move people and find that we cannot move industry, we shall find dreadful complications. If, on the other hand, we move people and force industry to move, we run into other equally dreadful complications.
In whatever way industry is to be provided, one of the major factors will be the availability of factories. The success of the policy of the development areas is proof of the truth of this—in particular,
476
the work of Scottish Industrial Estates in providing factories since the war. I am glad to hear that the experience of this body is to be made available to local authorities: they will find it of the greatest use.
We see provision in the Bill for compensation for factories moved. Of course there are the existing powers of local planning authorities to build factories, but in the past these powers have been used sparingly, and mostly to build small factories. I am glad, therefore, to see these additional powers to local authorities who are not planning authorities to build factories and to such authorities inside development areas, as well as those outside.
I do not believe that these powers alone are going to achieve the desired result. Recently my noble friend Lord Bilsland drew attention in this House to the Government's distribution of industry policy—or, as I am afraid some of us felt, perhaps, their lack of policy. I think we felt that the good work done under the Distribution of Industry Act was coming to a standstill through the virtual cessation of the provision of new factories under that Act. I am not going to revert to that subject to-day, except to say that an active and enlightened distribution of industry policy is an essential complement to this Bill, both in order to reverse these intolerable conditions which have arisen over the past years in Glasgow, and also to ensure that never again is a future generation faced with such a problem as that with which we are faced to-day.
I congratulate Her Majesty's Government on their courage in facing up to the facts, so far as they do in this Bill. I am glad they realise that the solution of the trouble does not lie simply in the provisions of the Bill. It lies, as the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, has said, in the active and energetic co-operation of all concerned—of individual companies and firms in industry, chambers of commerce and trade unions. It lies, particularly, at the door of the Corporation of Glasgow and the local authorities in the receiving areas, to get together and make the Bill work. Local authorities in Scotland, as indeed, I think, elsewhere, are particularly jealous of their own rights—and rightly so; but there will have to be much give and take. Above all, as I see it, this

477
stands or falls on the policy of the Government for the distribution of industry. Let us earnestly hope that the co-operation of all parties will be forthcoming, for without it this part of the measure will be an empty shell.
5.12 p.m.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: My Lords, I propose to confine my remarks to the rather smaller provisions of this Bill. I am not an expert on the housing problems of Glasgow, but I feel it should be recognised that, although the housing needs of Glasgow are a major item, there are other districts in Scotland which also have housing problems; and this Bill covers those needs and makes certain provisions for them. Part I of the Bill I consider a courageous and realistic approach to a very difficult problem, and I should like to add my congratulations to Her Majesty's Government on that score.
In the Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill one of the purposes set out is to amend certain provisions of the Housing Acts; and Part III makes a number of miscellaneous amendments to the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1950. Among these amendments is the First Schedule of Part II, and it seems to me to make a somewhat half-hearted attempt to "get after" the local authorities who have been laggardly or backward in applying the provisions of the 1950 Act as regards repairs and improvements. The position, however, seems to me to require a little elucidation. I have not warned the noble Lord who is to reply that I was going to ask this question, and I can hardly expect an answer to-day, although he may be able to give one. It has been frequently stated that in these matters, persuasion is far better than compulsion, and with that I entirely agree.
I am informed (although it may be wrong) that the Department of Health in Scotland are not intervening when a grant is reduced, or is not given on the full scale, because they have no powers or no official knowledge of the fact. If that is so, and if that state of affairs is to be continued, I should like to know how the noble Lord intends to persuade local authorities that everybody's interest is better met by a more liberal interpretation of the Government's requirements. On those lines, I would suggest that
478
merely causing the local authority to supply to the applicant in writing reasons why a grant has been refused, or cut down, is not much use, unless a copy of that information is sent to the Secretary of State; and at the moment the amendment does not provide for that. Possibly that may not be the way to do it, but I feel that a little explanation might be useful on that point.
Just to draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that this Bill is not all persuasive, Clause 16 (2) provides a means whereby Her Majesty's Government can enforce their will in the overspill agreements, and such like, by various arrangements. So that obviously they contemplate putting their advice over. That being so, I rather feel that there is no reason why that should not also apply in these other cases. Various Amendments have been moved many times before. I think in this case they have now been met, to a certain extent, although not, in my view, sufficiently.
The other point I wish to speak upon for a short time is the payment of improvement grants and of voluntary alienation or sale. As I am informed, in Scotland the official view is that in the case of any alienation, either voluntary or by sale, it is mandatory on the local authority to demand repayment of the outstanding amount of the grants. In England, I am told, local authorities adopt the view that these provisions are discretionary only. Whether that is the case, or whether there is a difference in the law, I do not know; but, in practice, that is what they do in England, and it is not what they do in Scotland, and Scotland is thereby placed in a more unfavourable position.
It might be argued that someone who receives a grant and carries out the improvement has got something for nothing, and has therefore increased the value of his property; and that when he sells it, he sells it at an enhanced value. But one has only to do some work under these grants to realise that that is not so, because before the owner can receive a grant the statutory requirement is that he must let that house for a specified number of years—I think twenty years—to an agricultural worker. If it is let to an agricultural worker, the maximum rent which can be recovered in respect of that

479
house is 6s. a week. As the house, unimproved, is worth 2s. 6d. a week, the net gain in rent which the owner is allowed to recover is 3s. 6d. a week, or £9 a year, which represents something of the order of 2½ to 3 per cent. In most cases, if the owner gets a grant of £400 (and we have no trouble at all in getting full grants) it means that he has to spend £800, which means that he has to find the other £400, possibly by borrowing; and if he borrows the money, he has to pay something of the order of 6 per cent. interest. Anyone can see that such an owner is well down by improving his property.
If, on the other hand, he improves his property on a lesser scale—he can put in a bathroom for sanitation, or a hot water supply, to the requirements of the local council for a sum of £250—he gets no grant at all. Even then he is still down; and therefore it seems to me unreasonable that in Scotland the unexpired amount of land should be demanded back when it is not in England, because in point of fact whatever he does, whether he receives the land or whether he does not, the owner is still "down on the deal" if he improves his property. That is not an encouraging thing for housing. I just mention that point in passing, and hope that I may be able to receive an answer. As I say, I did not warn the noble Lord that I was going to raise it, so I cannot expect an answer.
To my mind, it is a pity that no provision is made (this may not be an appropriate place for doing so) for reasonable grants for retirement houses. By that, I mean that the people who live in Glasgow are not all working, and when they retire they have still to live somewhere. The retired people must live in housing which is already short and, obviously, if means can be provided whereby that position can be alleviated, it will help the main problem. I agree that it is a minor aspect, but it is, I think, worthy of consideration. An extraordinary number of old people have built houses to retire in, and if a grant of somewhere in the region of £600 or £700 were produced for private building of those houses, under the control of the local authority, I believe that a large number of houses would be built out of these crowded areas, such as in the area in which I live, where it is happening
480
without any help at all. It would happen a great deal more if a realistic and helpful grant could be produced, and I believe we should get greater value for money than with a great deal of the subsidised local government housing which these people are now occupying. I should like to leave that thought with the noble Lord, in the hope of receiving an answer to some of these points, and I wish him well with this Bill.
5.23 p.m.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, like the noble Viscount, Lord Stonehaven, I think it desirable to express the fact that, important as Glasgow and the Clyde Valley are—and I fear I must return to them later—they are not all Scotland; and the housing problem is not confined merely to the urban areas of the West of Scotland. We have an acute agricultural and small town problem as well all over the West of the country. I would start by asking the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, if he can give me an assurance that in Clause 2 (2) (c), where grants for agricultural houses are mentioned, that, for the purpose of the grants, "agriculture" includes forestry. That is very important, particularly in the Highland areas, where the Forestry Commission often approach the county councils asking for the houses to be built for their special requirements.
Even before this Bill was ever mooted, my own county council were seriously considering having to reduce their rate of building houses simply because of the ever-growing seriousness of the rate position. It is one of the best administered counties in Scotland, and one which used to have about the lowest rates. We have found those rates going up every few years to an extent which is really alarming. Although, naturally, no one likes to have an increase of rent—and the increases under this Bill are bound to be serious in some cases—the fact has to be faced that the position of the local authorities is becoming a perfectly intolerable one; and it will get worse if they are to go on supplying an unending succession of new houses for the rents they have been receiving up to the present time. It just cannot be done without a complete dislocation of local finance. For that reason, Her Majesty's Government have

481
been absolutely right, as well as courageous, in tackling this thorny and unpopular problem, just as they were over the question of the Rent Act.
In the case of my own county we have to some extent improved our position by making full use of the grants for the improvement of the older houses. I entirely agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Stonehaven, that pressure should be put upon those county councils—of whom Ayrshire and West Lothian are striking examples in the wrong direction—who give little, if any, encouragement to the reconstruction of old houses. In my own area, we have dealt with a large number of these houses, and although they may not be new, they are in many respects much better than many of the new houses, either because they are of substantial construction or because what was wrong with them before—the lack of modern conveniences—has been put right.
I must, I fear, for the last few minutes of my speech, return to the subject of Glasgow, and I would urge Her Majesty's Government to pay particular attention to the words of my noble friend Lord Dundee in regard to the provision of multi-storey, if not skyscraper, blocks of flats. By the very nature of Glasgow, there must always be a large number of people whose work must be on or near the Clyde. Glasgow owes its prosperity if not its very existence, to the fact that the Clyde is there. If a large number of people are to work about that river, on shipbuilding and shipping and all the other ancillary industries, it is obvious, if we are to avoid an appalling congestion on the roads, that many of them will have to live near their work. It will not help Glasgow much if the new towns like East Kilbride and Cumbernauld are to be merely dormitories, from which every day vast numbers of people travel by road and rail into Glasgow. It must be remembered that Glasgow lacks the excellent system of electric railways which alone makes transport in and out of London tolerable for the millions who travel there every day.
For that reason, I hope most earnestly that in this reconstruction of the central portion of Glasgow—those eighteen acres, with their 700 people to the acre, and a very much larger acreage where conditions are still very much overcrowded,
482
though not so bad—provision will be made for the housing of a large proportion of those people who will have to work on or near the Clyde.
From another angle, which has not been mentioned to-day, this perpetual extension into the country has one serious result—that is, the diminution of the by no means large amount of first-class agricultural land in Scotland. Year after year we hear all over the country of the way in which good agricultural land is—quite necessarily, admittedly—converted to bricks and mortar or to roads. For example, when there was a new double highway being built between Perth and Dundee (which is by no means complete) we were told that for every mile of the doubling of that highway fourteen acres of first-class agricultural land were to be sacrificed. I myself have had to give up to the housing needs of Perth a considerable acreage of the finest land of Scotland. I did so without protest; it had to go, because there was nowhere else for the houses to be built.
At the same time, we need to make every possible effort to see that our housing takes place in the urban areas which are already non-agricultural, rather than allow this continual diminution of our meagre agricultural resources. And where it is essential to take land far outside the town, attempts should be made to make use of areas which are of inferior agricultural value. I know, for example, that in a certain English town in the Eastern Counties great indignation was caused when their overspill was put out into new suburbs on excellent land in East Anglia, whereas only two or three miles away was semi-derelict land reclaimed from the marshes which would have done equally well for housing and there would have been no loss to agriculture.
This is an excellent Bill and Her Majesty's Government are to be congratulated on it. Every speaker who has addressed us to-day has made it clear that he appreciates, as the Government do, that the problems of our Scottish housing are very difficult indeed. They will not be entirely solved by this Bill, but the Bill will go some considerable way to dealing with what is probably the worst problem that Scotland has to face or will have to face for many years to come.
5.31 p.m.
LORD GREENHILL: My Lords, ably and clearly as the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, has stated his case on behalf of the Government on this Bill, I am afraid I shall be bound, in spite of the harmonious speeches to which we have listened, to introduce a slightly discordant note, because I do not think that this is a good Bill; nor do I accept the reasons given by the Government for the measure that is being submitted to us to-day. Indeed, I rather feel as the Undersecretary of State in the course of his Second Reading speech said, that this was, I think, the fifth part of a scheme to regularise the position in regard to subsidies and housing, and that he thought that this was a good thing to do. My own view is that this is part of a well-recognised pattern to try to increase the cost of living in houses for the people in this country.
It is not many weeks ago since noble Lords were being asked by Government spokesmen to accept as a fact that the supply of houses was now almost satisfying the demand and that therefore we could look forward comparatively soon to a state of affairs in which there would no longer be the scarcity of which we have heard so much to-day. Basing their action upon that view, what the Government said was, "We can now decontrol a number of the houses and charge bigger rents than the tenants have been in the habit of paying, and thus enable those poor investors in property to derive some little benefit from the investments of the past of which they have been so long deprived." My own feeling is that this is all part of a pattern to make the people pay more for their housing accommodation that they have been paying up to now.
This Bill, as has already been admitted by noble Lords opposite, is really two Bills in one, if we ignore Part III: one dealing with a particular problem, the problem of Glasgow's overspill, and the other dealing with subsidies, which is in a sense a finance part. Because of what the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, has said, I should like to say this: from my own experience within the local authority for a fair number of years, I do not think that Glasgow has been at fault in its housing policy in all the years that I have known it, because the present administration of Glasgow
484
began in 1933 with an inheritance which then was of the meanest kind. Speaking for myself, I would say that Glasgow's housing problem is insoluble. It is the kind of thing one does not like to reconcile oneself to, but my personal view is that Glasgow's housing problem is insoluble as far as Glasgow is concerned, and the only thing that can be done to deal with that problem, if the Government are really concerned about housing, is for them to take over the job themselves and to provide the necessary money for the necessary dispersal, if you like, of the present population.
The noble Earl, Lord Dundee, has apparently overlooked the fact that in 1946 the late Sir Patrick Abercrombie drew up a very detailed plan for the whole of the Clyde Valley area. That plan was in great detail. It is also known that the city architect of Glasgow issued a report containing some fifty-six pages on that plan, criticising it on the grounds that the population of Glasgow was not catered for within the area of Glasgow. He went into great detail showing how he would have dealt with the problem had he been allowed to do so. He put forward a plan; the plan was not accepted. There have been a couple of city architects since and nothing better has been produced. The noble Earl is also aware that this Gorbals plan, which the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, has pressed and which the Secretary of State has accepted and approved of, is one which has also received criticism in the current number of the Scottish Economic Journal in which not the idea itself is condemned but the fact that this is the largest undertaking of its kind, and somewhat extravagant in cost, though perhaps wholly necessary, into which the Corporation itself has gone. I express no opinion about that, but I want to warn the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, that these things are not so easily solved. It is all very well to say that the solution lies in having skyscrapers for the housing of your people—
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I do not think that that is the only solution.
LORD GREENHILL: I should hope not; but even as the major part of the solution I should be inclined to say that it is not the best thing to do. If the noble Earl has seen, as he must have seen, conditions in the Knightshill and Blackhill

485
areas with their tall tenements, he will realise at once that it would be destroying any amenities the city may have had in order to accommodate the people. But suppose, for the sake of argument, that we were trying to work out the Government's policy and that we admitted that 300,000 of the poulation had to be moved out, what guarantee have we that some of those who were moved out would not be replaced by incomers and so leave their numbers more or less stationary? Because you could not get rid of your population as easily as that. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, said in a very statesmanlike way, "This is not an easy problem to solve. You cannot bulldoze a population. They are human beings. You cannot compel them to work where you want them to work. You have to think of what they, too, want to do."It is not a problem that can be solved within ten years or, as the noble Lord admitted, within a generation. It is a kind of gradual problem; you must take time to solve it.
Let us assume for the moment that the Government will try by means of this Bill to apply a remedy—a partial remedy if you like—towards this very big problem, and let us look at the subsidy suggestions that have been made. My own view is that, underlying the series of Acts that we have recently had to deal with, the main concern has been a financial one, and I am wondering whether the Treasury are not exercising, for reasons which are understandable, a greater amount of pressure than we have been accustomed to in recent years. Indeed, one wonders whether this is not a kind of attempt to introduce deflation by experiment. We know what the danger is; we do not need to know what to do to avoid inflation if we can. But is this the way to achieve it?
Take the subsidy problem. The Government have discovered a number of different kinds of needs. It would be amusing, if it were not rather depressing, to find that there are approved needs—there is £24 per house for that, because that is merely for rehousing from unfit houses, from overcrowding in shared rooms, or for those who are held to be unfortunately disabled, and so on. The Government then say that they are prepared to consider specially hard cases. Then there is the second kind of need, which they call an urgent need. There is
486
£30 per house for that. That is to cater for incoming industries which it is desired to attract by this extra subsidy. Then there are special needs to deal with the overspill, for which £42 per house is provided. Then there are exceptional needs. That does not involve a question of subsidy at all, because the Special Housing Association will assist the authorities and build whole houses for them. The Government has already warned the authorities that they must not expect too many houses from that source, but they are there if necessary. Then there is the need for high flats, a point which the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, stressed, whereby if you build above a certain number of storeys you provide extra accommodation.
Let us face this problem with some degree of appreciation of what is involved. Local authorities do not want to have their finances upset by not being able to meet their housing requirements, and I must admit that I was rather pleased to note that Glasgow was not the worst city in Scotland in charging lower rents than it ought to do. But the noble Lord himself would be the first to admit that economic rents cannot be expected from any authority because even with the Government contribution, even with the compulsory rate contribution, we are still left with a deficit which would entail demands upon tenants to bring their rents to an economic level. While it may be true that £39 would be the average rent if the full rent were charged, the noble Lord himself would be the first to admit that people cannot be expected to pay the difference between what they are now paying and the £39, except in that it is spread over a number of years so that people could gradually become accustomed to the heavier burdens they were asked to meet.
In Glasgow, as the noble Lord is probably well aware, the rate of interest which the Corporation charge to the housing department is not the current rate of interest, because Glasgow has its own Loan Fund—a sort of bank—and it charges the department the appropriate rate. This is how it works out at the moment. The rate of interest charged on capital borrowings for the year ended May 31, 1956, was £3 11s. 10d. per cent.; the average rate which was paid on the mortgages borrowed from the public was £3 13s. 1d.—in other words, it would appear as though it should be paying

487
more than it is charging for its mortgage moneys. That is accounted for by the fact that not all moneys are borrowed on mortgage—some are on short term, and they are able to charge a lower rate to the department than is current just now. The noble Lord is also aware that, although at the moment the rate is below rates currently being charged, the higher rates now being charged for moneys borrowed to-day would have to be reflected in future rates.
There is another point that I should like to make, with just a little caution. As the noble Lord pointed out, Glasgow is not charging an economic rent and is making the ordinary ratepayer pay part of the subsidy which the council tenant enjoys. I myself feel that Glasgow Corporation ought, and should, consider bringing that figure a little more into keeping with what is appropriate to-day, because I do not think that one can wholly justify a position in which 9·47d. represents the statutory rate contribution, whereas the deficiency—that is, the extra money rated for—comes to 2s. 0·75d. That, I think, ought to be equalised and brought more into line.
I appreciate that I have taken more time than I should have, but there is one thing more that I should like to say before I sit down. I see no reason why the Government, in charging local authorities rates of interest upon the money they are prepared to borrow, must charge what is more or less the current rate. I see no reason why there should not be a differential interest rate for particular purposes—in this case particularly for housing. If that were done, then I think that local authorities would feel considerably relieved from the burdens from which they are now suffering. There will be a Committee stage on this Bill, and there I should like to deal with Clause 15, with which I will not trouble the House at this moment.
5.47 p.m.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in our discussion on the Second Reading of this important Bill. I should like to say to those noble Lords who called attention to the fact that Glasgow is in Scotland, that surely all of us in this House know Scotland. Everyone realises that to be the fact. Nevertheless,
488
this Bill is dealing with a situation which exists in industrial Scotland, and principally in the City of Glasgow. Therefore, Part II of the Bill must be related particularly to the circumstances which exist there. So far as Part I of the Bill is concerned, that is applicable to Scotland as a whole.
The noble Lord, Lord Mathers, said that as a result of the drastic changes which are taking place in these subsidies, if justice were to be done and hardship were to be prevented it would call for an individual means test. I do not for one moment believe that. If the noble Lord would be good enough to look at the Report of the Working Party on housing subsidies and see the comparison between the rents paid in England and those paid in Scotland, I am almost inclined to think that he would feel slightly ashamed of the constant grumbling there is about paying anything like a reasonable rent for a house in Scotland. The noble Lord also spoke of the failure of the Government to accept the advice which had been offered to them in another place in relation to an Amendment moved by a right honourable gentleman, which Amendment would have allowed any receiving area to be scheduled as a development area under the Distribution of Industry Act, and in that way, I assume, to qualify for Board of Trade financial help. Well, it was rejected, particularly for one reason: that any area can be scheduled if there is likely to be a special danger of unemployment; and therefore, if that is so, it would not seem that the advice offered was necessary.
As the noble Lord said, there will be many personal problems, because we are dealing here with the human element, and we should be careful, in all we do, to consider both their wishes and feelings. But I believe, with the noble Lord, that some good will come out of the Bill. The noble Lord said it was the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government. No, my Lords! It is not the entire responsibility of Her Majesty's Government: it is the responsibility of the local authorities, both the exporting authority and the receiving authority; and it is the responsibility of industry and of every citizen in this country where overspill exists to see that they do their best to make it work. I do not think that on this Her Majesty's Government have

489
anything to fear at the next General Election. They have done something which no Government for nearly thirty years have had the courage to tackle, even when they knew perfectly well in their hearts, and had had it proved by facts, that many things were crying to be put right in Scotland. Time and again Governments shirked that issue; and that applies, too, to the Party to which the noble Lord belongs.
The noble Earl, Lord Dundee, I was glad to hear, did not consider that the Bill would have any adverse effect on housing. Nor do I believe that it will. He spoke of the pre-war housing record of Glasgow, which is a matter on which I prefer not to touch—I do not think it really comes into the Bill. But it is a very slow job, clearing out slums and putting houses in their place. Anyone who has been engaged upon that, as the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, has been, will be able to tell your Lordships just how difficult it is to arrange to decant a population before pulling down their houses and getting a place in which to put them. It is a difficult matter indeed, and I do not want to say anything which would make people imagine that what faces the City of Glasgow is anything at all easy.
I hope that the noble Earl did not misunderstand my remarks about the Scottish Special Housing Association. He spoke about that Association as going to build half the houses. They will do that only where there is reason for them to be employed in view of the financial circumstances of the importing authority, and then only within the limits of their programme, which is laid down from year to year. As to the claims of building upwards, from models I have seen the Corporation are going to build very high blocks of buildings over all the new development area. I, too, wish that I could say it was possible that this terrific problem could be solved within a generation. The noble Earl said that it must be; but, frankly, I do not know how it can be. The task of building houses for 300,000 people from one city and redeveloping that city at the same time, all within a generation, is something that rather staggers the imagination.
The noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, spoke of the need for an active and enlightened
490
distribution of industry. I submit to him that he will find in this Bill a scheme for the active and enlightened distribution of industry. I cannot think that this scheme has been worked out other than as the result of examining the whole situation in regard to the removal of industry—that is, redistribution of industry—from Glasgow to these new reception areas. In doing so, we have taken note of what has happened elsewhere and have tried to meet the objections which have occurred in those places. The noble Lord said that no other generation should again be faced with a like situation. I would pray noble Lords, and other people also, to consider the circumstances under which our great industrial cities came to be built. Our forefathers are constantly accused of being mean people who demanded great sums of money for their land, with the result that people had to be herded together. That is not true. The fact of the matter is that there was then no means of transport and people had to live near to their work.
A NOBLE LORD: Blame the Industrial Revolution.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: Whether or not there was an Industrial Revolution, people then had to live near their work because there was no transport.
The noble Viscount, Lord Stonehaven, asked me about improvement grants. That is a subject for a housing debate, rather than a debate upon a Bill of this nature; but one of the reasons why repayment of improvement grants has to be asked where the conditions are not met—and one of the reasons why there should not be an appeal to the Secretary of State—is that that money is local authority money. It is money advanced by the local authority for the improvement of houses within their own area, and it would be rather awkward if the Secretary of State had to decide whether or not money was to be paid back. But, in any case, whoever obtains an improvement grant for the improvement of his house does it in the knowledge of the conditions, and my own view is that these conditions should be adhered to.
I have noted the suggestion of the noble Viscount, Lord Stonehaven, that there should be a grant for private building of houses for the aged. At the same time,

491
there are constant complaints that the Government are already spending too much money—
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: My Lords, would the noble Lord allow me to interrupt him for a moment? The point I tried to make was that this was not a question of complying with conditions, but that where a local authority refuse a grant, or give a grant of less than 50 per cent., the position, as I now understand it, is that the applicant can request the local authority to give their reason; and the local authority must then reply to the applicant, in writing, stating the reason. The suggestion I make is that that would be ineffective unless the Secretary of State also had the information, otherwise he could not give any recommendation or advice upon the matter.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for enlightening me, but the answer is the same. The money is local authority money, and they are therefore entitled to give 50 per cent., or any other amount, or none at all. I do not argue whether it is right or wrong, but that is the situation.
The noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, asked me, in relation to Clause 2 (2), whether "agriculture" includes forestry. The answer is, Yes. I would just refer the noble Lord to Section 184 of the 1950 Act, where agricultural population and agriculture are defined, for the purpose of subsidy, as including workers engaged in afforestation. The noble Earl suggested that places like East Kilbride and Cumbernauld were not much good from the point of view of reducing travel. What we are trying to do is to build up a balanced community in these places, which will avoid travelling. We are trying to see that a balanced community is the result of any movement of overspill. I can also assure the noble Earl that the Government do everything in their power
492
to see that agricultural land is not used for purposes other than agriculture.
The noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, and I, of course, do not see eye to eye on this matter at all. He says that our recent Acts have been all of one pattern—to make people pay more for houses. But should people not pay the just price for the article? Does the noble Lord contend for one moment that a rent of £8 a year for a house in Lanarkshire is a reasonable payment for the accommodation provided, or even a rent of £15 a year in Glasgow? Does the noble Lord really consider that people who can pay for houses should be subsidised by other people? I think it is one of the most iniquitous things I know. I think it is reasonable to require that a reasonable rent should be charged in all cases. As I said in my speech, those who can pay ought to pay; those who have a housing need and cannot pay should have their housing needs supplied for them. I do not believe that anyone should be subsidised unless in need. Let me say that, in my opinion, there is no need at all for any great charge on the rates for housing in the City of Glasgow. I say that in view of the facts produced in the report of the Working Party to which I have referred. My Lords, I have endeavoured, to the best of my ability, to answer the various points which have been put to me in the course of the debate. I trust that your Lordships will now give this Bill a Second Reading.
On question, Bill read 2ª, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, before we pass on to the next Business I should like to inform your Lordships that arrangements have been made so that any noble Lord who wants to have his dinner can get it here.

EGYPT: BRITISH SUBJECTS' LOSSES
6.3 p.m.
LORD KILLEARN LORD KILLEARN rose to draw attention to the continuing distress of British citizens expelled by order of Colonel Nasser from Egypt and deprived of resources held both in Egypt and in the United Kingdom; to urge upon Her Majesty's Government the need for decision to grant interim relief from United Kingdom resources to admitted claims pending a just and full final settlement; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords I rise to put before your Lordships' House the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. Before I get down to my main theme, may I register (and I feel sure I shall have the feeling of the House with me in this) an expression of the embarrassment in which we have been placed by being kept waiting here from 2.30 this afternoon until 6 o'clock by other business. I raised this matter once before and I have the record here. I raised it on April 30. I referred to the interests of the Private Member. I put a Question [OFFICIAL RFPORT, Vol. 203 (No. 61), col. 185]:
"To ask the Leader of the House whether the Standing Orders can be so altered as to prevent a debate on an important Motion being delayed by Bills and other matter placed in front of it on the Order Paper subsequent to the tabling of the Motion."
On that occasion I pointed out to your Lordships that on March 28 I could not get up to speak on a Resolution which I was moving until two-and-a-half hours after the House met on a Thursday afternoon. To-day—another Thursday—the House met at 2.30 and it is now past six o'clock. It is not fair to your Lordships to be kept waiting in this way on a matter of this importance. You have taken the trouble to come down here because of the importance of this matter. And what has happened? There has been a procedural affair which has held us up. I leave that matter in the hands of the House, but I submit it is one to which serious attention should be called. Having said that, I will pass to my main theme—the Motion before the House.
Before I left my home this morning, through the kindness of Lord Hailsham my attention was called to a little item of news in The Times. The date line is: "Cairo, June 26". The item is quite short. It reads:
494
"The Egyptian Government to-night announced that it had decided to permit the arrival of a British Committee to survey the position of British property in Egypt sequestrated by the Government."
That was a Reuter message. I thought it well to bring that little item to the notice of your Lordships, because some of you may have missed it. I have taken advice in competent circles in this connection, because it struck me on the face of it as being possibly of some importance—we do not know, of course; it may be rather a red herring. I have taken opinion in competent circles and that opinion is to the effect that, in practice, desequestration would be next to impossible to implement, for the refugees' property has been disposed of, their homes no longer exist, in many cases the individuals have had to shift for themselves and many of them have gone to far distant lands. I brought that in only because I thought it right to do so. So far as I am aware neither the Government nor anyone else really knows exactly what the report means.
Now may I turn to my main theme? In Arabic there is a vernacular expression "Talta t'abtah" which, roughly interpreted, means: "Third time lucky". This is the third time that I find myself addressing your Lordships on this subject. I make no excuse for doing it a third time because the cause is so important and so just that one would be justified in putting it to your Lordships again; indeed, one would be justified in putting it an innumerable number of times until justice is obtained. I am encouraged by the Arabic expression which I have just quoted, and I only hope that it may prove true on this occasion. I hasten to add that there is also an Arabic proverb which means: "There are days of honey and there are days of onions". I only hope that, despite the lateness of the hour, this may prove to be a day of honey and not a day of onions.
The special reason I say that is this—and I come back once more now to April 30 when I raised the Question which I have mentioned in your Lordships' House. I feel that I am doing a courageous thing to-day because—it is true he spoke in a mood of jest—on that occasion the noble Earl, Lord Home, referring to me said [col. 186]
"May I say that we will take all steps available to us to see that he does lose a Division whenever he moves a Motion."

495
The noble Earl qualified that later by saying:
"The noble Lord must not take what I said too seriously."
Nor do I take it too seriously. At the same time, I would point out that I am running against that declaration from the Front Bench which I would much rather not have seen recorded in Hansard.
Now to proceed with my main theme, may I first of all make a general observation. Like other Members of your Lordships' House I have spent many years in Government service under many Governments—since, I think, 1902, to be accurate. During much of that long period it was my privilege to serve abroad as representative of the Crown and the Government. My function was to do my best for my country and, coupled with that, to do my best for my local community. I spent twelve years in China, twelve years in Egypt and periods in other places. I can say with all sincerity that during that time I had many cases to deal with and many tricky negotiations to carry through—some successful and some not—but in my long career I have never had a more frustrating experience than trying to defend the interests of my own compatriots with our own Government.
Let me touch on the question of the timetable. These people were expelled about the beginning of November—that is to say, seven months ago—and since then I have moved two Motions in your Lordships' House and have asked innumerable questions. We had to ease up at the Easter and the Whitsun Recesses. On February 28, in one of these debates, we were told that it was unreasonable to expect the Government to formulate policy until they had done investigating, collating and collecting the claims, and that it would take six to eight weeks. Already these people had waited a long time and they were in great straits, as I shall bring out in a moment, but my noble friends and I decided that we would wait for those eight weeks. That brought us to May 23. It so happened that that synchronised with the debate on the Suez Canal on a Motion by the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, and my friends and I considered that we should be ill-advised to bring this question up in that debate
496
because it would be liable to be submerged in much higher issues. I believe that we were right. That is how it comes about that this Motion is before your Lordships' House to-day, June 27.
May I touch on how this whole problem has developed? The seizure of the Canal took place at the end of July and the Anglo-French action followed—I thought too late, but that is neither here nor there. As a result of that action, Egypt took retaliatory action against our nationals. That took the form of the expulsion from Egypt of all British nationals and the seizure and sequestration of their property of every sort and kind. As we know, many of them were thrust out at the point of the bayonet and allowed to bring nothing out at all except £E15 in paper money. They had to leave everything behind. Truly their situation on arrival here was desperate.
Their arrival did awaken a certain amount of public interest and sympathy. I think that their plight would have provoked more public sympathy if their arrival had not coincided with the wave of public indignation over Hungary and that wonderful and noble response for the wretched Hungarians. I expect that that blunted the edge of public sympathy with these unfortunate co-nationals of our own. I cannot think of any other reason. But it is rather surprising that up to date the Press has not taken more active interest in the question, although lately there has been a burst of interest, along interesting lines—namely, that the attitude taken by the Government is indefensible and that the Government ought to do better.
Here I would pay all credit to the Government for having established the Colyton Committee. I am not throwing any bricks or criticism at the noble Lord, Lord Colyton. I believe that he has run his Board with the ability which we should expect from him, and they have given great relief to many cases of real hardship where people were in need of subsistence. But we have it on record, in the words of the noble Lord himself, that his mandate is limited and does not allow him to cope with the type of case I am talking about to-day, which involves a claim for financial compensation and restitution. His Committee cannot touch it. That is a great pity. When the Government formed this Board, which took

497
the name of the Anglo-Egyptian Resettlement Board, I had hoped that they would have a far wider mandate and would be placed under a Minister. I believe that that would have saved much trouble and delay, much misunderstanding and much departmental bother.
In view of the length of time which has elapsed, are noble Lords seriously surprised that these wretched people are beginning to lose patience and suspect that the Government have been purposely dragging their feet? I do not say that they have, but it looks very like it. On top of this quite normal suspicion, when these people read in the papers that the British Government have agreed to release £20 million sterling from the credits due to Egypt in order that Egypt might settle currency difficulties with the Sudan—well, it is a bit odd, to put it mildly, is it not? I have seen the agreement between the Egyptians and the Sudanese and I can produce it for the noble Viscount afterwards if he likes. On top of that again there is a meeting in Rome of (I do not know what to call them) representatives of Britain and Egypt. Many of us were sceptical about what this meeting could produce, and what it did produce I do not know, except a report in the Press that another £6 million was to be released for some purpose which has never been explained to your Lordships, so far as I am aware. That is another thing which these people are at a loss to explain, and we cannot really be surprised that feeling is mounting high. I know that this House likes to have specific cases put before it. I have here five cases which I will read to your Lordships. They are headed: "Typical Cases of Distressed British Subjects now in the United Kingdom." Case No. 1 is as follows:
"Director of a private British company and manager of another; both now sequestrated and Egyptianised, and all assets seized. Expelled from Egypt with wife, and now in the United Kingdom without means. About to retire after 45 years in Egypt. All savings and investments to provide pension indemnity and insurance benefits banked in Egypt are now seized. House, car and all personal belongings lost. Now living precariously on a small grant from Resettlement Board, friends and ex gratia payments. Too old to seek re-employment."
Case No. 2:
"Middle aged man, manager in a British local private firm. Worked in Egypt 31 years. All accumulated savings lost. House, car and personal belongings seized. Deprived of means
498
of livelihood and insurance benefits and compensation by decree. Now in the United Kingdom without means and, at his age, finding difficulty in getting employment."
Case No. 3:
"Director of British local company working and living in comfortable circumstances in Egypt. Married, with three children at school in England. All assets, home and personal possessions of himself and wife lost in Egypt. No means whatever outside Egypt. After 30 years abroad finding it exceedingly difficult to get employment to enable him to support himself and family. Now living on the generosity of family and small grants from Resettlement Board."
Case No. 4:
"Married man, 40 years, with two children, working partner of a prosperous family agency business in Egypt. The business now Egyptianised and its commercial activities as a British concern destroyed beyond restitution. This partner, who has lost his occupation, home and entire possessions, investments and bank deposits in Egypt, is now in the United Kingdom without employment or the means to educate his children. Is getting temporary aid from Resettlement Board. He has lost his all in Egypt and has no means outside that country."
I come back now to a case I quoted to your Lordships the first time I brought this matter before you on February 28, because I know the case personally. It refers to the matron of the Anglo-American hospital, a very worthy institution, in Cairo. I happen to have been President of the Hospital for twelve and a half years, so I know something about it. She was thrown out at half an hour's notice, with just what she stood up in plus, I think, £E15. Fortunately for her, she was obviously a highly-trained nurse, and she was offered, and has accepted, a temporary occupation in the nursing profession. I am very interested in the case. She took this occupation more or less by way of a refresher, because she still thinks that the time will come when she will be able to go back. Only this last week she was talking to me about that, and I am afraid I had to be rather discouraging. But it does show the right spirit. Apparently, there is a new arrangement, and these people are to be issued with £50 for clothing—though I am not quite sure about that. She, like many others, received a large supply of forms to sign; she was visited by the W.V.S., who were very friendly and helpful and suggested that she should apply for £50 outfit allowance. Her case now reads:
"Application acknowledged. Visited twice by W.V.S. Filled in more forms. Waited patiently for several weeks, but no £50."
She has received nothing else.
Lastly, there is the case that I also quoted the first time that I addressed your Lordships on this matter, that of the widow of the lawyer. She is still in very difficult circumstances:
"Lawyer's widow, who left Egypt prior to nationalisation of Canal, with all formalities for transfer of money completed. Not a case for the Resettlement Board"—
because she had already left—
"Still unable to cash Post Office Savings Bonds"—
I think she has £1,000 worth.
"After repeated visits to the Board,"—
that is the Resettlement Board—
"was told they were only prepared to put forward her case for a subsistence allowance. Nothing further has been heard."
My Lords, I quote these cases because they speak for themselves; and I hope that they prove my thesis, which is that this is not a fictitious movement, worked up, but is a genuine case of hardship and, as many of us feel, of British Government moral responsibility.
I would sum up my attitude by recording that certain things are unquestionably involved. First of all, national honour. Secondly, that it is an all-Party matter—it is not a question of Party differences. Thirdly, however much the Government may dislike it, there is a moral obligation. After all, nobody in his senses can pretend or claim that these unfortunate people had anything whatever to do with what the British Government did. Personally, I approve of what the Government did—but that is neither here nor there. It is impossible in any circumstances to make out a case that these unfortunate sufferers were in any way responsible for what overtook them. Lastly we should think of national credit—and I shall come to that in a moment.
I want to get the situation crystallised. I know that many of your Lordships have heard the story before, and that you will probably be (if I may use the expression) bored at hearing it again. However, it is no bad thing to have it crystallised afresh in the record. Therefore I would recapitulate the salient features—namely, that as a direct result of the action of Britain over the Suez Canal, all British subjects employed in Egypt were immediately discharged without notice; their legal rights, the rights of all British residents, to
500
indemnification, to compensation, insurance benefits and pensions were cancelled by decree; and their entire assets, bank balances, savings and property were seized. They were barred by law from further employment in Egypt, and that law still applies. The wholesale dispossession of all British nationals was, and is, complete.
Deprived of their possessions and the means of livelihood, British subjects were forcibly expelled, and were allowed to take with them practically nothing. The assets of private firms and businesses and of all private individuals were sequestrated, liquidated or sold outright under harsh and ruthless conditions. British commercial and industrial activities have been entirely extinguished by Egyptian Government action. For those British subjects who had spent their lives in Egypt the loss in terms of cash and human suffering is incalculable, and the calamity that overwhelmed them is due directly to British Government action. Please mark, my Lords, that that is incontestable. Surely the responsibility for restitution and redress thus falls squarely on the British Government. That, to our mind, is really the kernel of the whole question.
As a side issue—and I feel I must just touch upon this—and on top of these disasters, those British subjects who believed that they had saved something from the wreckage in Egypt in the form of funds deposited with British banks in London, now find these accounts blocked and payment withheld. These restrictions apply also to the funds held physically in the United Kingdom by the banks for British schools, churches, and other charitable institutions, sequestrated in Egypt, but with obligations to meet in England. The need of those dependent upon them now cannot be met, as banks withhold the funds.
I should like for one moment to interpose that funds such as the funds for running the Victoria College of Alexandria (with which I have had in the past a great deal to do) and the Cathedral of Cairo (with which I was also closely connected) are affected by this situation. I do not know if I have mentioned it before, but I can do so again. Just after the war, all the Egyptians were grateful for what we had done, and they said: "You have only to ask and you may have

501
it." After the war, I reminded them of this, and I collected from them and from the British community, who subscribed most generously, £650,000—which is not a mean sum. That was used for British educational and charitable purposes, hospitals and concerns of that sort. I myself was not going to have anything to do with the distribution, so I appointed a trust, and the trust put these funds in the hands of Barclays Bank. That was in 1946, or thereabouts. The bulk of this money has been used for the purposes for which it was subscribed, but there is a residue of between £67,000 and £70,000 which is over here Now this catastrophe comes along. Everybody is driven out. The teaching staff and clerical staff of the cathedral have been driven out, and they depend for a large part on this fund. One would suppose there would be no difficulty. The funds—or what is left of them—are here. One would think that the head of the community council committee would get them from the bank. But he is refused. To me, that is completely incomprehensible.
I put to the noble Viscount who is to reply certain questions on June 6 about National Savings Certificates. I did not understand his reply. I do not think he did—but that is a frightful thing to say about so eminent a lawyer, and he will probably rebut it with an oath.
THE MINISTER OF EDUCATION (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): Not with an oath.
LORD KILLEARN: Anyway, he will rebut it. The normal mind finds it difficult to grapple with this question of banking niceties. The long and short of it is that the banks apparently require some form of indemnification—from the Government, I presume—which should be forthcoming without further delay. I will leave this matter to the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, who will perhaps deal with it in a more comprehensive way than I can. But the net result is that they cannot touch these funds, and individuals who have put their money into Savings Bonds cannot touch their money. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, will be able to elucidate the matter, or, at any rate, ask pertinent questions.
It is very late, and I have kept your Lordships longer than I intended. But what matters in all this? Surely, it is
502
only one thing: to ensure prompt, effective financial restitution to these Suez victims. Is that not right? If that is right, as I see it it does not matter two jots where the funds come from. It is for the Government, who are responsible, in my view, to shoulder the responsibility. Whether it is by releasing blocked Egyptian credits or whether it is this or that, I would not know, but, surely it is high time that something of a practical and prompt nature was done to relieve the distress of these people. That brings me back to the terms of my Motion. It has occurred to me that if this type of distress—for it is distress—could be regarded as constituting hardship, as indeed it obviously is, through deprivation of all assets and possessions, so much the better. I do not think it matters under what heading this matter is treated. The Treasury may have their difficulties, but I throw that in simply as a passing thought. The thing is to get on with the job. Now I am going to resume my seat. But before I put the Motion formally before your Lordships, would noble Lords, would the Front Bench, would even the Treasury, perhaps remember that oft-quoted saying which, I believe, dates from 1510:
"There, but for the grace of God, go I."
My Lords I beg to move for Papers.
6.27 p.m.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I think it would probably be for the convenience of the House if I spoke comparatively early in the debate, and if, with the leave of the House—for otherwise I cannot do so—I responded to the arguments which are raised at the end of it as well. Ordinarily speaking, I think this would have been a debate which would have attracted the attention of my right honourable friend the Leader of the House, whom I am glad to see with me for the moment. But he is, as I expect your Lordships know, very much preoccupied at this time with obligations concerned with the Commonwealth Conference, and if your Lordships would be good enough to grant me the indulgence I have suggested I believe we can get along without insisting upon my noble Leader's attendance.
May I say at once how much I welcome a general debate on this topic. It is some time since I became responsible, as the Minister answering on behalf of

503
the Treasury, for dealing with questions about this matter. But for some weeks now I have been conscious of the need for something more than question and answer, and for some time I have become uneasily aware that, because of the limitations from which I suffered in answering questions, we were getting at a certain element of cross-purposes with those of my noble friends who have interested themselves in this topic.
I feel perfectly certain that the whole House will share the concern which is felt for our fellow subjects who have been expelled and who have taken refuge from Egypt. I would wholeheartedly endorse the last sentiments expressed by my noble friend who has moved this Motion. We should all, in approaching this matter, start from the premise that, as he said in the earlier part of his speech, those people who have suffered acutely have done nothing themselves for which they can be blamed; and we should also start from the premise with which he concluded his speech: that in this disturbed, uncertain and convulsive century, there, but for what he described as the "Grace of God", would have gone any one of us who had happened to place his fortune and his life inside that particular territory. I wholeheartedly endorse that and feel sure that the House would share the indignation at their sufferings of which he spoke and the desire with which he was obviously animated to see their wrongs righted so far, and as quickly, as possible. I think we can quite clearly agree with all those things.
The Motion to which the noble Lord has invited the consideration of the House draws attention to the continuing distress of British citizens who find themselves in this position. It limits it, I think probably not intentionally, to those who are deprived of resources held both in Egypt and the United Kingdom. The distress, of course, is not limited to those who have been deprived of resources, although I would frankly concede that it includes them no less than the others. It urges the need for decision to grant an interim relief pending a just and full final settlement. Your Lordships may think that this last clause of the Motion contains the operative part.
I do not think your Lordships would desire me to be drawn into too detailed a
504
description of what I should consider a just and final settlement would involve. I must, I think, interest myself primarily in the claim for interim relief, and I am hopeful that I may give a certain measure of satisfaction both to the noble Lord and to other noble Lords who desire to speak on this matter. I am hopeful, too, that the House will agree, and agree in all quarters, that, whatever the rights and wrongs of the Suez policy—and I know that the noble Lord who has just spoken took a view which was radically different from that of the Party opposite—there could be no justification for the seizure of the individual assets of individual citizens (I am glad to see the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, concur in that) and that even if such a justification could have been said to exist in November, there can be no justification for their continued retention now and no doubt that restoration ought to be the condition precedent to the resumption of ordinary trading relations.
I feel I must say this at the outset, since much that has been said by the noble Lord, and I daresay much that will be said during the course of this debate, may tend to obscure certain elementary facts and principles of international law in this matter. Even a prolonged and bitter war between two countries, such as that recently between Britain and Germany, does not, of necessity, justify the permanent expropriation of private property. Obviously, political, economic and military exigencies may suspend the right of individuals to the exercise of proprietary rights, but they still do not necessarily give the right of expropriation. A custodian of enemy property does not become in the ordinary course the owner of enemy property—even, as I say, in war. Consult whatever legal textbook you will and you will find this principle vindicated. Whatever may have vitiated or may vitiate still relations between Britain and Egypt, neither Government, so far as I know, maintains that a state of war exists at all. Such military operations as there were were over in a matter of days and the occupation in a matter of weeks.
Of course, there must be between Governments negotiations in cases of this kind; but it would, at least in my opinion, be disastrous, not merely to these claimants about whom we are talking to-day

505
—and they are important enough—but to the whole fabric of civilised behaviour based on international law, if it were to go out from this House that principles evolved during the centuries were of no account and that the claims of individuals to the restoration of their identifiable property were to be used simply as bargaining counters in negotiations between the States. That would be an abhorrent conception. The Egyptian Government has indicated that it desires resumption of normal trade relations. Speaking for myself, I should like, as I have always urged from the moment of the "Cease Fire" that the relations of the two States should be governed by technical and objective considerations in the interests of the two peoples. But it can hardly be expected that trade, which depends on confidence, can be resumed without the recognition of the rights of individuals to their own admitted property. I do not myself despair that an elementary consideration of this kind will for ever be ignored.
I could not help noticing that, as the noble Lord said in introducing this Motion, in the centre page of The Times to-day there was the following paragraph:
"Cairo, June 26. The Egyptian Government to-night announced that it had been decided to permit the arrival of a British Committee to survey the position of British property in Egypt sequestrated by the Government."
That was the first I had heard of this piece of news, but I naturally desired to find out what there was behind it. I understand that the Egyptian Ministry of Foreign Affairs have in fact put a suggestion to the Swiss Embassy in Cairo that we should send one or two Government officials to Cairo to look into matters concerned with the sequestration of British property in Egypt. The situation is vague as to the exact scope of their investigation and we are asking for further details in order to assess the value of such a visit. I may say that this suggestion was not a reply to any British initiative.
It is true, as my noble friend said, that in many cases property can perhaps no longer be identified; in many cases it consisted of intangibles which perhaps have vanished and evaporated; but I, myself, should have thought that, provided we received satisfaction about the
506
inquiries we are making, those considerations should not stand in the way of an investigation to discover what can and what cannot be restored or what must be left to a legitimate claim for compensation. I believe that that would probably be the feeling of your Lordships' House in this matter. I, myself, was deeply struck by a remark which I read yesterday of the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, when he was replying to the debate on March 28 [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 202, col. 934]:
"…if by anything we did at present we prejudiced the final settlement of claims which might be owing, we should have done the refugees themselves no good at all."
I believe that that is a sentiment with which probably all Members of the House would agree.
However the continued delay in the negotiations for what my noble friend has called in his Motion a "just and final settlement" obviously affects the hardships of those who are awaiting with impatience the recognition of the claims which they cannot but regard as unanswerable. I feel that my noble friend is right in drawing attention in this connection to continued distress. Her Majesty's Government cannot but be affected by that hardship and that distress; and if the exigencies of the negotiations result in added hardship, as they must do if there is delay, as there has been delay through, as I would say, no fault of ours, obviously Her Majesty's Government must take that into account and would wish to do so. I myself would agree that hitherto the definition of hardship upon which we have been operating may have been unduly narrow. My noble friend to-day indicated to me the case which I think he mentioned in your Lordships' House, where the date on which one of the refugees had thought it wise to leave Egypt precluded her from coming within the operations of the Resettlement Board. I confess that it should not have been, but it was, a novel point to me, and I will undertake that that is considered by the authorities concerned.
But I would agree that even on broader grounds the definition of hardship that hitherto we have been operating on may well have been unduly narrow. This may have been because we were hoping for a more reasonable response in

507
a shorter time as the result of our negotiation. Obviously I think we cannot be pressed to make concessions which would impinge upon our stand for what I, at any rate, regard as a legal and moral principle which we should be failing in our duty not to assert. But when I heard my noble friend Lord Killearn, argue, as he has done just now, that for a person in possession of considerable assets to be kept out of possession of those assets for an indeterminate and prolonged period of time, is in itself a degree of hardship, I must say that I was impressed by the substance of his argument. It seemed to me that there was a great deal of justice in the claim, and in one sense I would go even further than he did. I would say that quite obviously the extent of hardship and the degree of hardship suffered in such a case necessarily increases in proportion as the delay increases. So far as I know this is a point which has not been made so far in public debate in this connection, although it was, I confess, at one time in my own mind. Since I have had to administer in my Department a quite different scheme based on hardship, I have always thought that the expression should be given a wide and generous interpretation.
I think I know the general mind of my right honourable friend the Chancellor on this subject. I do not think that this afternoon I should be justified in giving a definite reply to the argument, and probably—at least I should hope—my noble friend would not press me to do so; but I feel that I know my right honourable friend's mind well enough to be certain that he would wish to take account of this viewpoint. Perhaps I should say no more at this particular stage, but I feel that this is a valuable point which has emerged from our discussions and one which should be pursued further before things are brought to a conclusion.
As I have said, my noble friend's Motion is framed to ask for interim relief pending a just and final settlement. In the light of what has been said by my noble friend I should not desire any hasty reply of mine to prejudice any interim relief which might be made available, and I hope that my noble friend who has moved this Motion would wish to be influenced by the same kind of
508
consideration. If the matter is to be pursued in this spirit, as I hope it will be, I would appeal to my noble friend and to any who may be influenced by his advice, to co-operate with me in giving this valuable thought further consideration, and not to make things more difficult, as I am sure he does not desire to do, by pressing me before we have had time to take it into account. I would also make another suggestion in the same vein. I can assure your Lordships that the Government share your Lordships' concern in this matter and are sincerely trying to act in the best interests of those affected.
Before I deal in detail with the problem I should like to say this. I have been conscious in the past of some absence of liaison. I believe that I can assist in some, perhaps a good many, of the individual cases, and possibly in some classes of case, if noble Lords would put a few typical cases before me. My noble friend has mentioned some particular cases in his speech which emboldens me to refer to the matter. It may be that one could help if one knew the details of the people concerned and of the kinds of assets which they have lost. For instance, in one case my noble friend referred to Post Office bonds. There are two types of bond which may be involved. If he will get in touch with me to discuss which kind, it may be that I can help a little there. I hope that in any event noble Lords will feel that I am available should they wish to consult me on this matter, and if they agree with me that there are aspects of the matter which can be discussed more fully with the Minister or with my right honourable friend than in public debate, I hope that they will take advantage of my offer. I should also like to say that if any representative of the Cairo community wishes through either my noble friend or through me to get in touch with the Chancellor of the Exchequer or to approach me direct, I feel certain that there will be mutual advantage in a detailed and frank discussion of various aspects of the matter otherwise than in the storm and stress of debate on the Floor of the House.
In the meantime there are some general observations that I should like to make which I feel in fairness ought to be put on the record. Some, but not all, have

509
been said before. They all need to be recorded as part of the background against which we view this matter. Noble Lords will know that about 6,000 British subjects have arrived here from Egypt. Some of them—I think even the majority—were unfamiliar even with the English language. They came with no money to a country where everyone, though a fellow countryman, was a stranger. Others have assets in this country; some have friends. Some more have assets which, for one reason or another, such as those to which my noble friend referred, they are unable to touch. There are also, of course, considerable business interests which are, strictly speaking, outside the terms of reference of this debate.
How have those been dealt with so far? I think that we must not forget in the first place that the vast majority needed immediate assistance in terms of money, employment and housing—this group, of course, includes both those with assets which they left behind and those without. I feel certain that we have been right in dealing with this in advance of any other. I am glad my noble friend spoke so kindly of the decision of the Government to set up a Resettlement Board and of the work of my noble friend Lord Colyton in administering that Board. The Board has been dispensing assistance recently at the rate of £200,000 per month. I do not think that this in itself has been ungenerous, although of course I should be the first to concede that it does not help with the specific problem with which my noble friend was largely pre-occupied and with which we also are concerned this afternoon.
It is however, none the less directly relevant to the discussion, since my noble friend has referred to continuing distress and asks in his Motion for interim relief based on possession of assets. In order to gauge the necessity for this we must realise the extent of the interim relief available without regard to frozen assets. Even if this were not the case, I feel that the House would desire to know from me the extent to which relief regardless of assets has been made available. The Board have so far made 4,500 initial payments of £50 to adults, and £25 in respect of children. It has accommodated 2,507 in hostels. With the Ministry of Labour it has helped to place or has placed in work about 1,092.
510
The Board is progressively providing housing and is subscribing as a donation £300 to every local authority which makes certain accommodation available, and up to £500 to individuals as a deposit to building societies. It has paid full maintenance allowance to, I believe, 550, and supplementary allowance, to supplement earnings, to 177 more. It has paid furnishing giants to 215. It provides grants of up to £750 and loans of £2,000 to enable suitable claimants to set up in business It reckons, in conjunction with the Australian authorities, to provide passages and voyage expenses of considerably more than 1,000 individuals to go to Australia, and I should like here to give thanks to the Australian Government for their generosity, help and sympathy. Some have also been helped to go to Canada, Brazil, the Lebanon and other countries.
Local educational authorities have, of course, coped with educational problems, as it is their duty to do. In addition, 44 pupils have been assisted to remain at independent schools where they had already been placed, 7 students are at various colleges of further education and 71 at various training courses. In addition, after employment a final resettlement grant of between £750 and, I believe, £1,000 for a family is available, to find accommodation and furniture before the refugee is signed off the books of the Board. It is against this background that we must look at the problem of compensation for lost assets. I should like, in passing, to agree with my noble friend that the coincidence of the flow of refugees from Egypt and that from Hungary probably proved to be a disadvantage to the former.
I now turn to compensation for lost assets. A certain amount has already been done here. As my noble friend knows, advances are already made to former pensioners of the Egyptian Government, if necessary to the full amount of pension due, and this relief has recently been extended to private pensioners whose pensions have been stopped as a result of recent events in Egypt. These grants are dealt with by the Board from public funds. Next, there is the problem of employees of contractors engaged in work on the Suez Base. These were among the first to make and to press their claims, and here again I can, I

511
think, give the House some assurance. Her Majesty's Government recognise their special obligation towards these men as being virtually the employers in whose service the men remained until the last moment; and they are already proceeding to make advances ex gratia, of which I will give details to any noble Lord who is interested. I think it will be found that those advances are not ungenerous.
The next group of claimants were those who brought Egyptian notes from Port Said with a Consul's certificate. In pursuance of a promise made by the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, on March 28 last, these have now been recouped in full to the amount of £65,000. We now come to a group of claimants in whom the noble Lord, Lord Killearn, has shown special interest—namely, the holders of National Savings Certificates. As I have tried to indicate, apparently without success, from what the noble Lord has said this afternoon in the last question he asked of me, National Savings Certificates held by British subjects who have been expelled from Egypt are in a class quite distinct from other Government securities.
In the first place, unlike most other Government securities, National Savings Certificates are payable at any time on short notice. This means that they give rise to a direct obligation on the part of the Government to repay the fund represented by the certificates—that is to say, they are not in the same position as a Government security not yet mature for repayment. In the second place, the obligation to repay is to the registered holder, and to no one else; and the Government are therefore entitled to honour their obligation quite independently of the right to possession of the relevant certificate as a piece of paper. National Savings Certificates cannot be charged or hypothecated in any way, and cannot, for instance, be used to secure an overdraft. It follows that they are valueless in the hands of anyone but the registered holder. Further, the Government are authorised to repay in certain circumstances independently of the possession of certificates.
Some misgivings seem to have been caused by the fact that some claimants have not possession of their books. They may be in the hands of the bank. Possession of the book is not necessary.
512
Accordingly, to holders of National Savings Certificates I say: send us particulars of your holding. Identify the holding and the amount. Give the name and address in which you were registered, and produce whatever evidence you can of identity with the registered holder. If you have the certificate, produce it. If not, explain what has happened to it, if you can. In many, perhaps in all, cases it may be possible to pay these certificates in full without any real delay. I made this offer before, but I fear that inadequate use has been made of it. We have received only twenty-eight applications for encashment in respect of certificates which were left behind in Egypt. All these have already been met. I hope to receive more as a result of this debate, with the co-operation, where possible, of my noble friends.
The next class of case is where a refugee has assets physically in this country and lodged with a British bank or held by the British branch of a bank carrying on business in Egypt, on behalf of its Egyptian branch. These assets may consist of securities (Government or commercial), valuables, or other property. I would say that I could not in this case draw a distinction between Government securities in this class and other securities. Government securities are not mature for payment, and, in consequence, no obligation to cash them arises. What the refugee, not unreasonably, desires is to obtain possession of these securities in order to sell them on the market and so turn them into cash.
Here I must remind the House (and I hope I shall be supported by learned and noble Lords opposite and elsewhere) that the primary questions in this class of case arise between the customer and the banker. If a British banker refuses access to his British customer of the customer's own assets physically available in this country, then, in my judgment, he withholds permission at his own risk, and he does so presumably only after taking legal advice that, for some reason, the customer's claim cannot be sustained. I am not aware of any action by Her Majesty's Government which causes that withholding. There may be many good reasons on the merits of which I would say nothing—there may be a set-off or an overdraft, or a charge of some kind on the assets. The British branch may not be in a position to ascertain or verify the

513
state of the account. On the other hand, there may be some general ground, and I understood from what my noble friend said in his speech to-day that a general kind of attitude may have been adopted.
In a supplementary question to me the other day, my noble friend indicated that he had been advised that British courts would not recognise Egyptian penal legislation. I expressly declined to comment upon this, except to say that in each case both sets of parties would do well to take legal advice, I do not think it is reasonable to press the Government, at this stage, and before the parties have ascertained what their legal rights may be, to make a general proposal. It may be that the banks are liable in some cases. Where this is so, no question arises. There may also be cases where a special defence on the merits exists. In other cases, the parties may differ as to the effect of the general law or the exchange control regulations, or of the appropriate law applicable to the contract or its performance. It would not be right for me to anticipate the result of possible litigation here.
I would say, however, that, before a case is to be made for some specific action on the part of the Government limited to this class of asset, there must be some good reason to suppose that the banks are not liable to their customers to restore the customers' own property, and there must be some clear case for Government intervention in the matter in the interests of the parties. I must say that I think it is strange that a test case has not yet been started, though I should be the last to encourage litigation. I would not myself, though sorely tempted to do so say what I think as to some of the considerations which I know are passing through the minds of the parties. Then there is the case where the assets are held in banks in Egypt or Egyptian branches of British banks. In this case there are also questions which might be the subject of litigation between banker and customer.
That brings me to the final classes of case. There are a number of assets in Egypt, some identifiable, some lost beyond recall or sequestrated by the Egyptian Government and destroyed. Some will consist in businesses whose good will can never wholly be restored. On the other hand, some will be quite
514
easily identifiable assets which, if the Egyptian Government would remove the sequestration, could be restored tomorrow. Two cases were mentioned by the noble Lord. There are cases of houses which have been sequestrated, and they must still be there. There are also assets of limited companies. I do not think it is possible for me to enumerate all the possibilities—only generalities can be made. It is precisely here that Her Majesty's Government must recognise the urgent need of many of those whose properties have been unjustly removed from them.
Our attitude is that, even on the assumptions which the Egyptian Government felt themselves entitled to make, their action cannot now be justified, either in morality or in law. Our claim is that they should be restored, or compensation paid. I would recognise the need for an interim settlement, but I imagine that those who themselves have suffered most would be the first to tell us that if their chances of recovering identifiable property, or a substantial part of it, were jeopardised by pressing a claim now against the British Government, they would wish to hold their hands, even at the cost of some hardship, and trust to temporary interim relief such as the British Government may make without prejudice to the just and final settlement mentioned in the Motion which we all would most earnestly desire to see.
That is my view, and I think it is the view of the Government. If I may say so, by way of summary, I think we have advanced a considerable distance as the result of these discussions, and I think the new argument which has been raised by my noble friend, and legitimately raised, has helped to make that advance. This new point, as I understand, was based on the view that the definition of hardship recognised as the basis of interim relief hitherto has been unduly restricted and might well be extended to include hardship suffered by the owners of assets who are being kept from their property for a period unduly prolonged by what we regard as the unreasonable attitude of the Egyptian Government. I believe that the point is well worth exploring, and I hope that we may have the opportunity of exploring it. I would, if I may, before I sit down, appeal to my noble friend to

515
consider whether that opportunity could not best be pursued by private discussion of the kind I have indicated.
7.16 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, we have listened this afternoon with great interest, and I am sure with a good deal of sympathy in all parts of the House, to the case put by Lord Killearn upon his Motion. Obviously, there are hardships existing which no one in this House, and I believe no one in the country, would wish to see continuing. I do not propose to go into any of the details which the noble Lord, Lord Killearn, has submitted to the House in support of his Motion. I will only say that we at any rate have considerable sympathy with him in his effort to obtain this help from the Government.
We have listened also to an able speech coming from a very able legal mind. We all appreciate the submissions which Lord Hailsham makes to the House from time to time, but I should like to say to him that it is clear that he knew from the beginning that on this occasion he had a difficult case with which to deal. We have never yet had any real answer to the case which was put by the Leader of the Opposition in another place during the debate on May 15. My right honourable friend then said (OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 570 (No. 109), col. 415):
"Can we also have an assurance that the British Government now accept full responsibility to indemnify all those British subjects who have suffered severe losses in Egypt personally and in relation to their property? It really is quite unreasonable that the Government who placed them in this position should not be prepared to face the responsibility to pay them back."
That is the point that has not been answered. Mr. Gaitskell went on:
"Of course the Government are entitled to claim what they can from Egypt. But we cannot be sure for the reasons I have given that such claims will, in fact, be substantiated, and if they are not substantiated then we on this side of the House say that the Government opposite must accept full responsibility for this matter."
Now those of us who have been interested in the matter have been waiting ever since that speech was made to get something like a real assurance to the people involved and an answer to the point put by the Leader of the Opposition in
516
another place. I am bound to say that, try as he did (and he certainly tried very hard), the noble and learned Viscount does not seem to have met us on that point.
There were clearly personal feelings on his part which seemed to take him somewhat closer to the point of view of Lord Killearn. I listened with great interest and appreciation to what he said about his own personal view: that probably up till now too narrow a view had been taken of certain questions of hardship. But he was quite unable—I am not complaining; he is in a difficult position, answering for a Department other than his own—to give any assurance to the noble Lord or to the House that a wider margin would now be given to the consideration of hardship. Therefore, from that point of view, as yet we are still in the position of having no real reply, though I would say (and I am sure Lord Killearn would say also) that we greatly appreciate the personal view expressed on the matter by the noble and learned Viscount.
When I listened to the very long list of items which have been dealt with, and for which I am sure we are all grateful, I could not help feeling that we should need to read Hansard carefully in order to see what it all amounts to. It is very necessary that we should do that. Perhaps when the noble Viscount replies he will be able to tell the House how much of that long category of cases goes right back to last August, or whether they have all been since the actions of the Egyptian Government at the beginning of November last year. I shall be interested to know about that, because the Board, which was in possession of private funds and of some aid which the Government granted, had certainly been dealing with a number of cases spread over both periods. I should like to have some clarification of that point.
The submissions of the noble Lord, Lord Killearn, have been so important and have come at so late an hour in the Sitting and the ground covered by the noble Viscount has been so wide, that I do not think that it would be wise for us to try to come to a final conclusion on the matter. I cannot speak for the noble Lord, Lord Killearn, about what he will say in answer to the appeal made to him by the noble Viscount, but I would say

517
that we are exceedingly nervous when the plea is put up that nobody would wish action to be taken by the Government to indemnify certain people in the interim period if that were to interfere with the final settlement.
There are one or two points on which I should like to make my position clear. I have not the slightest sympathy with the action of Nasser in the many cases in which he has dealt so unreasonably with British subjects and their property. Nor do we wish to raise any criticism of the noble Viscount's submissions on international law, as based on the precedents in previous conflicts between nations. Here, again, I want carefully to read what the noble Viscount said on this aspect of the matter. I am certain that in all cases we ought to stand upon our rights. But when I come to think of the people who are in this country—and in this country only because of the military démarche made by this Government at the end of October and the beginning of November last year—then it seems to me quite unreasonable that eight months afterwards we should still be having to debate and haggle about the general principle of whether the Government should accept liability.
Could I ask one or two questions? It is getting late; I ought to have been miles away from here already, and I shall have to go very soon. On top of the details which the noble Viscount gave in his speech and which we are going to examine, cannot we have a fuller report from the Board than we have had yet, dealing with these matters, say, up to the middle of July, before we rise? Could we not have an undertaking from the Government tonight that a definite answer will be given to the House, before we rise for the Long Recess, on the general principle of accepting liability in the matter—a question which we are pressing and which has, in my view, never yet been answered? I do not think that that is an unreasonable request to make. If we could get assurances on that point, I should not be inclined to ask my noble friends to divide on this Motion at the present time. I think that those who are interested, not only in this House but outside, are entitled to a much more definite statement of what is being done and of what can still be done if the general principle that we ask for is admitted by the Government.
7.25 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, my purpose in rising to intervene in this debate is to support, briefly but most wholeheartedly, the plea for more generous treatment by Her Majesty's Government of our fellow-countrymen who are now refugees from Egypt which has been so eloquently urged by the noble Lord, Lord Killearn, in the speech in which he introduced his Motion. In view of the late hour, for which we are not responsible, I do not propose to go into any of those points of detail which were mentioned by the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, in the latter part of his speech. I am sure that we are all most grateful to him for the full information that he has given the House.
I should like, if I may, to take the broad issues which all of us, Government and everybody else, must equally face. In dealing with these, I do not propose to suggest—it would be foolish to do so—that Her Majesty's Government alone are responsible for the unhappy position which has arisen regarding these people. Of course, that is not so. I am sure that we should all agree with the noble Viscounts, Lord Hailsham and Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, that nothing can excuse or justify the action of Colonel Nasser in sequestrating the property of individuals in Egypt, who are not in any way responsible for their own or any other Government. That, I think, is clear. At the same time, that is not to say that Her Majesty's Government have no responsibility, not merely for the relief of these people but for the restitution of the assets of our own citizens in foreign lands who have been unjustly penalised by events in these countries.
We have heard to-day, as in earlier debates, heartrending stories about the plight of these unhappy people, many of whom previously were in very comfortable circumstances, and many of whom have now been deprived of all they possessed and are reduced to what amounts very nearly to dependence on charity. I am sure that the Government, equally with us, would agree that that is a deplorable situation, for which none of us can repudiate all responsibility or concern—and I think that that was the impression created, so far as I can see, by an Answer which was given in another place yesterday by the Minister of State for the Foreign Office, about which I am

519
rather sorry the Minister of Education did not say anything this afternoon. Previous to that, the position (in fact, I announced it myself, with the approval of all the Departments concerned) was that claims were being registered at the Foreign Office, a process which, it was estimated, if I remember right, would take about six or eight weeks; and that then, when the total amount of claims had been received, it would be possible for the Government to consider and, I hoped, decide on further policy with regard to the claims. That was the statement which I myself made to your Lordships' House.
But we are now told by the Minister of State—and I quote his words; I think that I am allowed to do that, though said in another place, because he was speaking for the Government [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 572 (No. 128), col. 187]:
"The amount of claims by British nationals arising from this and other actions of the Egyptian Government can only be known when British assets in Egypt have been desequestrated and owners have had access to their property."
That is entirely different from the answer which I was empowered to give only such a short time ago. In my view, it puts off any action by Her Majesty's Government with regard to compensation to these British nationals who have suffered so much absolutely to the Greek Kalends. Indeed, the Minister of State made it perfectly clear, in an answer to a supplementary question which followed the main Question, that Her Majesty's Government were unlikely to recognise any responsibility at all at any time for their fellow-countrymen, these people who have been largely ruined as a result of recent events in Egypt. The present position, he said, quite bleakly and frankly, was the
"result of the action of the Egyptian Government and not of Her Majesty's Government."
That clearly was not merely an "off-the-cuff" remark by a Minister who was being heavily pressed in the House, such as we have known in the past. It represented, I think, what he believed to be the settled policy of the Government, for something very much of the same kind was said in an official letter sent by the Foreign Office to one
520
of the claimants who pressed for an early settlement of his claim, which I believe was quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Killearn, in an earlier debate. I would quote this afternoon only one sentence from that letter. This is what it says:
"There can be no question of Her Majesty's Government paying compensation for losses which may have been inflicted by the Egyptian authorities."
That seems to me to imply that the matter of compensation was merely one between the Egyptian Government and the British subjects in question, and that Her Majesty's Government are not directly concerned at all. I must confess that if that is the meaning—and I do not want in any way to misinterpret the position of the Government—many of us would find that position quite impossible to accept.
We may be told that that was the position adopted by previous Governments in regard to the claims of British nationals arising from earlier disputes, such as the First and Second World Wars, to take two obvious examples. I agree that a defence could be put up for such an attitude in cases where, as in those two wars, the injury to their nationals flowed entirely from action taken by the other party to the dispute—and by that I mean the German invasion of Belgium in the First World War, and the German invasion of Poland in the Second World War, which started the conflicts. But that is not true in the present case. The sequestration of assets of British nationals in Egypt, with, I suppose, the exception of those who were affected in their shareholdings of the Suez Canal itself, did not follow Colonel Nasser's seizure of the Canal, but followed on our landing in Egypt.
I do not for one moment suggest that that proves that our action in landing in Egypt was wrong. On the contrary, as your Lordships know, I believed at the time that our action was right, and I believe that at the present time, too. But that does not alter the fact, in my mind, that our action, however right it may have been, involved casualties; and that among the main casualties were these British nationals in Egypt, who had assets there, and whose assets were, in fact, sequestrated. Directly as a result of our action, those people suffered severe

521
hardship, and it is, in my view, morally right that we should face up to that fact.
I believe it is right, too, that we should recognise, as the noble Lord, Lord Killearn, properly stressed this afternoon, that, in its fullest sense, hardship inflicted does not mean merely the inability to buy the necessities of life: lodging, food, clothing and so on—or even education for one's children. In a wider sense, it clearly includes deprivation of those assets which constituted the basis of one's former standard of life, whatever that standard may have been. I was therefore particularly glad to hear the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, speaking with all the authority of the Government, say that he felt there was some substance in the point which the noble Lord, Lord Killearn, had made, and that he by no means rejected the possibility of widening the meaning of the term "hardship" to include the deprivation of assets; and that he would give an assurance to the House—though, of course, without any prejudice whatever—that he would bring that possibility to the notice of his colleagues for their consideration. I hope and believe that this particular proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Killearn, if properly followed up, and if it can be adopted by Her Majesty's Government, may well lead to a sensible narrowing of the gap which at present divides us on this question.
I do not say, especially in view of what was said yesterday by the Minister of Stale at the Foreign Office, that that will by any means entirely bridge that gap. I confess that I, like, I expect, many of my noble friends, should have felt much happier if the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, had found it possible to say—and I still cannot see why he could not—that Her Majesty's Government would propose to lake a much firmer line with the Egyptian Government. After all, we are not without substantial means of pressure which we could exert against them. Egypt has considerable assets frozen here in Britain, and she badly needs the use of those assets. They might remain frozen until some agreement of a kind satisfactory to us might be reached.
But having said that, I would add that I feel strongly that we must recognise that the assurance which has been given to-day by the noble Viscount, Lord
522
Hailsham, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, to submit for the consideration of his colleagues this important point that has been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Killearn, regarding a wider interpretation of the word "hardship", does introduce a new element into our discussion. And I personally hope that the noble Lord, Lord Killearn, having received that assurance, will give the Government a chance to see whether some temporary arrangement, at any rate, might be reached on those lines which would be satisfactory both to Her Majesty's Government and to the claimants. There is also the announcement to which the noble Lord, Lord Killearn referred, of some statement by the Egyptian Government regarding further discussion on the subject of claims, which might, I should have thought, further incline the noble Lord in the same direction.
But, equally—and this is the last thing I want to say—I hope that if the noble Lord, Lord Killearn, does find it possible to take that course, the Government will not regard his action as constituting any weakening in his point of view, or the point of view of those who agree with him on this particular issue. It would, I believe, be very unwise for any of us to underestimate the intensity of feeling which exists in many quarters throughout the country on this issue. The ordinary man and woman in the street, whether or not they approved of the action that was taken by the late Government last year, all expect justice to be done to their fellow-citizens who have suffered as the result of that action. I am certain that they will want some satisfactory answer on this point from the Government, and they will want it quickly.
I hope, therefore, that if, as I say, the noble Lord, Lord Killearn, agrees to give the Government the time which they ask for consideration of this new point that has been raised, they, for their part, will not ask for too long; and that they will recognise that much more must be done than has yet been achieved. Otherwise, I am fairly certain that when the question comes to be re-examined here at an early date—and I hope it will be very early—the House, which so often reflects accurately the views of the country, will express its indignation in no uncertain manner.
7.39 p.m.
LORD GIFFORD: My Lords, the general considerations of this grave and important matter have been put to your Lordships so well by the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, that I shall not attempt to speak further about them. I will confine myself to dealing with the specific points with regard to securities and so forth, in which I have specially interested myself throughout this series of debates. I would only say this. Eight months have now gone by since these people were thrown out of Egypt and suffered disaster—and "disaster" is the only word one can use for their situation. Until to-day I think all of us have felt completely frustrated, because we have had no encouragement at all from Government speakers. To-day, my noble friend Lord Hailsham has given us a glimmer of hope that a more sympathetic attitude is going to be adopted.
Now, if I may, I will make two or three suggestions which I hope will help my noble friend and the Government to deal with some of these matters which are outstanding. Some time ago Barclays Bank D.C.O. submitted a memorandum to the Treasury dealing with the subject. They were then asked to bring in other banks and submit a joint memorandum on the problems which were arising with their customers. Barclays Bank got together the other banks, and this memorandum was submitted through the Bank of England to the Treasury. It has now been in their hands for over a month, so there is no doubt that the Government are fully aware of the various problems in respect of different kinds of security—as the noble Viscount has rightly said, some of them physically in Egypt, and some of them in the banks in this country. It seems to me that there is one quite simple way in which a great deal of this distress can be alleviated. I believe that there are certain classes of security about which the Government could say, "We will give an indemnity to the bank concerned if they make advances to their customers on the security of the scrip that they hold"—such things as Government Stock, and so forth.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Would the noble Lord say what exactly is keeping the banks back from giving their customers their own property?
LORD GIFFORD: The noble Viscount himself has said that there are many obscure legal problems, and the banks are afraid that if they make advances against these securities they may be sued by, possibly, the Egyptian Government, or other people, and will suffer loss as a result of having made these advances. I do not think that the danger is very great, and I believe that it would cost the Government nothing to give an indemnity to the banks in a large number of cases.
EARL JOWITT: May I ask a question? Is that in cases where the man who claims the money has lost the documents of title? If he has the documents of title, I cannot see what right the bank have not to pay him. If he has not got the documents, then, of course, the question of an indemnity arises—I quite follow that. Is that the case the noble Lord has in mind?
LORD GIFFORD: As I understand it, in many cases they are people who subscribed to war funds, very often at the request of the noble Lord, Lord Killearn, and took up large quantities of War Loan and Government Stock, and that sort of thing. They bought it through the branch of the bank in Egypt, and the scrip is now held at the head office in London in a blocked account. They are unable either to obtain these securities or to obtain any advance against them.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: The noble Lord used the expression, "blocked account." So far as I know, whatever block is on the account, it is not blocked by the British Government.
LORD GIFFORD: It seems to me that the noble Viscount is adopting a very extraordinary attitude over this matter. The British Government asked the banks to submit a memorandum which was put into their hands a month ago. I am not a banker, and I am not in a position to-day to deal technically with this matter. But surely it cannot be beyond the bounds of possibility, if Treasury officials and high officials of these banks get together round the table with good will, that some modus vivendi can be worked out quickly, so that these people can get advances on their securities or, in certain cases, have their securities released so that they can sell them and get the money which they badly need.
I was rather amazed at the noble Viscount's remarks about Savings Certificates, because it seems to me that he

525
was putting forward as a new suggestion the very suggestion which the noble Lord, Lord Killearn, himself made a few weeks ago. I am glad to hear that apparently holders of Savings Certificates can cash them, provided they can prove their title to them.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord again, but I was only repeating, if I may say so, the suggestion which I had made in answer to a principal question from my noble friend the last time he asked me a question. I tried to give the answer then, and I gave it more fully to-day—more fully, of course, than I was able to then.
LORD GIFFORD: So far as I know, there are still holders of these certificates who have not yet been able to get their money.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: The noble Lord should have listened to my speech. The reason why they have not got their money, so far as I know, is that they have not asked anybody for it.
LORD KILLEARN: I think the difficulty has been that the actual books, or whatever they are called, were in the physical possession of the Egyptians. The moment they were handed over by the Egyptians to their rightful owners, the rightful owner could proceed across the street, present it across the Post Office counter, and, I believe, in accordance with the terms, on the appropriate notice, the Post Office has to pay. But in order to do that, owners must have physical possession of the pieces of paper. In certain cases they had; in others, they had not. There was some difficulty in getting delivery of these certificates. I understand, as a matter of fact, that the situation has now been considerably alleviated.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I tried to explain in my speech—and I think the noble Lord will find it in Hansard—that the lack of possession of the actual book was not a fatal bar to getting the cash, because the right to the cash is based upon the registration of the holder in the books of the Government, and not upon the possession of the book. The position is, as I understand it, that, in the ordinary course, the Government insist upon the production of the book as evidence of title or evidence of identity. But I was explaining in my speech that that was not necessary in this case, if only the other course would be adopted.
LORD GIFFORD: I hope that this matter of Savings Certificates has been cleared up. The noble Viscount kindly said that if the noble Lord, Lord Killearn, or myself, could find any cases where people have not been able to get their money, he would look into it.
LORD KILLEARN: The poor lawyer's widow, whom I quoted, apparently has £1,000 of Post Office Bonds. I do not know which issue or what Post Office Bonds they are. But she has, among other things, £36,000 over and above the Post Office Bonds—that is the phrase she uses. She cannot get them from the bank. She cannot get the other money, because it is blocked. She has used up the £884 which she had when she arrived here, and she has not a "bean" in her pocket, if I may lapse into the vernacular.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: There is a difference between Government securities which are not mature for payment, and National Savings Certificates, which can be cashed I hope that that distinction will be borne in mind. I also asked my noble friend to give me particulars of the issue of the Bonds.
LORD KILLEARN: That I will gladly do.
LORD GIFFORD: I have just been informed that somebody present in this House at this time, who has two accounts in this country, one in London and one in Edinburgh, both of which are blocked, is limited to drawing £100 at stated internals.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Not by the Government.
LORD GIFFORD: I know. But, surely, it is one of the things which the Government could discuss with the banks. That is what I have tried to say many times over. It is no good the noble Viscount saying that it is not the Government who are doing the blocking.
The other matter that I should like to bring to his notice is that the British Communities Association, an organisation of which the noble Viscount is well aware, have put forward a very carefully thought out scheme for graduated advances against assets. It is a moderate scheme, and I hope that Her Majesty's Government will consider it carefully because I think it may well prove the answer to the more liberal attitude which they

527
are proposing. I should like to thank the noble Viscount particularly for one thing, a matter which I personally raised—that is, the honouring of the Egyptian pounds which were brought out from Suez. I think the noble Viscount said the figure was £65,000.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Yes.
LORD GIFFORD: That has been redeemed, and I am sure that those people from Suez will be duly grateful. I do not intend to detain your Lordships any longer. We have a glimmer of hope to-day. I do not know what the noble Lord, Lord Killearn, intends to do, but I think he would be well advised to give the Government that time for which they have asked. But I think it must be clearly understood that if, in a fortnight of three weeks' time, we do not get real satisfaction, we must take action and go into the Division Lobby.
7.52 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, in the briefest manner I should like to support my noble friend Lord Killearn, because, after all, it has taken eight months and three debates, with the victims of Nasser's aggression on British property still deprived and still suffering, to get in a most sympathetic speech from the noble Viscount an admission that there has been a lagging behind by Her Majesty's Government in the definition of hardship and an advance by Her Majesty's Government towards the suggestion made by my noble friend Lord Killearn. So I think that, as the noble Viscount said, the House and the Government can be grateful to the noble Lord for giving Her Majesty's Government the opportunity to achieve that much advance.
The prospects of any final settlement for these victims depend on intergovernmental negotiations not yet started, undoubtedly protracted and of a doubtful finish. It is as well to realise one point which has not been stressed in this debate: that for the majority of these victims their Egyptian lives are over. They will not go back and it is no good negotiating on the basis of an expectation that these people will be able to resume their lives there. Many of them are of an age when they could not start again, and those of an age who could start
528
again have in many cases had their physical assets removed. Only yesterday I saw a letter from an Egyptian official now looking after a previously British business, soliciting British customers in this country on behalf of the Egyptian authorities who have taken over that particular business.
The other point I should like to make is that, like the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, I was gravely disturbed at the expression by the Minister of State yesterday in another place when, in reply to a question as to the ruin of the individuals in Egypt and whether the Government had got to accept responsibility or not, he said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 572 (No. 128), col. 188]:
"We do not accept responsibility for this."
That is a very definite repudiation, and quite different in word, and I believe in spirit, from what we have had to-day from my noble friend Lord Hailsham and from what we have had from Ministers in this House on previous occasions. There is a great disparity of view. It is, I know, impossible, or it would be very unwise and unfair, to ask one Minister of Her Majesty's Government to repudiate another, but, by inference, I should like the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, when he comes to reply, to make it quite clear that Her Majesty's Government take the sympathetic attitude, and not the attitude of repudiation. I would entreat the Government to do that, because when we refer to what happened in another place yesterday it takes away in our minds a good deal of the hopeful feeling raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham.
I should like to support also what my noble friend Lord Salisbury said: that this is a position that disturbs a far wider circle than those affected, and that it is to be hoped that Her Majesty's Government appreciate the strength of public opinion on a situation that reflects on all of us of every Party—not only those in the Administration but those who support the Administration in this and in another place—so long as it is allowed to continue. These people want justice; they do not want charity; and we must be careful of that fact in the extension of any definition of hardship to the point that we can compensate for assets—an extension which I hope Her Majesty's Government will accept and interpret

529
liberally. Let us be quite sure that we regard it as justice and not charity, which is being given to those people.
I trust your Lordshsips will allow me to say this in conclusion. It seems to me, as a comparatively new Member of the House, that your Lordships' House is held in high esteem in the country, first because of the freedom of expression, secondly, because of the integrity of purpose, and, thirdly, because of the determination to have justice. We can serve notice tonight on Her Majesty's Government that there will be no let-up on this matter until justice prevails. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Killearn, will not press this Motion to a Division tonight but will think of taking steps immediately to put a Motion back on the Order Paper in two or three weeks' time, so that the Government have an opportunity between now and then to implement that helpful and hopeful attitude shown by the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham. Then, when we come back, we shall, having served notice, be able to withdraw that Motion with feelings of relief and gratitude that justice has been done.
7.58 p.m.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, I can assure your Lordships that I shall not be guilty of any repetition, but I should like to say that it seems to me that in this subject we are treading on very difficult ground. The ground is shifting all the time between our feet and between one debate and another. Just think: a few months ago we were told that a memorandum on the subject of blocked accounts was going to be taken to the Treasury and discussed. We know that that meeting with the officials duly took place at some time at the end of April, but, unless I misunderstood the noble Viscount who spoke, there was no outcome of that meeting. Again, we were told repeatedly that what was holding up action was the collection of the claims at the Foreign Office. It was reasonable to suppose that, once the total amount claimed by these British subjects was known, it would then be possible for the Government to start their approaches to the Egyptian Government to get restitution. But what do we hear now? The Minister yesterday shifted his ground entirely and said that there was no question of the claims of British nationals being known until they had been allowed to go
530
back to Egypt and recover their property. Surely, that is an impossible situation, and is a complete change of ground.
The noble Viscount told us that he felt that a resumption of normal trade relations with Egypt must depend on Egypt's restitution and restoration of the assets they have claimed. But he went on to advise the claimants against taking any action or pressing their claims, because, as I understood him, if I may paraphrase it not quite accurately, any concession that might injure the legal and moral principle of the wrongness of Egyptian action should be avoided. That seems to me a most extraordinary doctrine. If, through no fault of his own, a British subject is injured by a foreign Power, do Her Majesty's Government divest themselves of responsibility for making good that damage? The noble Marquess who spoke just now referred to the moral responsibility of Her Majesty's Government. Whatever Ministers may say, I am sure that that is where opinion in the country places moral responsibility for the situation of these claimants.
The question of blocked accounts has been mentioned. I think it has been mentioned in several different senses. With regard to the blocked accounts in the English banks, we understand that the Government's suggestion is that the legality of the bank's action should be tested by action brought by private individuals or institutions. The other aspect of blocked accounts was raised in another place not long ago. I should like to quote a sentence or two from the speech of the Foreign Secretary on May 16, when, referring to the Egyptian Government's assets in this country, he said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 570 (No. 110) col. 585]:
"The blocked accounts are our security for the claims of British subjects against the Egyptian Government. We have no intention of whittling away that position. The House can be sure of that."
Does not that demolish the idea that by pressing the claims of the British nationals, it would injure the strength of our case against Egypt? It seems quite beyond reason that the Government should take their present attitude. I should like to remind them that all the people for whom we are appealing are British subjects. They hold British passports and, if I remember rightly, on the inside of the cover of a British passport

531
Her Majesty's Foreign Secretary calls on all British officials to give the holder all the help of which he may be in need. That is a thing which Her Majesty's Government might well remember.
8.5 p.m.
LORD LLOYD: My Lords, my intervention in this debate will be exceedingly brief. All I want to say, in the first place, is that I believe this has been a useful debate and I think we owe a debt to my noble friend Lord Killearn. If it has done nothing else, the debate has cleared away a certain amount of confusion; and I hope it has also made the position clear to Her Majesty's Government how my noble friend, and I think those of us who support him, feel about this matter. Whatever the legalistic view may be—and I do not dispute that it may well be legalistically true that the claims of these people lie against Colonel Nasser—speaking for myself, and, I believe, for all my noble friends who have spoken in this sense this afternoon, I think we all feel that we, severally and individually, and the British nation as a whole, owe these people a debt of honour and we cannot just accept the purely legalistic view.
I was rather encouraged by the remarks of the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, this evening to think that the Government had shifted rather in their attitude to this matter. But there is still, to my mind, a certain doubt as to where, ultimately, the Government stand in this matter. We have had these conflicting statements, one in another place and the general impression which was created by the speech of the noble Viscount this afternoon. At any rate, there is one issue which has been brought to the surface and on which the views of your Lordships' House have been demonstrated. I venture to say that I think those views were overwhelmingly in favour of the sentiment that we have here laid upon us a debt of honour which we cannot repudiate. I think that was the general sense of your Lordships' House.
Secondly, I would say that the debate has been useful because it has again brought to the surface a number of complicated matters on which there still appears to be an enormous amount of confusion. There is the whole question of the frozen assets; why the banks are
532
unwilling to release them; and whether anything can be done to help these people to get their assets. The noble Viscount who replied rather suggested in his speech that anybody in this situation ought to take his bank to court and have a test case. But I must remind your Lordships that most of these people are destitute, and the services of people like the noble Viscount are, quite rightly, extremely expensive.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: May I say at once that any member of the Bar, including myself, whilst I was practising, who was on the roster for legal aid, would have given his services without charge to a client who was destitute, and without any kind of expense whatever to such a client.
LORD LLOYD: I am glad to hear that; I spoke in error and I withdraw my remark. I personally should still like to have enough money to engage the noble Viscount.
Apart from that, there is the question of the banks, a matter which has been discussed this afternoon. I understand that the situation is different again. I understand that the reason why the banks are not prepared to release these assets is because they are frightened of paying twice. They are frightened that these assets are the assets of the branch in Egypt which has been nationalised by Colonel Nasser; and they are frightened that if they release the assets they will be sued in the Egyptian courts for the money. Therefore, they want an indemnity for the individuals concerned. Again, these people are unable to provide the indemnity. I do not know whether that is right or not, but here is a matter which has been discussed now for months and months and, judging by the debate to-day, there still seems to be considerable confusion. If, as the result of this afternoon's debate, we can get somewhere nearer to a solution to this problem, again something will be achieved.
I should like personally to thank the noble Viscount for what was a most helpful speech. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Killearn would be right at this stage to withdraw his Motion and to enter into discussions with the noble Viscount and others to see whether something more cannot be done in the way of interim help. I think that is all that I

533
need say. I hope that in the circumstances my noble friend will withdraw his Motion.
8.9 p.m.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I can reply only by leave of the House and I hope that I may do so extremely briefly. In the absence of the noble Viscount who leads the Opposition, perhaps I may inform him, through his Chief Whip, that I should like to answer the queries which he has raised by letter, after consultation, because I do not think his questions can be answered straight away. There was one question raised about the possibility of having a full report before the Recess from the Colyton Committee. I should not like to answer that, but I am sure that his request for an answer will be taken account of, and I will seek, if I can, to write him a letter as shortly as may be.
Secondly, in view of the very pleasant tone of the speeches which have been made, I do not think I should answer many of them in any great detail, because I do not wish in any way to disturb the harmony of these proceedings. I was at pains to point out in my speech that the Motion was confined to interim relief, pending a just and final settlement, and I explicitly disclaimed any personal desire to inquire into what a final and just settlement might involve. It was in order to advance the cause of interim relief that I made the particular suggestion I did, which I hope and believe has met with a friendly reception.
I thought that my noble friend Lord Salisbury made rather heavy weather of the reply of my right honourable friend to his kinsman in another place. I am not sure that the Rules of Order of this House are not partly to blame. I must say that this is the first time that this matter has been brought to my attention. The noble Marquess felt himself entitled, and barely entitled, to read out the answer, but apparently felt under no obligation to look at the Question to which the Answer referred. I do not know whether I may be breaking the Rules of Order of this House, but I shall try not to do so by reading out only the last phrase of the question to which the answer referred. The questioner had asked [OFFICIAT REPORT, Commons, Vol. 572 (No. 128), col. 187]:
"As these individuals have all been ruined as a result of the action taken by Her Majesty's
534
Government, surely the Government have a responsibility whether they recover from the Egyptian Government or not?"
I should have thought the most enthusiastic supporters of the refugees from Egypt would not have claimed that the British Government had a responsibility if the claimants recovered from the Egyptian Government. Perhaps I had better not take that matter any further, but it seems to me that when one is dealing with a supplementary question and answer in another place, one has to be very careful to read these things in their context. As I have explained to the House, I had not previous knowledge of this, so perhaps we can leave it there for a moment.
I would say, in all fairness to the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, who spoke recently, that although I can understand the attitude about a final settlement adopted by my noble friend Lord Salisbury, I think that when he noble Earl reads in cold print what he said to your Lordships this afternoon, he will see that he has gone beyond any kind of doctrine which anybody could seriously suggest was the responsibility of the Government. I am sure he will find, when he reads Hansard, that what was said was that whenever the property of a British subject was injured by a foreign Government, the British Government should make it up to him. I am sure that, on reflection, the noble Earl will not wish to justify that. Even in the palmiest days of Lord Palmerston that would not have been put forward as a serious doctrine.
To my noble friend Lord Salisbury I would say that, while I recognise what he says, my own feeling is that it is probably a novel doctrine that in order to give rise to an obligation on the part of the Government one first had to make a political judgment as to whether damage flowed directly from an action of the Government or some other Government. I doubt whether, in the long run, that would be in the interests of British subjects. The last thing I should suggest is that Her Majesty's Government owed no responsibility in any case where a British subject had suffered damage. The area of dispute, if there is one, would be limited to the point of time at which that responsibility arose and the way in which the responsibility should be discharged. At the moment we are seeking to discharge our responsibility by bringing

535
home to the Egyptians the iniquity of continuing a sequestration which was never justified—if any situation could conceivably arise in which sequestration was justified—and I believe we are right in doing so.
The noble Marquess urged upon us a firm line, and that is what we are trying to take. And I am perfectly sure, from the little I have had to do with these unfortunate refugees, that their public spirit would be equal to helping us in this respect. I hope very much that my noble friend Lord Killearn will be able to accede to the appeal of the noble Marquess. I certainly will do my best to see that any discussions which take place bear some fruit. I fully recognise that my noble friend is entitled to further discussion on this matter, and should he feel desirous of having a debate at a later date, before the Summer Recess, or if he feels that there is anything more to say after the discussions have taken place, I imagine that that can be arranged through the usual channels.
I was going to suggest the adjournment of the debate, but I am told by those who understand the Rules of this House better than I do that this would impose on my noble friend an oath of silence, which I am not anxious to enforce. If, therefore, he would consent to withdraw his Motion, I should not, speaking for Her Majesty's Government, take it amiss if another Motion found its place on the Order Paper, and I should be willing to lend such small influence as I possess to finding an early date for it at a suitable occasion before we rise for the Summer Recess. I hope that, by that time, either discussion will prove unnecessary or that we may record that further advances have been made.
8.18 p.m.
LORD KILLEARN: My Lords, I am very grateful for what the noble and learned Viscount has said. Before I come down to bedrock, may I say that I fully support what has been said by the noble Lords, Lord Salisbury and Lord Balfour of Inchrye, about these curious
536
and rather conflicting (as between another place and here) statements by the Minister of State for the Foreign Office. I am not going to press the noble and learned Viscount to explain away what his colleague said, but there is a very odd discrepancy, and a rather shaking one, between the two statements. I am very glad that both the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, and the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, called attention to what the Minister of State has said. It is true, as the noble and learned Viscount has pointed out, that the statement was in answer to a supplementary question but it shook me a bit. I do not propose to say anything more on that, except that we are all very glad that both noble Lords called attention to this discrepancy.
It is now past eight o'clock, and I want to thank all noble Lords who have had the patience to come and stay here so long to listen to this debate. I know that in many instances noble Lords have missed trains and put out their arrangements, and have gone to immense pains. I am most grateful to them all. To come now to the point, the noble and learned Viscount has made a suggestion which centres round the word "hardship". I shall study very carefully in Hansard what he has said. I think noble Lords would be well advised to do so. The noble and learned Viscount also suggested that in the circumstances I might be prepared to withdraw my Motion, on condition that it could be put down again later on, and I gladly respond to that suggestion. I should make clear that it is on condition (if I may make a condition) that this subject shall come up again in a fortnight's time. I have been so bold as to earmark a date—Tuesday, July 16. The Chief Whip, I believe, is "in" on this, so, if that suggestion has the approval of the Front Bench, I would now propose, by leave of the House, to withdraw my Motion, and I will to-night transfer the same Motion to Tuesday, July 16.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at twenty minutes past eight o'clock.