Lords Sitting of 1 May 1957

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

ARUNDEL ESTATE BILL [H.L.]
2.36 p.m.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DROGHEDA): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Drogheda.)
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I was hoping that it might have been possible to have a little commendation of this Bill—which is of great importance as a Private Bill—from the Lord Chairman of Committees or someone in charge. One always welcomes the kind of Bill, or the kind of proposal without a Bill, which makes available to the public for visitation and pleasure such a grand place as the parks and grounds of the famous Arundel Castle. From that point of view, the proposals in the Bill are welcome, and I should very much favour them.
On the other hand, the legal proposals in the Bill, which I am bound to say are very difficult for me as a layman to follow—I am sure they have been carefully checked by the eminent Members of your Lordships' House who were on the special Committee dealing with the matter—make it clear that it is fundamental, from the point of view of those who are proposing the Bill, to break the entail. The only thing I can say about that is that there is an original Act of 1627 and the Patent—which is mentioned in the Bill—of some sixty years later, with regard to the hereditary position of the Earl Marshal of the Realm. I think it is perhaps likely to be argued in another place—as was argued in the case of the Mountbatten Bill some years ago—that a Bill of this kind is hardly suitable for
242
dealing with a matter which would strengthen by Statute the hereditary position of the Earl Marshal. But that is as may be.
I should have thought, myself, that it is necessary for us to say—at least for me to say, from this side of the House—that it surely cannot be taken as a fact in this House, on record for ever and ever, that the hereditary position of the Earl Marshal will remain, under whatever Government or whatever kind of régime the country may be working. There are many wonderful aspects of the office of Earl Marshal, which is filled with tradition and which has been excellently carried out by the present holder—of that there is not the slightest complaint or criticism. I think it is essential, in giving this Bill a Second Reading—and we shall not oppose it—to say that perhaps it will be looked at from another point of view in another place by those who have my general political outlook, and they may contend that we ought not by such a Bill to strengthen permanently by Statute, passed by this House, the position of hereditary Earl Marshal.
2.40 p.m.
THE EARL OF HALIFAX: My Lords, before your Lordships give this Bill a Second Reading, there is perhaps a word that might be said in reply to the noble Viscount who has just addressed us. He has made, as he always does, a speech that commends itself to the House by its reasonableness and by its persuasive force, and I do not rise at all for the sake of entering the lists with him. Indeed, I rise only for the purpose of saying this. There would, no doubt, be other occasions, if such seemed desirable, when, the larger question which the noble Viscount has raised might properly be debated in this or another House of Parliament. In passing, however, I would suppose that it would not be within the power of this House, or of another House, to debate that question without the express permission of the Sovereign, having regard to the fact (I may be wrong in this) that the appointment of Earl Marshal is a matter which would clearly fall within the Royal Prerogative and, therefore, the Royal permission would be required for it to be debated. But that is not a matter which is immediately before your Lordships' House at the moment.

243
I wish only to make this observation. The noble Viscount knows as well as anyone else that this is not the only hereditary office within this Realm and in our Constitution which one section or other of our countrymen may find it difficult to accept in toto, but which all sections seem to combine in saying works pretty well on the whole. I would therefore hope that not only the noble Viscount opposite but his friends in another place also would be willing when the time came to allow the office of Earl Marshal, of the holder of which we speak this afternoon, as he has spoken, quite impersonally, to join that long list of offices, institutions and customs that may not be always completely defensible in theory, but are always eminently defensible in practice and which cumulatively add up to a volume of tradition and history that are, I think, the envy of the more intelligent citizens of the world. That is all that I would wish to say, because I do not think that the noble Viscount wishes to invite us to a general debate. I would hope that your Lordships, in the light of both the noble Viscount's speech and that which I have ventured to make, would allow the Bill to have a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a.

USE OF DRUGS FOR MEDICAL PURPOSES
2.43 p.m.
THE EARL OF CRAVEN: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will consider, in the light of conditions arising out of Dr. Adams's case, whether or not the time is appropriate for a review of the laws relating to the use of drugs for medical purposes.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (LORD STRATHCLYDE): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government do not consider it appropriate to circumscribe the clinical freedom of doctors to treat their patients in accordance with their individual judgment except in so far as a doctor's authority to possess or prescribe dangerous drugs may be withdrawn, after conviction of an offence under the Dangerous Drugs Act, as may happen at present.
THE EARL OF CRAVEN: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply. There is a further question which I should like to ask him: Are Her Majesty's Government prepared to sanction euthanasia in any form? Are Her Majesty's Government aware that an answer to this question would give relief to a great many people in this country?
LORD STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, I think that that is a completely different question from that which appears on the Order Paper, and I would ask for notice before I answer it.

THE COLONIAL OFFICE
2.44 p.m.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of the mounting unpopularity in so many directions of the term "colonialism" and its implications, they will now consider revision of the name "Colonial Office" for some other designation, such as "Office of Overseas Territories".]
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COLONIAL AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF PERTH): My Lords. I feel inclined to answer:
" What's in a name? that which we call a rose By any other name would smell as sweet."
We believe in our colonialism. It is its very success which makes our enemies try to run it down by pouring scorn on the word.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his reply, which in itself suggests that the offices would be as well discharged under any other name. Arising out of the noble Earl's Answer, may I ask him whether he is able to state what was the date after the passing of the Statute of Westminster when the name of the Dominions Office was changed to Commonwealth Relations Office?
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, I am afraid that I do not know the date. I will look it up and let the noble Lord know, if that will satisfy him.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, may I ask a further supplementary question? I agree with the noble Earl that we have nothing to apologise about in relation to our colonial policy, but I sympathise with the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, about the obsolescence (if I may put it that way) of the terminology of "colonialism", which leads to misunderstanding in various parts of the world. Therefore I hope That the noble Earl will consider the noble Lord's suggestion. I offer, as a possible alternative to "Office of Overseas Territories," the title of "Commonwealth Territories Office", to emphasise the fact that the colonies are part of the Commonwealth, of which eventually they will become equal members. I would suggest that the noble Earl should give serious consideration to the noble Lord's proposal.
LORE SALTOUN: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether it is not the case that great offence is often caused in the Dominions by loose references in both Houses of Parliament to them as "colonies"?
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, certainly at the appropriate time, if it comes, we will give due consideration to the views expressed by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and also to the point raised by my noble friend.

RUSSIA AND THE MIDDLE EAST
2.47 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether their attention has been drawn to a report in the New York Herald Tribune of April 20, stating that aviation-training teams from the Soviet Union are arriving in Syria regularly on a six-week rotation system from the Caucasus, and that the aeroplanes carrying them are photographing strategic areas in Iran and Iraq, and to ask further whether Her Majesty's Government can make any statement on the progress of the build-up of Communist armaments in Egypt and Syria with the purpose of destroying Israel and assisting pro-Communist revolutionary action in the oil-producing Arab States.]
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS AND LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE EARL OF HOME): My Lords, I have seen the report referred to by my noble friend Lord Dundee. Her Majesty's Government believe that military technicians and advisers have been arriving in Syria over the past few months from the Soviet bloc to train the Syrian forces in the use of equipment with which they have been supplied. They have, however, no evidence to confirm specifically that aviation-training teams are arriving by air from the Soviet Union on a six-week rotation system, or that strategic areas of Iran and Iraq are being photographed by aircraft transporting such teams.
As regards supplies of Communist arms to Egypt and Syria, as is now generally known, Egypt had received from the Soviet bloc by the end of October, 1956, military equipment to an estimated value of between £120 million and £150 million. Similarly, Syria by the same date had received military equipment to a value of about £20 million. The equipment supplied covered The entire range of Egypt's and Syria's military requirements, including naval vessels, aircraft, tanks and other armoured vehicles, artillery, small arms, motor vehicles and ancillary equipment, together with ammunition and the necessary spare parts. Subsequent to the Suez crisis, in which Egypt lost a considerable quantity of the arms supplied to her from the Soviet bloc, Soviet ships were widely reported to have resumed deliveries of military equipment to both Egypt and Syria. Shipments to Syria were certainly resumed in December; shipments to Egypt were reported to have begun again by February, at least, if not earlier. Her Majesty's Government are not in a position to confirm these reports of renewed deliveries to Egypt but, equally, they have no reason to doubt them.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, my noble friend has been good enough to give figures up to October of the arms supplied which have since been largely captured by the Israelis. May I ask whether Her Majesty's Government can confirm or deny the reports in the American Press to the effect that within the last few months the Egyptian Army hail been supplied with so many Stalin tanks

247
and MiG aircraft that its strength is now about equal to what it was in October, before the Israeli action? And would it be possible for Her Majesty's Government to represent to our American friends that their diplomatic support of Colonel Nasser is greatly strengthening pro-Communist elements in the Middle East, and particularly at this moment in Jordan?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, as I said in the last sentence of my reply, Her Majesty's Government are not in a position either to confirm or to deny these reports. We do not know the details of the arms shipments, although we know that some arms are going into both countries. So far as our ability to tell America frankly what we feel about the rôle America has played and may play in the Middle East is concerned, I think my noble friend can rest assured that that was done at the Bermuda meeting.
LORD WINSTER: My Lords, may I ask whether this does not look like part of the new Soviet technique of sending the weapons and equipment into a country in advance, and then, as occasion may arise later, sending in the army to operate those weapons and that equipment?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, that has been the Soviet technique. It is exactly that technique against which we reacted so strongly in October, on which occasion I wish that we had had more support from a greater number of people.
LORD KILLEARN: My Lords, I should like to know whether the answer the noble Earl gave to the first supplementary question does not show an absence of intelligence as to what has gone into those countries in recent months? Does it not show that our Intelligence Service is perhaps a little at fault?
THE EARL OF HOME: No, my Lords. It only shows that the Government are prudent in giving what news they can.

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (SUPERANNUATION) (ENGLAND AND SCOTLAND) (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS, 1957
2.51 p.m.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, I beg to move that the Draft National Health Service (Superannuation) (England and Scotland) (Amendment) Regulations, 1957, reported from the Special Orders Committee on the 17th April, be approved. The sole purpose of these somewhat complicated Regulations is to bring up to date the existing provisions for the movement of staff, with preservation of their superannuation rights, between the Scottish and English Health Services, and also for interchange between the respective Health Services and the local government and teaching services in either country.
The original Interchange Regulations were made in 1948. Since then there have been numerous changes in the principal Superannuation Regulations which were consolidated in 1955, and there have also been substantial changes in local government superannuation law in recent years. These Draft Regulations contain no departures from the principles laid down in the original (1948) Regulations and are purely consequential on the changes I have indicated. I beg to move that the Regulations be approved.
Moved, That the Draft National Health Service (Superannuation) (England and Scotland) (Amendment) Regulations, 1957, reported from the Special Orders Committee on the 17th of April, be approved.—(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (SCOTLAND) REGULATIONS, 1957
LORD STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, I beg to move that the Representation of the People (Scotland) Regulations, 1957, reported from the Special Orders Committee on April 17 be approved, These Regulations, which amend the Representation of the People (Scotland) Regulations, 1950, result from alterations in registration areas and in the qualifications for the local government franchise which come into effect from the 16th May next under the Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act, 1956.
As regards registration areas, at present every county or large burgh in Scotland has its own assessor, and "registration area" is accordingly defined in the 1950 Regulations as a county or large burgh. The 1956 Act, however, provides that valuation areas will, from the 16th May, be counties of cities and counties, and Regulation 4 of the new Regulations makes the consequential alteration in the definition of a "registration area".
As regards local government franchise, the present position is that a person has a non-residential qualification to vote at a local government election if he is the owner or the occupier as tenant of any property of more than £10 a year in value. As a result of the abolition of owners' rates, the 1956 Act restricts as from May 16 the qualification to persons occupying as owner or tenant any such property. This change involves changes in certain of the forms used in connection with the registration of electors, and Regulations 3, 5, 6 and 7 make the necessary alterations. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Representation of the People (Scotland) Regulations, 1957, reported from the Special Orders Committee on April 17, be approved.—(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.