Lords Sitting of 24 July 1958

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers
  BRITISH TRANSPORT COMMISSION BILL
  Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
  TEES VALLEY AND CLEVELAND WATER BILL
  Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

  SERVICE MEN'S WIVES' VOTES
  3.7 p.m.
  THE EARL OF LUCAN: 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 what proportion of the wives of personnel of the Royal Navy, Army and Royal Air Force respectively, living with their husbands abroad, are registered as Service voters.]
  THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD MANCROFT): My Lords, about 40 per cent. of the wives of members of the Army and Royal Air Force living with their husbands abroad are registered as Service voters. In the case of the Royal Navy, the proportion of the wives living overseas who have registered is not readily available. The regulations of the three Services provide proper facilities for registration. Wives going abroad are given a declaration form to enable them to register as a Service voter, and the form explains what they must do.
  It would, I think, be difficult for us to do much more than this. If, however, the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, has any particular case in mind in which there has been difficulty, I should be glad if he would let me know in order that I may investigate it.
  THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord, though,
  168
  without any great enthusiam, for the reply he has given, I must ask him whether Her Majesty's Government are satisfied with the situation disclosed, whereby 60 per cent. of those wives are without their vote.
  LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, may I ask one further question? In the case of wives abroad who are under age, are there any facilities for them to acquire voting rights when they are abroad, or must they come home first?
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I think the difficulty here is that you can take a declaration form to a Service wife, but you cannot make her sign it. As to the Service wives who are under age, I believe that arrangements are made for the necessary forms to be given to them when they come of age. I should like to confirm that, if I may, and tell the noble Lord whether I am right or wrong.
  LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, at what stage is this official form sent to the wife before she proceeds overseas? May I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that the wife will be presented with a document containing at least three pages of close print of a technical character? Would the noble Lord not agree that it is highly possible that the wife may not understand what she is required to do and, therefore, may not fill in the form? Would the noble Lord ask the Minister whether some greater assistance could be given to the wives prior to embarkation to fill in these forms?
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords a Service declaration form is sent, with other documents, to every Service man's wife when she is about to proceed overseas to join her husband. I know that in many cases commanding officers make it their duty to explain to Service wives what the form involves and what their rights, and possibly their obligations, are. It may be that that explanation is not sufficiently widespread, and not in sufficiently simple terms. I will look into that point, and if there is any improvement that can possibly be made in that respect I will see whether it can be done.
  LORD DYNEVOR: My Lords, can the noble Lord say how many of the 60 per cent. unregistered wives are, in fact, under twenty-one?
  LORD MANCROFT: No, my Lords.
  THE EARL, or LUCAN: My Lords, would the Minister say whether there is any reason why units should not be required to make an annual check of wives serving under their command overseas and render a certificate as to the numbers who have registered? That is done in the case of men serving overseas. Why should it not also be done in the case of the wives, because it would give them a second chance of obtaining their vote?
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I am not quite certain that I understand what sort of check the noble Earl wants made. An inquiry is made, because it is upon the results of that inquiry that the figures I have given the noble Lord are based. Whether that inquiry is sufficiently far-reaching I should have to find out. I think we must be careful here. The liberty of the subject is slightly involved. If the Service wives do not wish to register, I do not think we can go a long way out of our way to make them register. If a Service wife misunderstands what she has to do, and would like to register but has not done so, that is a different matter.
  THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, the noble Lord has given no evidence that it is because of unwillingness to register that there is this large total of non-voters. Would he not agree that it is the responsibility of the Service Departments to ensure that the right given to soldiers' wives by Parliament is not taken away from them?
  LORD MANCROFT: Yes, I would cordially agree with that. As I have told the noble Earl, so far as I know most commanding officers of units go out of their way to see that the right to vote in this way is brought to the notice of Service wives. I do not think the large percentage—I must confess a surprisingly large percentage—of the number of people who do not register is due in any way to negligence on the part of commanding officers. What it is due to, I should not like to guess.
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, is it not important for all Parties represented in the country to try to get the maximum possible vote in an Election, and for those votes to include, so far as possible, all those in the Services who want to vote?
  170
  I am disturbed to hear that the noble Lord is not able to give comparative figures for the Royal Navy as in the case of the other Services. I do not understand why that should be so. Could we be assured that the noble Lord will obtain the same kind of information for us in respect of the Navy as he has for the other Services?
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, the reason why the Royal Navy is unable to provide figures is that there is no central machinery for keeping a record of forms forwarded; nor have the naval authorities been instructed to make returns on this subject. Why they are not instructed to make these returns available is perhaps something which the noble Viscount, as an ex-First Lord, would know better than I.
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am quite sure that while I was there we did all we could to see that they had the facilities. Since the matter has been raised by some people who think that they have not had the full facilities, I think some step should be taken to get information from overseas naval stations.
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, the noble Viscount will remember that it is much more difficult to collect this information from the Navy than from the other two Services. At a rough guess, I should imagine that the proportion is roughly the same. If the noble Viscount would like that information gathered, I will see if that can be done.
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Yes, please.

  FORESTRY POLICY
  EARL DE LA WARR: 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 if they are in a position to make a statement on forestry policy.]
  THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (LORD STRATHCLYDE): My Lords, with the permission of the House I propose to make a statement on forestry policy shortly after half

  171
  past three. Accordingly, I should be obliged if the noble Earl would await that statement.

  MEDICAL ACT, 1956 (AMENDMENT) BILL
  House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
  Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of July 21), Bill read 3a, and passed.

  SLAUGHTERHOUSES BILL
  3.13 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
  EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I recognise that this measure does not receive the full approval of the noble Lords who sit opposite, but I hope they will agree that it takes us an important stage on in legislation dealing with this highly important subject. During the Second Reading and in Committee certain criticisms were made of the Bill. We have tried to deal with them fairly and conscientiously. One question was whether lairages were part of a slaughterhouse for the purposes of the Factories Acts. Fortunately, on this matter we have been able to get an Amendment agreed to by both sides. In addition a few drafting and clarifying Amendments have been accepted.
  The noble Lord, Lord Faringdon, also expressed anxiety lest the introduction of the freedom period would adversely affect the hygienic production of meat. We understand but, frankly, do not share the noble Lord's anxiety. Considerable changes are taking place in the meat industry, and there is a role that can now be filled by the modern larger type of slaughterhouse. We believe that this period of freedom will make it easier for traders to provide, subject to planning permission being obtained, new and better slaughterhouses in the districts which best suit the needs of their individual businesses.
  This does not mean that smaller slaughterhouses cannot be satisfactory or that they will not continue to exist. On the contrary, we think that they can and
  172
  will continue to serve a useful function, particularly in the less densely populated areas. But we recognise that there are older slaughterhouses which cannot readily or economically be made to conform with the new standards which are to be introduced. They will be replaced by new premises, often on new and more suitable sites. It is in assisting this transition from the old to the new that the freedom period will play a useful part. We believe that some of the older less satisfactory slaughterhouses will be replaced by a smaller number of new premises which will conform at once to the new standards. We are also convinced that the new standards will considerably help local authorities in their task of safeguarding the public health, and will result in more satisfactory conditions at slaughterhouses for meat inspection. We have not forgotten those local authorities who have provided public slaughterhouses. They will still, with the Minister's approval, be able to restrict the use of private slaughterhouses in their districts, but only so long as, broadly speaking, they maintain public facilities which are fully adequate for the needs of traders.
  We believe that under the provisions of the Bill we shall go forward towards the aim that is shared by all of us: to the slaughter of stock in humane conditions, to the improvement in the standards of hygiene in the production of meat, and to the provision of satisfactory conditions for the workers employed in slaughterhouses. We think that this Bill will enable these aims to be achieved by a process of steady development and without the need for an arbitrary limit on the number of slaughterhouses or the central planning of their location. This Bill is designed to help the meat industry forward in ways that are suitable to the industry's present-day requirements. It is in that spirit that I commend the Bill to the House for Third Reading. I beg to move.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Earl St. Aldwyn.)
  3.17 p.m.
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I should not have wished to trouble your Lordships to-day on this Bill but for the fact that my noble friend Lord Faringdon has had to go to a business appointment abroad, and

  173
  at the present time should be in South America. I do not know whether he will be able to see slaughterhouse facilities there. I should like to say a word of thanks to him personally for the work he put in on this Bill.
  I am bound to say that whilst, of course, we have no objection to the points here and there in the Bill which perhaps justify the noble Earl in saying that it is part of the process of progress in slaughterhouse facilities, we are exceedingly disappointed with the Bill as a whole in relation to its provisions. We have some doubts what attitude certain types of administration will adopt in respect of a local authority area in which a good slaughterhouse facility has already been provided, and its continuance in that respect may be subject to the approval of the Ministry, although I am quite sure that a local authority which has had experience of providing modern up-to-date public service to the community in a municipal slaughterhouse would not be so unwise as not to enlarge it or develop it in a way that would meet the increasing demands of an increasing population. I wonder why these words have been included in the Statute. However we shall have to wait and see how that works out.
  Of course, it is exceedingly disappointing find that all the work that was put in, both here and in the other place, to try to get the Government to deal with the question of slaughterhouses attached to private dwelling-houses has not had better success. In these days it seems to me almost unthinkable that we should contemplate having a slaughterhouse attached to a dwelling-house. Of course, all the references in the Bill to the exact position of the slaughterhouse within the particular curtilage, as to whether it is going to be approved or not, mean that what happens will depend almost entirely on the attitude of the particular local authority, on whatever spirit they have, whether progressive or reactionary. In the light of our known experience in times of emergency, when, owing to the circumstances of the emergency, we had to close compulsorily large numbers of slaughterhouses of the smaller kind (we had to close some of them which were not inefficient; that I recognise), it seems to me that there is no doubt at all that the concentration of the distribution of the slaughtered meat from the control points
  174
  set up was very useful indeed. What is more, it meant that it was far easier, with the limited staff available, from the point of view of meat inspection as a whole, to have the meat properly inspected.
  I was very concerned on the Report stage to have the figures given by the noble Earl, which showed that by no means all the meat concerned was certain to be inspected. I might reiterate what my noble friend Lord Faringdon said upon the Report stage: that there was no proof at all that there was a double check, something which is very desirable if it can be obtained, so that there is proper inspection, from the human consumption point of view, of animals both on the hoof and in the carcase. That is not provided for in the Bill in any way.
  I could quite easily go on and speak about other details of the Bill, but there are other matters to come before your Lordships' House, and I know that at this stage I can do nothing to amend the Bill. But I should be quite false to our principles if I did not express disappointment that, with a Bill which purports to make considerable progress in this matter, we should have so little achievement of the progressive desires that we have set for procedure in this particular sphere of public service. Whatever Government may be in office in the near future, in the next year or two, I hope that they will pay some attention to the need for developing a widespread public service of slaughterhouses, or equally good slaughterhouses, which may be provided not by small individual businesses so difficult to cover by inspection, but by collective slaughterhouses, by co-operative or farmers' or producers' undertakings, so that they can fit into the whole scheme of things. I, am sorry that we have not been able to obtain more concessions from the Government.
  LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, so far as I have been able to inform myself about the slaughterhouse business, it seems to me that the high standards of British slaughterhouses have been achieved and set by quite small slaughterhouses, run by special suppliers supplying selected customers who run catering businesses and who cater for holidaymakers and visitors from abroad. Moreover, these small slaughterhouses are far easier to inspect efficiently than the large municipal slaughterhouses, and the inspectors

  175
  find it much easier to insist on a high standard. I should be very sorry if there is any hostility by noble Lords opposite to the smaller slaughterhouses as such, and I therefore feel that I ought to put in a word at this stage to that effect.
  On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

  STATE OF SINGAPORE BILL
  3.24 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COLONIAL AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF PERTH): My Lords, I have it in Command from Her Majesty The Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty places Her prerogative and interest, so far as concern the matters dealt with by the State of Singapore Bill, at the disposal of Parliament.
  This Bill is an enabling Bill; that is to say it gives Parliamentary sanction to an Order in Council to provide for the establishment of the State of Singapore and for the peace, order and good government thereof. Before touching on these matters it is the custom—and I think a very good custom—to go back into history and briefly survey progress since the time when the territory became a British responsibility.
  For Singapore we have to go back 140 years. To be precise, on February 6, 1819, Raffles, who was then Lieutenant Governor of Bencoolen, in Sumatra, signed a treaty with the Sultan of Johore Lingga and with the Malay Governor of the island, which provided for the building of a British factory in Singapore. At the time it was a petty fishing village, its early history as a strong fort and city in the 13th and 14th centuries having given place to complete decay. Wa Hakim, a fifteen-year old Malay who saw Raffles land on Singapore Island, wrote later:
  " At the time when Tuan Raffles came here there were under 100 small houses and huts at the mouth of the river."
  The population at that time of a mere 150 became 10,000 within five years. By the end of the century it was 200,000;
  176
  now it is over 1½ million—Singapore is about the size of the Isle of Wight. Of the people of Singapore, the great majority, about 85 per cent., are of the Chinese race.
  The reason for the astonishing growth of Singapore lies in the fact that it is a free port, strategically placed to serve the Far East. The proof of this is the volume of trade to-day, which is nearly 6,000 million Straits dollars or, in sterling,£700 million. Of course, Singapore owes a great debt to its industrious and skilful citizens. Of its individuals, apart from Raffles, who laid its foundations so brilliantly and so imaginatively, whether for town planning or education or good government. I would mention only Mr. Ridley. Many of your Lordships will remember that he fathered the rubber industry which has revolutionised the world, a revolution which he lived to see, for he died, aged 101, only two years ago. The Straits Settlements, of which Singapore was a part, became a Crown Colony ninety years ago. After the First World War Singapore became a first-class naval base. Since then there has been its conquest by the Japanese, and its liberation in 1945. These things are too well remembered to need mention in detail now. But I would remark how brave and loyal were many of its citizens during the occupation and how fabulous has been its reconstruction and development since then.
  So much for the "bare bones" of Singapore's history. Let me now turn to the constitutional side, with which we are to-day particularly concerned. In 1946, on its detachment from the Straits Settlements, Singapore became a separate Colony and a Constitution was granted which introduced elected members into the Legislative Council and a few years later, into the Executive Council. In 1953 a mission was sent out, under Sir George Rendel, to advise on further constitutional development. The sequel in 1955 was a Legislative Assembly larger than in earlier Constitutions, which was in greater part elected by universal adult suffrage. There was a Council of Ministers, of which the majority were drawn from elected members of the Legislative Assembly, one being the Chief Minister.
  Broadly speaking, the democratic form of this Constitution is not to be changed under the proposed new Constitution,

  177
  except in the important respect that the powers of the Singapore Government will be greater, and those of the United Kingdom less. Singapore will be responsible for all internal matters, and the United Kingdom for defence and foreign affairs, though even here it may delegate some of its powers. In taking on this responsibility the Singapore Government has willingly worked out with us several important steps to ensure peace, order and good government. The Judiciary and the Public Service are to be independent, and that will be stated in the Constitution. It is clearly of great importance that expatriate officers are encouraged to stay until Malayanisation is possible. A plan has been worked out to compensate them for loss of career at that time. This plan has been made effective in the Retirement from the Public Service (Compensation) Ordinance, 1956, which, together with the Public Service Commission Ordinance of the same year, came into effect on January 1, 1957. In order to ensure that these assurances are binding on future Singapore Governments, those concerned have readily agreed to their being enshrined in the Constitution Order in Council.
  I have talked about those concerned, and of course I have particularly in mind the delegations led by my friend, Mr. Lim Yew Hock, last year and this. I should like here to pay my tribute to him and to all the other members, whether of their Government or of their Opposition. I have had the happy experience of taking part in constitutional talks with these delegates, and while, naturally, there has been some straight talking, questioning and worrying-out of answers to difficult mutual problems, the meetings were always constructive and were based on trust. Those words, "based on trust", hold the key to what is by far the most important issue which these conferences had to face and to settle. That is, how best to reconcile the wish of the people of Singapore to have self government with the essential need of Her Majesty's Government to retain adequate rights to ensure the defence of Singapore and have the use of it as a base in troublesome times.
  The solution which was threshed out is along the following lines. Singapore is to have virtual self-government in home affairs, including internal security, while Her Majesty's Government will control
  178
  defence and foreign affairs. Clearly, in these two fields there may be quite a measure of overlap, and in recognition of this inter-relationship between internal security and defence and external affairs an Internal Security Council is to be set up. Its composition will be equal numbers for Singapore and the United Kingdom and one member of the Federation of Malaya. This Council will be able, if need arise—though I hope, and expect, that this will be very rare—to settle by majority vote decisions on internal security matters; and those will be binding on the Singapore Government. It may well be that there will be honest differences of opinion between ourselves and Singapore as to whether a particular question is defence (or external affairs) or an internal matter, and if such should arise the Internal Security Council will have the competence to decide where the matter lies.
  The rôle of the Federation of Malaya in this Council is clearly a most responsible one, and we and Singapore are under a very real obligation to the Federation, and particularly to the Government of Tunku Abdul Rahman, for helping us to an agreement on what is a central feature of the new Constitution. But again I would stress that the solution is based on trust and on the belief that the democratic way of life is best, and that we and the citizens of Singapore share and will continue to share this belief. On our part it has needed some pretty severe heart-searching to reach this conclusion. The majority of the citizens of Singapore are, as I have said Chinese, and naturally some of them still feel the attraction of China. But we believe in these citizens and we believe that giving them liberty to tackle on their own, their own affairs is the best way to ensure that they will act responsibly and fairly and will succeed in defending their way of life against the Communist threat.
  To all this we have made only one qualification on which I must now touch, as it is the only issue on which we and Singapore have differed. Her Majesty's Government have insisted that persons in detention known to have engaged in subversive activity shall not be eligible I to stand for election to the first Legislative Assembly under the new Constitution. We are determined that the

  179
  new Constitution shall get off to a fair start and not be jeopardised by the interference of those who we know have in their mind the overthrow of the Constitution and the way of life of free peoples.
  Before leaving the field of Constitution I should perhaps also mention that it always remains open to Her Majesty's Government to suspend the Constitution, but this is a last resort not easily to be contemplated, for it would be a confession of failure to work together and the failure of our trust. I confidently hope, as I am sure we all do, that this failure will not occur. So much for the Constitution.
  There are just two further matters which I should mention. One of these is citizenship. The people of Singapore are to have their own Commonwealth citizenship. The other point is the change of name to the State of Singapore. This change shows to all the world that Singapore is far on the road to self-government. And should there come a day when she and her close neighbour, the Federation of Malaya, wish to join together in one nation, that is a step which we would gladly consider.
  The Bill itself is necessary as it involves the surrender of some of the powers at present conferred on Her Majesty by Act of Parliament, and the amendment of other Acts of Parliament. It has only one main clause, in which there are four subsections. Subsection (1) enables Her Majesty to set up a new Constitution—whose main features I have outlined—by Order in Council, and provides that Singapore shall become the State of Singapore. Furthermore Singapore citizens shall be recognised as British subjects and Commonwealth citizens. Subsection (2) provides for the surrender of Her Majesty's powers to make Orders in Council under certain existing Acts. Subsection (3) lays down that the Order in Council for the Constitution may be revoked or amended only as detailed in the Constitution. Subsection (4) enables consequential and transitional provisions to be made by Order in Council.
  So we come to Clause 2 and the Short Title of the Act "The State of Singapore Act, 1958". But I prefer, my Lords, the Long Title which is to "Provide for the Establishment of the State of Singa-
  180
  pore and for the peace, order and good government thereof ". My belief and hope is that what has been worked out will help achieve just this purpose. I am encouraged in believing this by what I have seen of Singapore and its people, and I know I echo all your wishes in wishing them well. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Perth.)

  FORESTRY
  3.40 p.m.
  THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE, (LORD STRATHCLYDE): My Lords, may I, with the permission of the House, make a statement on forestry similar to that which is now being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food?
  In accordance with the statement which was made in your Lordships' House in October, 1957, the Government have carried out a review of forestry policy. In the light of current conditions—strategic, economic, agricultural and social—they have reached the following conclusions. The planting programmes of the Forestry Commission should be fixed for periods of ten years at a time. For the five-year period 1959 to 1963 the programme will be about 300,000 acres which allows for some increase over the present annual rate of planting. For the period 1964 to 1968 the planting programme will be reduced to about 235,000 acres, when the Forestry Commission's existing plantations will begin to come into full production.
  The size of the subsequent programmes should be reviewed in five years' time in the light of the national needs. In deciding where planting shall take place special attention will be paid to the upland areas, particularly in Scotland and Wales, where expansion of forestry would provide needed diversification of employment and important social benefits.
  So far as private forestry is concerned, the Government propose to continue their support to private woodland owners, particularly through the dedication scheme. The present maintenance grant of 5s, 6d. per acre will be replaced by a management grant of 18s, Od. per acre on the

  181
  first 100 acres, 12s. 0d. per acre on the next 100 acres and 7s. 0d. per acre on the remainder. This will substantially increase the value of the grants, particularly on the smaller woodlands. Secondly, the planting grant will be continued; but for approved woodlands it will be raised from one-half to the full rate per acre. These increased grants are contingent on the formation of an effective Woodland Owners' Association as recommended by the Watson Committee. Thirdly, the grants for thinning and poplar planting will be terminated.
  The new structure of grants will be reviewed in five years' time. In reviewing in future years the level of grants, consideration will be given not only to trends in costs but also to trends in receipts for private woodlands as a whole. As production from private woods taken as a whole—and thus the income of private owners as a body—rises, the level of assistance needed by way of planting and management grants will fall. Eventually—in, say, twenty or thirty years' time—it should become nominal.
  The system of felling licences will be continued. In present circumstances it does not seem necessary to continue to fix a quota for the total annual felling, but the licensing system will be continued though with some relaxations. A statutory instrument will be made so that fellings in dedicated woodlands will no longer require a licence. In addition, licences will in general be freely granted for other fellings, subject to the existing arrangements for consultation with planning authorities. In order, however, to provide against the undesirable exploitation of woodland areas the licences will normally have a condition attached requiring restocking. And licences for thinning or selective felling will not be granted where they would in effect permit exploitation without restocking.
  The Government recognise the importance to the forestry industry of an efficient home-grown timber trade. They believe that the measures now announced will be welcomed by the trade as well as by woodland owners, and will help both to plan ahead with confidence.
  LORD SILKIN: My Lords, we are much obliged to the noble Lord for his statement. He must not expect, if he is riot subjected to detailed questions on it at this stage, that that is an indication
  182
  either of approval or of disapproval of what he has said. But I should like to ask him whether he can give any estimate as to what this is going to cost, if anything, over and above what we are spending at the present time on forestry?
  LORD REA: My Lords, may I supplement the noble Lord's question by asking whether it would not be better in such cases that Parliament should have some opportunity of considering such a widespread increase in the present scheme? I congratulate the Government on what appears to be a great improvement in forestry arrangements, but it is a very wide scheme. I agree that the Forestry Commission exist to do this sort of thing, but it affects a large number of owners, and I should have thought that Parliament would have welcomed an opportunity to consider this scheme before it is put into effect.
  LORD STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, the amended grant and increase in planting grant to approved woodland owners will cost about£180,000 a year; the thinning grant, now being abolished, about£50,000 in 1957.
  LORD DYNEVOR: My Lords, may I ask two questions arising out of the full statement which the noble Lord has given to your Lordships' House? The first is: is it envisaged in this new programme to reach the figure of 5 million acres contemplated as being under forestry by the end of this century? That has been the target of Her Majesty's Government. The second question is with reference to paying special attention to upland areas in Scotland and Wales. Is it proposed to proceed by compulsory purchase in this direction or to continue by negotiated acquisition of land?
  LORD STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, in reply to the first question of the noble Lord, I think that to try to set targets so far ahead as 2000 A.D. is not realistic.
  LORD DYNEVOR: My Lords, it is only about forty years ahead.
  LORD STRATHCLYDE: It is much more sensible, I should have thought, to review the whole position, as now proposed, at ten-yearly intervals. The proposals so far as woodland owners are concerned are to encourage satisfactory forestry development. In reply to the

  183
  noble Lord's second question, I should hope that compulsion would not be necessary.
  EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Rea, referred to the considerable increase in the scope of assistance to forestry. For the purpose of accuracy, may I say that I think I am right in assuming from the noble Lord's reply that in fact it represents a reduction in the overall planting programme as anticipated. I would ask two further questions of the noble Lord. The first is: could we have assurances from the Government that the basis for holding the new type of review to which he has referred will be fully discussed and agreed with woodland owners; and, secondly, that when the time comes for holding the periodical review woodland owners will be afforded the opportunity of full discussion and participation in any discussions that there are? Also, I wonder whether the noble Lord could tell us whether this is the Government's final word in deciding to abolish the thinning and scrub clearance grants—I think it is only the thinning grant. Is that so?
  LORD STRATHCLYDE: The scrub clearance grant remains.
  EARL DE LA WARR: I am glad to hear that. I thank the noble Lord.
  THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether the Government are aware that it takes anything from 70 to 150 years before a tree is mature, and that the trees being planted now will not be half mature in the year 2000. Is he aware that it is a little difficult to carry out a long-term national forestry policy if Governments change their mind every five years, as was general between the wars? And could my noble friend say whether the Government are still of the opinion that homegrown timber is necessary to Great Britain on strategic and on economic grounds, as every Government always thinks during and for a few years after every national emergency; or whether the Government now feels that home grown timber is of little strategic or economic importance, as every Government is apt to think about ten years after the end of an emergency and to go on thinking until the next emergency comes along, by which time even the trees planted
  184
  before the last emergency but three are not yet ready to be cut?
  LORD STRATHCLYDE: In answer to the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, the Forestry Commission will consult with the woodland owners. I realise the difficulties to which the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, refers, but I said that the review was to be at ten-yearly intervals, and I would inform him that, in relation to strategic needs, it would be rather a bold person who would care to prophesy as to the course of any future war. In regard to economic grounds, the Government realise the importance of homegrown timber to the balance of payments. The value of imports of timber and timber products amounted to over£300 million last year.
  THE EARL OF DUNDEE: The value of home-grown timber will be immeasurably greater when the Forestry Commission's woods come into full production.
  THE EARL OF HADDINGTON: Would the noble Lord be good enough to tell us what action, if any, is going to be taken by the Government in regard to the recommendations made in the Report of the Hedgerow, Farm and Timber Committee presided over by the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, which was submitted some two years ago, remembering particularly how very much hedgerow and farm timber is now being felled to the general detriment of the countryside, and also what a very large proportion of the country's total volume of timber is represented in the hedgerows?
  LORD STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, we do not propose to go further than I have indicated in the statement that I have just made.
  VISCOUNT ELIBANK: May I ask a question touching on the point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Dundee? The noble Lord has told us that the grants are to be for five-year periods. Are the Forestry Commission satisfied that this five-year period is a sufficient length of time before dropping the grants for the second period?
  LORD STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, the Forestry Commission have been consulted, and agree with the statement that I have made.
  EARL WINTERTON: Might I ask the Minister a question which he may feel

  185
  is rather a delicate one to answer? It arises out of the remarks made by my noble friend Lord Dundee, who drew attention to the fact that, of all industries, forestry is, so to speak, the most long-term one. In the past there have been a great many variations in policy. Has this policy been discussed in any way, formally or informally, with the Labour Opposition? Is there reason to believe that it can be adopted as a national policy?
  LORD STRATHCLYDE: I am not aware that any discussions of that nature have taken place.
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: We might be very much in favour of such an arrangement. We should have to examine everything very carefully front the landlords' point of view.

  STATE OF SINGAPORE BILL
  3.55 p.m.
  Debate resumed.
  LORD OGMORE: My Lords, we on this side welcome the Bill and are grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Perth, for the care and detail with which he expounded it to us. The history of Singapore, at any rate in its recent development, goes back some 139 years, and almost overnight it grew from a sparse fishing settlement, first to a trading port and then to a political and economic centre wielding decisive influence over a vast area.
  The noble Earl did not mention in terms the long association between Singapore and Penang and Malacca, but this association was a happy one and a very close one. In the old days, Singapore used to refer to Malacca as "the sleepy hollow", and to Penang as "Palau Nanti Sekit", which means "The Isle of wait a little bit". They used to say that civil servants who went there became so fond of it that when promotion came up they said: "Wait a little bit: I will stay where I am." I cannot say here exactly what Penang and Malacca used to call Singapore, but perhaps the most polite terms were "brash" and "youthful". I think, however, that Sir Stamford Raffles' description of it was probably the most accurate when, in his prophetic way, he said that it would be
  186
  "a great commercial emporium and the fulcrum whence we may extend our influence politically, as circumstances may hereafter require."
  That was not a bad shot in the dark, in 1819, as to the future development of Singapore. It is also interesting to note that Raffles founded Singapore in the teeth not only of the East India. Company but also of the British Government at home; so it was, in fact, very much a personal decision on his part, and one from which not only we in this country but the world as a whole, have benefited very greatly as the years have gone by.
  The decision to cut off Singapore from its fellows, Penang and Malacca—and also, of course, from the mainland—was taken about 1943; at least, I first heard of it then: it may have been a little before that. At the same time, the Malayan Union was proposed of the rest of the peninsula of Malaya and Penang and Malacca, and a loose Federation of Malayan and Borneo territories, with a Governor General at the head of it. As the noble Earl has said, a great deal of water has flowed under the bridge at Johore Bahru since then; the Federation of Malaya is now an independent member of the Commonwealth, and the Governor General is no more. I feel that, in the long term, the destiny of Singapore must lie with the Federation and, possibly, in some loose connection between the Federation and the Borneo territories as well. I believe that the proposals in this Bill are wise. Some of them are not only wise but original, which is unusual. The Bill is one more example of the flexibility of the constitutional arrangements which it is possible to make in the British Commonwealth.
  The plan, as the noble Earl has described it, is in three parts. First of all, the self-government by the State in internal affairs; secondly, the exclusive responsibility of the United Kingdom for defence and foreign affairs; and, thirdly, internal security, which will be the responsibility of the Singapore Government but, because of its defence relationship, will involve the setting up of an Internal Security Council, consisting of three United Kingdom representatives, three Ministers from Singapore and (this is something very original) one Minister from the Federation of Malaya. The first and second of these, the internal

  187
  self-government and the responsibility of the United Kingdom for defence and foreign affairs, are common form. But the third part—that is to say, the Internal Security Council, on which not only Singapore and ourselves but also the Federation of Malaya are represented—is unorthodox and original, and I think has much to commend it. In the case of disagreement, presumably the Minister for the Federation will be in a decisive position. The Chairman has no casting vote, I understand, under the new order.
  The idea of the Head of State is also new and original, I think, and I commend it. He is to be called the Yang di-Pertuan Negara, which, roughly, means the "Head of State", and will be appointed by the Queen and will be Malayan-born—presumably of any race, provided that he has been born in the Federation or in Singapore. The representative of the United Kingdom will be a Commissioner appointed by the United Kingdom Government, who will have special concern with defence and foreign affairs.
  I think that our congratulations are due to the three Governments concerned. I would especially pick out, because they have had so much to do with it, Mr. Lennox-Boyd, Mr. Lim Yew Hock and my old friend Tunku Abdul Rahman. Tunku Abdul Rahman has only recently recovered from a serious illness and I hope that his health is improving. I should like to commiserate with him on the death of his brother, His Highness The Sultan of Kedah. It gives me great pleasure to congratulate Mr. Lennox-Boyd, because in regard to other parts of the Colonial Empire I have been, and still am, a somewhat sharp critic of his. But here in South East Asia he seems to have been able to flow with the prevailing tide: he has been able to fit himself into the mood of the moment in an extraordinarily happy way, and his touch has been just right all along during the last few years, as I have had every opportunity to observe. I suppose that no Secretary of State could have the temperament to fit in with all parts of the Colonial Empire, so varied are they; but so far as South East Asia is concerned Mr. Lennox-Boyd has certainly been very happy.
  The development of our relations with the peoples of India and Pakistan, South East Asia, the Far East, the Pacific and
  188
  Indian Oceans, West Africa, the West Indies and the Caribbean has on the whole been successful during the last few years, and we have had developments which have been a pattern to people everywhere. There is one problem that exercises me, however, to which I find it difficult to find an answer. Why is it that we have been able so successfully to come to terms with nationalism in all these parts of the world and yet have so signally failed to do so in the Middle East? This is not the time to investigate that problem, but I think that it deserves examination at some time.
  The background to this Bill is of armed conflict diminishing, but still not completely ended, on the mainland, much Communist influence in Singapore, a small island which, as the noble Earl has said, is the size of the Isle of Wight, with a population of 1½million, a volatile and inexperienced electorate and a standard of living which, for the East, is comparatively high. So there is a risk in what we are doing. But we live in a dangerous world and I, for my part, and my noble friends think that this risk is worthwhile.
  The only controversial question, as the noble Earl has said fairly, is the ban imposed by the United Kingdom Government, against the wishes of the Singapore Government, on the people known to have been engaged in subversive activities from standing for election to the first Assembly. I see the arguments for and against, but I think that it is a mistake to have this ban. If the people who have been engaged in subversive activities are so popular, then they will be elected at the second Election. If we are going to have trouble, we might as well have it now as defer it for a year or two. If they are not so popular, they will still have a powerful stick with which to beat the elected members, because they will say to the public, "If only we had been allowed to stand, these fellows would never have got in." So they will put the elected members in a difficult position. Here again there is a risk. But the whole thing is a risk; I think this is a risk worth taking, and that the Government would be wise to accede to Mr. Lim Yew Hock's request and allow those with qualifications to stand to do so.
  There are a few questions that I should like to ask the noble Earl—I have given

  189
  him notice of all but one, which occurred to me while he was speaking. First, what is to be the exact status of the State of Singapore within the Commonwealth? Is it to be in the same position as the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland? It will not be a fully independent member of the Commonwealth. Will the Head of State have the same access to the Sovereign as Governor-Generals elsewhere have? Will the United Kingdom representative be answerable to the Commonwealth Relations Office or to the Colonial Office? Who will look after the interests of United Kingdom citizens? Elsewhere I have found that when self-government is granted there is no one to look after the commercial and other interests of citizens from this country. When a State becomes fully independent, of course, this question does not arise, because the Commonwealth Relations Office appoints a High Commissioner and Commissioners, who are in fact Ambassador and Consuls; but where there is self-government without full independence there is no one in those positions and I think that that is a need which has to be filled.
  Then I would ask: When shall we see the two Orders in Council, the one constitutional and the other relating to the ban; and will they be laid before Parliament before we rise for the Summer Recess? From what the noble Lord has said—and this is the question of which I have not given him notice—I understand that the citizens of Singapore are to be British subjects and Commonwealth and Singapore citizens, and I assume that they will no longer be citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies. Finally, will the Government strongly advise the Government of Singapore, from experience in other parts of the world where this sort of development has occurred, not to be too hasty in getting rid of their expatriate advisers, technical and otherwise? Because until their own people are trained to take their place it is very expensive, and often unsatisfactory, to have to find substitutes for these expatriate officers. In conclusion, may I say that we on this side of the House wish the State of Singapore—the Lion City, as it is named—every success in 'her journey into time. May her future be one of peace, prosperity and happiness under God!
  4.10 p.m.
  LORD REA: My Lords, I cannot speak with anything like the experience of the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, who has made such peculiarly interesting remarks to-day on this Bill, for which we are greatly indebted to him; nor, indeed, can I know anything like as much about it as the noble Earl who introduced the Bill. However, like some Members of your Lordship's House I have had the pleasure and privilege of visiting this very pleasant island, and I wish, shortly, to add support to what the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, has said, and to join in congratulating the Minister. I hope that this new State of Singapore will enjoy prosperity and be an example to that difficult area in South-East Asia where indeed a new State can make or mar the future of many other of its neighbours.
  4.11 p.m.
  LORD MILVERTON: My Lords, in rising to support the Second Reading of this Bill, I should like to add my congratulations to the general chorus of approval which has been given to the imaginative optimism which lies behind these proposals. The Secretary of State for the Colonies and Mr. Lim Yew Hock, deserve, I suggest, the warmest congratulation on these results of their negotiations. The State of Singapore will of course come into being with the warmest good will of everyone in this country. I do not propose to weary your Lordships with a detailed examination of the proposals for which this is the enabling Bill, but they will give the State of Singapore as great a measure of internal self-government as its international importance in the realm of trade, commerce and defence will reasonably permit. As has been said, the constitutional arrangements are unique; but so are the circumstances in which this little island of 217 square miles has grown to its present population and importance. If I may say so, in passing, I am glad of the assurances that have been given about protection of minorities, and especially the assurances given as to the protection of the interests of members of Her Majesty's Overseas Service.
  I also welcome the arrangement whereby a representative of the Government of the Federation of Malaya will be given a seat on the internal security Council. The interests of the Federation

  191
  of Malaya and the new State of Singapore are so interlocked that this evidence of willing co-operation between the two Governments is a good augury for the future. But perhaps your Lordships will pardon me if I take one look into the future. I do not propose to make any prophecies, because, as we all know, prophesy is the most gratuitous form of human error. But in looking at this new State of Singapore, I naturally see it in its Malayan background. From a background of anarchy, chaos and bankruptcy in 1874 there arose in Malaya the richest country in the world for its size, and Singapore, as its chief port, became in an incredibly short time the seventh seaport in the world. It was my good fortune to work in this area from 1908 to 1933, and to serve in all the eight Malay States, as well as for five years in Singapore and for four years as Governor of North Borneo. Naturally, I see Singapore in that setting. Many of the problems of today, political, social and economic, arise from the breathless pace of the development which has taken place. As the Director of the International Labour Office once said:
  " Having an adequate revenue at its disposal, the Government of Malaya has been able to develop health and education to a point attained nowhere else in the East."
  It is true that that development was temporarily suspended and harmed by two world wars, but, none the less, that is the background which the people of the Malayan Peninsula have known.
  The mainland Malay States grew rich in tin and rubber and a whole range of agricultural products, while Singapore achieved immense prosperity on the trade not only of Malaya but also of the rich islands to the south and east. Its chief tradition has been that of a free port. Its population, as has been said, was and still is 85 per cent. Chinese, and it had none of the dynastic Malay attachment to a feudal past. The Federation of Malaya is now busy in trying to forge a nation out of the main racial ingredients of Malays, Chinese and Indians, and it has still many vital problems to settle. Singapore, on the other hand, is a great international centre—oil, air traffic, industries, rubber milling, tin smelting, engineering and wood-working, foundries, vehicle and ship repairing, saw mills, furnishing, breweries, biscuit factories
  192
  and factories for other food products, tailoring, shoemaking, soap, rubber goods and rattan products, and a mass of modern industry.
  One of the questions which a not too remote future must answer is that of the artificial separation of the Federation of Malaya and this State of Singapore. To look at one aspect of it, the Federation will need in the future all the business ability and the wisdom and knowledge of the technique of administration, as well as of business, which the Chinese citizens of Singapore might well help to supply. The statesmanship of Tunku Abdul Rahman and his colleagues, Malay, Chinese and India, inspires hope of success in welding together a new nation, while the courage and sense of responsibility of Mr. Lim Yew Hock, the Chief Minister of Singapore, cannot but excite admiration and hope for the future.
  But think, my Lords, of one of the main problems ahead of both of these countries. The population rate of increase in the Federation of Malaya is 3 per cent. per annum, and that in Singapore is 3½per cent. per annum, probably the biggest increase anywhere in the world. Think what a major problem that involves in education alone, when one half of the population is under twenty-one years of age. The problem set for the future is immense, and once more the key to it is the way in which education is going to be handled in this new State of Singapore, as well as in the Federation.
  There will be two Malayan Governments sharing a single economy closely and inevitably unified by the interlocking of trade and finance. It needs an effective focus of thinking, I suggest, for the Malayan economy as a whole, a centre in which the Federation and Singapore can be brought together in relation to many issues of economic policy which go far beyond mere monetary questions. Incidentally, that is why the International Bank Mission advocated the early formation of a Central Bank in Malaya. I am looking at this matter from a slightly different angle from previous speakers, because the economic background of this country is going to affect so much of its future. A restricted national income and a fast

  193
  growing population constitute a challenge to the future Governments of Malaya, and many of their questions will have to be looked at jointly if they wish to be successful in facing them.
  As I have said, there are two Malay Governments sharing a single economy which is closely and inevitably unified by the interlocking of trade and finance. In a common central bank may be found the only effective focus of thinking for the Malayan economy as a whole, a centre in which the Federation and Singapore can be brought together in relation to the many issues of economic policy which, although they involve monetary questions, go far beyond them. A central bank could make a great contribution as a centre for economic study and thinking about the course of development and the problems of this economy as a whole, and as a source of advice and guidance to both Governments. It has also been recommended by the International Mission that a specialised credit institution to serve both the Federation and Singapore in providing medium and long-term capital for private industrial enterprise should be instituted.
  The Mission pungently pointed out—and I think we should remember this background—that in its pre-war days Malaya in many respects was rather a geographical region, where capital and labour belonging to other economies found it convenient to carry on certain specialised operations within the British monetary as well as political framework. That situation to-day is quite different. Although many of the pre-war economic fixtures remain, Malaya—taking the Federation and Singapore together, as is inevitable in this context—is now a distinct national economy, with its own settled labour force, a wide and growing area of monetary transactions and of local capital and enterprise and indigenous banking system, and its own evolving political organs which must cope with Malayan economic problems from a Malayan viewpoint, which often has not been the case in the past. Above all, Malaya will have to think of its future development, not in terms of outside merchant mining and plantation capital arriving on a large scale to develop the economic opportunities in Malaya, but primarily in the terms of making the best use of domestic savings for the development of natural resources
  194
  of a modern domestic industry. This task requires a new emphasis on domestic financial facilities and monetary conditions to help channel savings into effective investment and to promote a favourable internal climate for steady economic development.
  In conclusion, I should like to mention what has already been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, and that is the suggestion that there might be a closer union between the territories of North Borneo, Sarawak, Brunei and Singapore, or the Federation of Malaya. I suggest that it is premature to consider any such movement to-day, and, in any case, it will be a matter for the people of those territories to decide in the future.
  LORD OGMORE: My Lords, may I say that I entirely agree with the noble Lord? I did not suggest for one moment that anybody should advocate such a course now, or perhaps for some years to come. What I said was that I thought inevitably the destiny of Singapore would lie with the mainland, and possibly in a wider federation with the Borneo territories. I was not advocating that anything should be done about it at the moment, but in fifty years' time that may well be the case.
  LORD MILVERTON: My Lords, I have no wish to misrepresent the noble Lord. In that case we think alike. I was merely suggesting that that must be in the remote future, because those territories have so many problems of their own to settle before they could reach a condition in which closer union would be a desirable thing.
  It has not been mentioned in this debate, but I have seen it suggested that perhaps Port Swettenham may be developed as a rival to Singapore. I think anybody who knows port Swetenham would hesitate to place any faith in that likelihood, because the natural advantages of Singapore are so immeasurably superior. The future prosperity of Singapore would seem to be quite secure unless the old German dream of a canal through that narrow neck of Southern Siam, the Isthmus of Kra, which would join the Andaman Sea and Gulf of Siam, were in the future to be revived, in which case Singapore would be short-circuited as the route for sea traffic to the Far East. But that, of course, is part of what is at the moment

  195
  old history and an abandoned scheme. If one wants to look into the future one can always consider that sort of possibility. It was at one time, many years ago, a very live issue. That is all I wish to say, except to conclude by adding my own congratulations to those who have been responsible for the proposal for which this is the enabling Bill, and to wish it all success.
  4.28 p.m.
  LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, it could not have been any part of a wild dream of mine ten years ago practically to this day when I flew out to Singapore to start a business career, that I should have the honour of rising in your Lordships' House to support a Bill granting self-government to the Colony of Singapore. I went to Singapore without a friend. I can say truthfully that during that period I made more friends than I possibly could have made if I had remained in this country, for the people of Singapore and Malaya have big hearts; they are generous; they are hospitable, and in fact they are all that one could wish as a friend.
  It is a mere twelve months ago since your Lordships' House gave a warm welcome to a Bill granting independence to the Federation of Malaya. I think we can honestly say that our hopes for the Federation of Malaya have been realised, and that in spite of many difficulties that country has come through with flying colours. I should be less than honest if I declared that I could view the future State of Singapore with the same confidence as I expressed in support of the Bill granting independence to the Federation of Malaya. However, the people of Singapore have clearly declared their wish for greater responsibility in their government, and I think it would be wrong for this country to deny them that opportunity.
  This Bill provides a Constitution considerably in advance of the existing Constitution. As the noble Earl who introduced this Bill said, it is customary to review the period of our control over our colonial territories. Sir Stamford Raffles, in an inspired moment, foresaw Singapore as a great trading port. Singapore developed, as we know, considerably, and to-day well over one hundred ships a day pass through the
  196
  port going to various parts of the world. Great credit must be given to the British officials. I do not believe one can allocate any particular credit since men of all nations have played their part, but I think we should appreciate that it was under the British flag—the British naval flag—that this Colony has prospered.
  Quite rightly, we pay tribute to Sir Stamford Raffles and to Dr. Ridley, the founder of the rubber industry, but I should like to pay a personal tribute to one man who I believe typifies the service of Europeans to the people of Singapore, a man who, unhonoured by his country, recently died, and who spent practically his entire life in Singapore and Malaya. I refer to Dr. Garlick, who, on his retirement from Government service in Malaya, decided to remain among the people he loved, and devoted the last years of his life to an attempt to stamp out tuberculosis, which is the dreaded disease in Asia. It was through his initiative and determination that to-day stands in Singapore the Royal Chest Clinic, equipped with the finest equipment available and staffed by devoted doctors and nurses. Through that clinic, which is supported entirely by voluntary subscriptions, over 16,000 patients pass a month. I believe that here is a great example of dedicated service, and the people who criticise European activities in our colonial territories should remember this example.
  This Bill will give self-government to the elected Government and Assembly in Singapore. It does not go as far as some political leaders in Singapore would wish, but it is recognised, I believe, both in London and among the responsible leaders in Singapore, that complete independence is not possible for this island standing alone. Independence can come only when the island federates with Malaya, and when this will come about it is not possible to say. It is not only the Causeway and Straits of Johore that divide those two territories. The divisions which exist only the people of Singapore and Malaya themselves can clear away. However, I hope there will be a great effort to bring unification, for I believe that if the divisions which now exist remain they will grow to the detriment of both those countries.
  For Singapore the problems of self-government would frighten even the bravest man, but in Mr. Lim Yew Hock

  197
  we have a man of sterling qualities, in which courage dominates. We should realise and appreciate that the tools in Mr. Lim Yew Hock's possession for dealing with the many problems are relatively few. The economic problem which the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, spoke about is very serious, although to outward appearances Singapore is prosperous and enjoys great development. The island, to those who know it, has few natural resources, it is pathetically weak industrially. Its major livelihood, as we know, is that of a great trading port or a great warehouse. Already the economy of Singapore has been gravely affected by the fall in world trading and the fall in prices of commodities which pass through Singapore from the neighbouring countries. Already there are reports of cut-back in expenditure of Government finance. Even if the entrepôt trade were to increase, this would have little effect upon providing employments for the rapidly growing population of Singapore.
  We have heard that over 50 per cent of the population is under twenty-one. The population in Singapore increases by 50,000 a year. Flowing from all the schools come young men and women seeking employment, and unless work is available a terrible and dangerous situation will certainly arise. Development of industry may well provide the answer, but if that is to occur considerable overseas capital will be required. It must be obvious to any responsible person in Singapore, however, that, with the unstable political situation, overseas capital will not flow in the quantities required. Industrial development is already handicapped, in that the cost of production is a good deal higher than it is in other manufacturing countries in the Far East, such as Japan, China and Hong Kong.
  I should like to ask Her Majesty's Government what is the position of the Colonial Development Corporation in relation to the State of Singapore. No mention has been made of this matter so far, but, as your Lordships will be aware, on other occasions when Colonies have obtained independence the Corporation has been precluded from continued investment. I presume that, as no mention has been made of this here, the fact that Singapore is not becoming completely independent means that the Corporation will be allowed to continue to invest. For
  198
  economic reasons alone, I do not believe that Singapore can attain complete independence. I would therefore urge the Government of the Federation of Malaya to take an active lead in bringing about unification. I recognise that there are many great difficulties to be overcome, but I believe that it is as much in the interests of the people of Malaya as in the interests of the people of Singapore that this unification should be brought about.
  Of all the problems and dangers that will beset Singapore, perhaps the question of internal security has dominated our thoughts more than any. External attack is relatively remote compared with the insidious threat of Communism. The Communist Party was banned in 1948, following the armed insurrection in Malaya, but this cancer has grown in various disguises. It has appeared as a musical society; it has appeared as a cultural society. It has infiltrated into all the middle Chinese schools; it has infiltrated into the trade unions; it has infiltrated into the political Parties. It has infiltrated, one might say, into nearly all spheres of public life. Malaya received the full brunt of a military attack, while Singapore experienced the killer Communist gangs and intimidation on a very wide scale.
  To some degree, these forces were held in check by a loyal and efficient police force. In spite of many difficulties, of which perhaps the greatest was the non-co-operation of the public, the police have behaved magnificently, and I feel that, this House should pay tribute to those services. I personally should like to pay a special tribute to the volunteer special constabulary, in which I had the honour to serve for a number of years. This force has set a great example to the multiracial population of Singapore. All races formed this special constabulary. Singapore is particularly in debt to the volunteers, not only for what they did during the riots of 1950 and the subsequent Communist riots, but through their constant patrols and duties.
  To provide internal security a rather ingenious plan has been adopted, and my noble friend Lord Ogmore, has congratulated the Government in this matter. In the Internal Security Council the key appointment will be that of the representative of the Federation of Malaya.

  199
  I am perfectly sure that careful consideration will be given in regard to this appointment. I personally hope that the man appointed will be of Cabinet rank. He must be a man of courage and incorruptibility, for I can well visualise circumstances when his position may be delicate, and possibly fraught with danger.
  My Lords, I have deliberately refrained from commenting on the political instability in Singapore, for this is now the responsibility of their people. But the seeds of Communism are well sown. I should like to raise one point on the question of freedom of speech and the freedom of the Press. Under existing regulations, the Government of Singapore can suppress, and have suppressed, various newspapers and periodicals. It is therefore possible, under the regulations, for a Government disliking the views expressed by responsible newspapers to close those newspapers. I should like to ask the Government whether there is clearly written into the Constitution power to protect the freedom of speech and the freedom of the Press.
  In addressing my final remarks to your Lordships' House, I should like equally to address them to the people of Singapore. The United Kingdom could hold Singapore in colonial bondage, if necessary by military force. I believe that we could hold it indefinitely. But that is not our way: our action in granting independence to India, Pakistan, Ceylon. Burma, Ghana, the Federation of Malaya, and the continued advancement towards independence in all our colonial territories, proves that point. It should be obvious to all that our actions are quite contrary to those of the Communist Powers. We in this country believe in democracy; we believe in the rights of man: and these principles we have tried to establish in all areas under our influence. We hope that the seeds of democracy are well sown in Singapore. We hope that they will be cultivated and protected, and that Singapore may flourish in peace and happiness.
  4.45 p.m.
  THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, this Second Reading has been a happy occasion, in that all noble Lords who have spoken have welcomed the Bill and recognised the great service that has been done by the Sinapore delegation itself
  200
  and by the Federation of Malaya in (if I may put it this way) coming to our rescue in relation to the Internal Security Council. Further, it has been a happy occasion because the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, has spoken in such generous terms of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, Mr. Lennox-Boyd. I know that he will greatly appreciate it, and I know that the Colonial Office as a whole will appreciate what the noble Lord has said. Running through the speeches that we have heard on this subject, again and again there has arisen the question of the destiny of the State of Singapore, in the sense of whether it will find its way in with the Federation or possibly with the Borneo territories. As various noble Lords have pointed out, in the final analysis that will be a matter for the people of those territories to decide; but I am quite sure that what has been said on the economic side, particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, will be looked at and considered by those who have this problem to tackle.
  The only issue on which any difference of opinion has been expressed is in regard to what we know as the "subversive ban". I recognise that this is a matter of opinion. It is our firm opinion that the right thing is to maintain this ban at the start of the new State of Singapore; but I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, that it is probable that the new Administration or Government, when it is elected, will last, or should last, not for a year but for its full term; and that will give considerable time for people to gain experience, to weigh up and to learn something of governing themselves in the way that is proposed.
  I think I should now try to deal with several questions which were raised by noble Lords. In particular, the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, who gave me notice, asked several questions which I can deal with relatively shortly. He asked about the status of the State of Singapore in relation to the Commonwealth. As with so many matters in the Commonwealth, I think it would be a mistake to try to give too precise an answer as to exactly where somebody may stand or exactly what may be its relationship; but I would say that generally Singapore will remain a dependency of the United Kingdom. That answers, too, the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, on

  201
  economic assistance: it will still be open to the Colonial Development Corporation to invest, and the State will still be eligible, for the Colonial Development and Welfare grants.
  I was asked to whom the United Kingdom Commissioner might report. The answer is, to the Secretary of State for the Colonies.
  LORD OGMORE: My Lords, what about the Head of State—though probably the noble Earl is coming to that subject.
  THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, I shall be coming to that. So far as the interests of United Kingdom citizens are concerned, it will be the responsibility of the United Kingdom Commissioner to look after these, in so far as they are distinct from interests which are particularly those of Singapore. The Yang di-Pertuan Negara, as the Head of State will be called, will have access to the Sovereign, if he so wishes, through the Secretary of State for the Colonies. The Constitution Order in Council will be laid before Parliament when it is made, though just when I cannot tell. It will certainly not be before the Recess, and it is likely that it will not be laid before Parliament reassembles. Your Lordships will understand that there is a great deal of drafting and so forth to be undertaken. The Electoral Provisions Order under which the subversive ban will be retained will be dealt with and laid separately.
  On the question of expatriates, as I said earlier a plan has been worked out with Singapore. The plan aims at Malayanisation over a period; it has been worked out in considerable detail to ensure that those of the expatriates who are so important to the good government of the State will, if possible, remain for a period of years appropriate to the particular job they are doing, having regard to the grades of Malays or Singapore citizens who may come up to fill those posts. It is certainly our hope and wish that expatriates will stay. As I have already mentioned, a plan of compensation, with assurances, has been worked out and will be enshrined in the Constitution; and I have myself little doubt that the expatriates will carry on and will continue to meet the needs of the State of Singapore.
  LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, if the noble Earl will allow me to interrupt, are the Government officers of the City Council protected under this Constitution?
  THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, I believe the answer is: No, they are not protected. Under the Constitution those who are protected are those for whom the Secretary of State for the Colonies was directly responsible—that is to say, those expatriates in the Singapore Government.
  The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, asked what was the citizenship position. Here I would say that, with all questions of citizenship, the more one delves into them, the more difficult and dangerous they become. If I may, will just give the noble Lord a short answer, which is as follows: Singapore citizens who were also citizens of the United Kingdom and the Colonies will retain that citizenship, but the acquisition of Singapore citizenship now does not, or will not, carry with it in future, citizenship of the United Kingdom and the Colonies.
  LORD OGMORE: My Lords, the noble Earl spoke earlier of something called "Commonwealth citizenship," which seems to be something new. I thought that there was to be, as it were, a Commonwealth nationality, and that they were to be subjects of the Commonwealth but citizens of various parts of it. Is that not the case, or am I mistaken?
  THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, I knew that I was likely to get into trouble on this question, for on certain matters it is always difficult to give precisely the right answer. When I was analysing subsection (1) of the Bill I said that it provided that Singapore citizens shall be recognised as British subjects and Commonwealth citizens. I believe that that is the usual form of citizenship in these circumstances, and so far as I am aware it is not a new device or invention for the occasion.
  The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, asked whether freedom of speech and freedom of the Press were specifically written into the new Constitution. The answer is, No, they are not written in specifically, any more than they are written into the Constitution in this country. But there are the safeguards, such the existence of an independent Judiciary and a Government which is responsible to the electorate, which of course are safeguards which

  203
  one hopes and expects will be sufficient for the purpose. One last question raised was whether in the Internal Security Council the Chairman would have any casting vote. The answer to that question is: No, there will just be the three members from the State of Singapore, three members from the United Kingdom and the representative from the Federation who will be able to vote. It is quite true, therefore, that in agreeing to take on this job the Federation has been of very great help and assistance, as so many noble Lords have said.
  It was a great pleasure to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, with all his experience from 1908 onwards, of which we have heard, that he believes that, on the whole, this Bill does the right thing. It was also a particular pleasure to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, who went out there some years ago, of the many personal friendships he made. I am not sure he is right in saying that he made more friendships there than he would have made here; but it is a great thing to know from him something of which I have had some small personal experience—that is, how friendly and welcoming are the people. I was glad to hear his tribute to the police, bath regular and voluntary. We also have to thank the noble Lord, Lord Rea, for what he said in relation to the Bill.
  It is quite true, as noble Lords have said, that there is a risk, and a conscious risk, which we and the delegation and the Government of Singapore have taken in this Bill. Something might go wrong. But we do not believe that it will. We remain convinced that the best defence against the threat of Communism is freedom of expression and for the people of Singapore to rule themselves. Last autumn I had the good fortune to travel in the area, in Malaya, Singapore, and the Borneo Territories, Sarawak, Brunei and North Borneo, and I was struck by what I saw in Singapore, above all, in relation to housing, dealing with the immense problem of 50,000 added population every year. I was greatly impressed by the educational system and the schools that were going up; by the cleanness of the city, its efficiency and the good health which, on the whole, it was enjoying. Of course, there are problems; of course there are slums; but
  204
  because of the way the problems are being tackled, anyone who has seen it can do nothing but admire.
  My Lords, as I said, this Bill and all that goes with it are based on a trust—trust in the people of Singapore. It was good to hear that echoed by those who spoke, and good to know that what I felt at the beginning is true: namely, that this Bill is welcomed by all, and that with it go the good wishes of all the House to the State of Singapore in its new adventure.
  On Question, Bill read 2a: Committee negatived.
  Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of July 21), Bill read 3a, and passed.

  DOMICILE BILL [H.L.]
  5.2 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
  LORD MESTON: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a third time. If it is convenient, as is the practice in your Lordships' House, we can deal with the Amendments now and there will be a Motion that the Bill do now pass, and on that Motion there can be the general debate. In the meantime I beg to move that the Bill be read a third time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Meston.)
  On Question, Bill read 3a.
  Clause 1 [New rules for determining domicile]:
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR)THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR) moved to leave out "be applied in" and insert "replace the rules of the Common Law for". The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, this Amendment is moved in deference to the doubts expressed on the Report stage by the noble Lords, Lord Silkin and Lord Pethick-Lawrence, speaking on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Denning, as well as by my noble friend, Lord Meston, as to whether the Bill as it stands makes it sufficiently clear that the new rules prescribed by the rule determining a person's domicile would apply to a married woman as they apply to any other person of full age and capacity. I am bound to say, as I said

  205
  on the last stage of the Bill, that I think that this fear is misconceived. I have considered the point again and, apart from the reasons I gave when the point was raised, noble Lords will see that the purpose of the Bill, as appears from its Long Title, is to amend the law relating to domicile; from this it is difficult to see how it could well be argued that the law must be presumed to be the same after the passing of the Bill as it was before.
  Clause 1 requires that the new rules for determining a person's domicile be applied without any suggestion of qualification or exception. Clause 2, which is the first of a group of clauses under the heading of "Independent Domicile", is expressly made subject to Clause 5, which is headed "Dependent Domicile", from which the inference seems irresistible that Clause 5 is the only exception to the general rule stated in Clause 2. If there were to be any other exception, based on an applied intention to exclude the rule of the Interpretation Act, 1889, that the masculine gender is to include females, Clause 2 would then be as inapplicable to unmarried women as to married women and the effect of the Bill would be confined to the male sex.
  Despite these reasons for my view—and I wanted to show your Lordships that I had considered the matter—as your Lordships know, I am always anxious to meet the wishes of noble Lords. A matter of this importance should be crystal clear. Therefore, although I consider that there was no need for the Amendment, I equally believe that there is no objection to stating in the terms of Clause 1 that the rules prescribed by the Bill are to replace the rules of the Common Law. I hope that that will meet the anxieties of the noble Lords who spoke and I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 1, line 6, leave out ("he applied in") and insert ("replace the rules of the common law for").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble and learned Viscount for having given this matter the consideration he has done, and for having decided in the end that, in spite of his certainly that the Bill met the apprehensions that I have expressed, and those of my noble friend Lord Pethick-Lawrence, he would nevertheless put down an
  206
  Amendment to make certainty even more certain than it was already. This is a matter of such great importance that one cannot be too careful in ensuring that the Bill does what it sets out to do. In its present form it will be welcomed by a great many people who have been looking forward to some such reform as this. Therefore I am sure that the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor need have no apprehension that he has gone beyond what is proper in a case of this kind. I am perfectly satisfied that this meets the case, so much so that I do not propose to move the Amendment which stands in my name.
  LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: My Lords, I should like just to add my thanks to those of my noble friend, and to say that we appreciate very much the courtesy which the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack has shown in this matter and the very wise form of Amendment which he has put down. I will say only this regarding the position as it was without this Amendment. Some of us are aware that in times gone by, although matters of this kind were perfectly clear as we understood them, this very question of the position of women has been negatived by the authorities of the day. That has occurred when, apparently, the whole legislation was to the other effect. Having been several times bitten, we were shy in this particular case. The noble and learned Viscount has completely met our difficulties, and we thank him very much.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am grateful to the two noble Lords for what they have said and I am glad to think they are satisfied.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Amendment 2 is not moved. This concludes the Amendments and, as the noble Lord, Lord Meston, said, he can now move that the Bill do now pass.
  LORD MESTON: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
  Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Meston.)
  5.9 p.m.
  LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I must apologise for butting in at this late hour in the life of the Bill in which I have taken no part until to-day. However,

  207
  yesterday I heard for the first time certain fears expressed in very responsible quarters, and I find that there is nothing in the official record so far in which these fears have been mentioned. Therefore I thought it my duty to get them on the record. The Bill, in origin, is to deal with matrimonial difficulties, but there is a section of the business community who fear unforeseen and unpredictable consequences in the field of taxation—taxation both of their incomes while living and of their estates after they are dead. Now, these people are largely foreigners, but to some extent are people—I will not use the word "citizens"—from the Commonwealth working in this country. My noble friend, Lord Baillieu, wanted to be here to voice the fears of these people, but unfortunately he is unavoidably prevented from getting here, so he has asked me to do it for him.
  Now the field of taxation and the law of domicile thereon is an extraordinary and tricky one, and no layman would dare to venture into that field, so I merely content myself with expressing the fears of these people so that at another time and in another place those fears can be assuaged. As I understand it, those people from abroad who live and work here are for tax purposes regarded at present as domiciled in the country of their origin and are presumed to be going to return there in due course. If the Inland Revenue wish it to be otherwise, they have to prove it to be otherwise. By and large, these people are taxed on their British income, on the remittances they make to this country, and, when they die, on the possessions they leave in this country. But if they were held to be domiciled here they might be taxed during their lives on their entire world income, regardless of whether it ever came to this country, and on their death perhaps on their world possessions.
  Now, Clause 3 of this Bill lays down that a man has the intention to live permanently in the country where he has a home unless he can prove to the contrary under Clause 4. The people I am talking about may well have only one house in the world, and live in it with their families in this country. The Bill uses the word "home", and I am informed that even the word "home" may give rise to considerable legal argument.
  208
  But if one assumes that "home" and "house" are synonymous, then one has to consider what their taxation position might be after the passing of this Bill. They fear that this new definition of domicile might be applied to them for tax purposes, in which case their whole status would change. The onus of proof that they did not intend to live here for the rest of their lives would rest on them and not on the Inland Revenue, and if they failed in that proof they would be taxed on their world income instead of on their British income. Those, very briefly, are the fears of my friends, and I may say that they are based on the opinions of some eminent lawyers skilled in this international field.
  One may say, of course, that these fears are quite fanciful and that the promoters of the Bill and Her Majesty's Government have no intention whatsoever of allowing the Bill to alter the status of any man for taxation purposes; but one must remember that most of these people are foreigners. Our tax law is to them foreign. Our taxgatherers are foreigners, and they definitely fear having to prove future intentions to a foreign revenue collector. If there is going to be any doubt in their minds, and if they think that by coming to this country they are going to "buy a lawsuit", or that their executors are going to "buy a lawsuit", they will take care to keep away. Then we shall lose their services and very often the capital that comes in with them—the very things that we want to encourage.
  The best remedy, from their point of view, of course, would be that the Bill should never pass, but that would be a little hard on those people for whom the Bill has been introduced. If the Bill is really wanted, I would suggest that it may be a long time before it is dealt with by another place, and I hope that the promoters and Her Majesty's Government will in that event fully consider the tax angle. I do not think that any ordinary assurance would really do much to reassure these people. My friends know perfectly well that the Legislature makes laws and that the Judicature interprets them. They also know that the Inland Revenue is bound to collect its lawful dues, and the Inland Revenue might find itself in the position of having to collect taxes on monies as to which the Government of the day had given an assurance that they were never intended

  209
  to be assessable. Of course, that could be put right, but it would require a clause in the Finance Bill, and that always takes time. Time and delay would lead to fear and confusion, and that would cause damage to our interests if we really want these people to live and work within our country.
  I realise that I am much too late to expect any considered opinion now from my noble friend on the Woolsack, as I only gave notice yesterday of what I was going to say, but I hope that if and when the Bill appears in another place the promoters and the Government will he able to cast it in such a form that there is no doubt left whatsoever in the mind of any foreigner working in this country that his status for taxation purposes is not going to be changed by this Bill.
  5.18 p.m.
  LORD MORTON OF HENRYTON: My Lords, I had heard that certain fears were held in certain quarters as to the effect of Clause 3, subsection (1), of this Bill, and as Clause 3, subsection (1), is exactly in accordance with the unanimous recommendation of the Royal Commission on Marriage and Divorce, of which I was Chairman, I thought that perhaps it would be right to say a few words about it.
  The change in the law which is brought about by that subsection can be very shortly and simply stated. At the present time a man retains his domicile of origin unless it can be proved by anyone who desires to assert the contrary that he has formed a fixed and settled intention to make his permanent home in another country. It is not only the Inland Revenue who are concerned with this question, though sometimes they are: sometimes it is a man's relatives, and sometimes it is a question that arises under his will. All Clause 3 (1) does is to provide that, subject to subsection (2) of the same clause, a person who has a home in a country is presumed to intend to live permanently in that country. It applies only where a man has only one home, because if he has two homes then subsection (2) comes into play. Subsection (2) is as follows:
  "If a person has a home in more than one country he is presumed to intend to live permanently in that one of them with which he is most closely connected."
  210
  Now, the previous law gave rise to some very curious situations. For instance, a man who had lived in this country for between thirty and forty years and who had never shown the slightest intention of going away from it was held in the celebrated case of Winans not to have acquired the domicile of this country because in certain rather farfetched events he might possibly have wanted to go back to America. It seemed to the Commission and also to the Standing Committee on International Law that that was an absurd situation, and that the sensible and sane thing to do was to provide that if a man makes his only home in a country it is for him to show, if he wants to, and if he can, that he has not formed a permanent intention to live where he has his one and only home. It seems to me fair enough that, if he spends all his days in this country and has his only home in this country, the presumption that he intends to live here should prevail.
  I have not given any personal attention to the tax problems which may or may not arise. All I would say is that on the face of it the change in the law seems to me a fair and reasonable one. If it has unfortunate effects as regards tax in the case of certain individuals, I think it does not seem unfair, that if a man lives here, his only home is here and he dies here, he should be presumed to have formed an intention to reside here permanently. If he never does move, it seems to me not an undue hardship that when he dies, still living here and never having manifested an intention to go elsewhere, his estate should share in the burden of taxation which might arise at his death.
  5.22 p.m.
  LORD KEITH OF AVONHOLM: My Lords, I find my name on the list of speakers without really having had any intention of speaking, and I shall not detain your Lordships for any length of time. As has been said, this Bill has a much wider content than that of merely fixing domicile for matrimonial purposes. That, I think, is one of the merits of the Bill. The Royal Commission on Marriage and Divorce were only concerned with dealing with domicile for purely matrimonial purposes, and could not go further. This Bill deals with the question not only for matrimonial purposes

  211
  but for other purposes as well, and from that point of view it seems to me a very fair Bill.
  All that Clause 3 does, after all, is to establish certain presumptions, and these may be set aside by proof of a different intention. As my noble and learned friend Lord Morton of Henryton has just said, if a person lives in this country and dies in this country, after having had his home, and his only home, here for many years, I see no great hardship in saying that unless his executors can prove that he had a different intention during his life, the State is entitled to tax him as if he had died domiciled in this country. I welcome the Bill, and before it passes from your Lordships' House, as I hope it will pass, I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Meston, on having introduced it and having effected, as I hope he will effect, a very important alteration in the law of domicile.
  5.24 p.m.
  LORD MACPHERSON OF DRUMOCHTER: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I should like to intervene for a moment to clear up one point. Like the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, I am beginning to have some fears whether this Bill is perhaps not all that it appears to be on the face of it, especially after reading an article in last night's London Evening Standard dealing with this Bill, entitled "When is a Scotsman not a Scotsman?" The article points out that if this Bill is passed into law, hundreds of thousands of people—and obviously the suggestion is that they will be mainly Scotsmen—will be affected.
  I should like to ask the noble Lord who is promoting the Bill, and the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor, than whom there is no stouter Scot in this country, whether there is any ground for that suspicion. Like many Scotsmen living in England, I value, as we all value, our Scottish nationality. I should like to be assured that there is nothing in this Bill that affects our Scottish nationality or prevents us from claiming and enjoying this privilege here in England.
  LORD KEITH OF AVONHOLM: My Lords, may I be allowed to intervene to say that as a Scotsman I have no apprehensions about the effect of this Bill?
  5.27 p.m.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, if I may add a second Scottish opinion to that of my noble and learned friend who has just intervened, I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Macpherson of Drumochter, that I should never be a party to a Bill which would endanger anyone's Scottish nationality. He may take it that I entirely support both my noble and learned friends. I am glad that my noble friend Lord Hawke has raised the point about taxation, because I gather that there has been some apprehension about it, and any sort of apprehension of that kind ought to be carefully considered, as I assure him that his speech will be. It may be convenient if I state broadly the general tax position as I see it to-day, though I hope that no one, including my noble and learned friends, will consider that this is an opinion to the foot of the letter.
  In general, a foreign resident ordinarily resident in this country (and my noble friend will appreciate that that is a term of art, to be distinguished from domiciled) is liable to the United Kingdom taxes on income in respect of foreign income which is remitted to this country. If he is also domiciled in this country, he is liable on the full amount of the income arising abroad, irrespective of whether it is remitted to this country or not, except that earnings and pensions from business or employment abroad are liable only on a remittance basis. Foreign income for this purpose includes not only income from property abroad but also earnings from employment exercised in this country where the employer is resident abroad. Of course that is subject to the proviso that a credit may be due, under double taxation agreements or unilaterally against United Kingdom tax, for tax payable in the country where the income arises. That is broadly and generally the position in life.
  On the death of a person who is ordinarily resident in this country but not domiciled here, estate duty is payable on movable and immovable property situated here, except for certain Government stock; the liability is in general the same as on the death of a person not resident in this country. If the person is domiciled in this country estate duty is payable on any movable property situate

  213
  abroad. A credit may be due, again, under double taxation agreements for tax paid in the country where the property is situated, as well as on movable and immovable property situated here. Therefore the noble Lord has made a correct point, if he will allow me to say so, in saying that the question of domicile is an important one. I recognise that it makes the differences which I have tried briefly to explain.
  But when one turns to the Bill, I think one ought to start with Clause 2, because that says:
  "Subject to section five of this Act, a person's domicile is in the country in which he has his home and intends to live permanently."
  It is important that the original definition has the two limbs: "in which he has his home and intends to live permanently." It is true that Clause 3 (1) says:
  "Subject to subsection (2) of this section, a person who has a home in a country is presumed to intend to live permanently in that country."
  As my noble and learned friend Lord Morton of Henryton pointed out, that is limited to the case where there is one home. But, again, one must take into account, as indeed my noble friend Lord Hawke mentioned, Clause 4 (1), which says:
  "The presumptions set out in section three of this Act may be displaced by proof of a different intention"
  In the case of somebody who is alive, and presumably has many opportunities to make clear his intention, I cannot see that putting the presumption in this way would place him in any difficulty. If one takes the ordinary case—that is, apart from these public service employees who have been dealt with by Clause 4 (2)—of, say, an employee of a world-wide business, possibly from New York or Chicago, who is over here for a long period, and who, it may be, has his only home in this country, it is almost inconceivable that during his lifetime he would not have made it clear that this was an incident of his earning his living and that he intended to return to the United States at the conclusion of his tour of duty.
  When someone is dead, although he may not have a personal interest in the problem it is still his interest, from the point of view of the disposal of his
  214
  property, that the law of domicile should be clear. My noble and learned friend Lord Morton of Henryton will correct me if my memory of Winan's case is wrong, but I think I am right in saying that this House, in its Judicial capacity, by a majority, reversed the decision of both Courts below. One cannot say that that reflects a crystal clear state of the law. I think everyone agrees that it was beneficial that the law should be put right, and we shall never have better guidance on the method of putting it right than that of the Royal Commission presided over by my noble and learned friend Lord Morton of Henryton and the Private International Law Committee of experts on Private International Law, presided over by Mr. Justice Wynn Parry. Therefore, the noble Lord, Lord Meston, was proceeding on very high authority indeed. I should like my noble friend Lord Hawke to consider the point of view that, the law having been clearly stated in the Bill, it will be quite open to those people, the foreigners coming here either for work or, if you like, for health, to make clear and create the evidence of the position, which is that they want to maintain their domicile.
  There is one other point, though I do not wish to stress it too much, because I want to be scrupulously fair in putting this. My noble friend Lord Hawke has got the point, of course, that where you have very finely balanced evidence, the presumption is now the other way—that it is for somebody to displace it by proof of a different intention. But I think my noble and learned friends will agree that in nine cases out of ten a case is not decided on the first presumption; it is decided on a consideration at the end of the day of the evidence as a whole. I cannot but believe that, when the law is clarified, it will be easier to come to the right decision and the decision which the person wanted to preserve.
  I was anxious that my noble friend Lord Hawke, and those who have communicated their anxiety to him, should know that this point has been considered. But, as he says, to-day cannot be the end of the matter; and if those who have—I will not say briefed him, because I do not want to apply words of my own profession to my noble friend, but those who have communicated their anxieties to him, would care to elaborate them and communicate them to me, and bring to

  215
  my attention any points of special difficulty which I have not seen at the moment, and, above all, to suggest any methods by which they would like the problem dealt with, then I assure him at once that I shall give them my fullest consideration; and knowing the generous heart and mind of the noble Lord, Lord Meston, I am sure that he would be in complete accord and would also be ready to give them consideration. I hope that my noble friend Lord Hawke will feel that what I have said meets the point. I have tried to set out the problem as I see it, for the convenience of those who have communicated their anxiety to him as well as of my noble friend; if they have any further points I shall be glad to consider them.
  5.38 p.m.
  LORD MESTON: My Lords, in conclusion, I should like to thank the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor for the great help he has given us on this Bill, as indeed he gives on every measure which comes before your Lordships' House. I should also like to thank the various noble Lords who have assisted in an active and constructive way in making this Bill what it is, including the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. I feel that I should emphasise once more that this Bill is not restricted to matrimonial affairs: on the contrary, it applies to all matters.
  I should like to reply to the noble Lord, Lord Macpherson of Drumochter, who asked the question: "When is a Scotsman not a Scotsman?" As your Lordships know, many Scottish people leave Scotland and come down to England but do not cut away every connection they have with Scotland. While they are in this country they enjoy themselves greatly and frequently evince a desire to return to their native country one day, but they never tell you precisely when that day is going to come. Some of your Lordships are among those Scottish people who come here and at the same time do not cut adrift entirely from your native land. If you want to prove to the satisfaction of your executors and administrators, to the Inland Revenue and to the Bank of England that you are domiciled in Scotland, my advice to you is that, while in England, you should walk about wearing a kilt, with a sporran, carrying a bottle of whisky in one hand and in the other hand a
  216
  banner bearing the words: "My home is in Peterhead in Aberdeenshire and not in Petersfield in Hampshire." I feel quite sure that conduct of that description will induce the authorities to hold that you are domiciled in Scotland. I can only say that it has been a great pleasure and an honour to be allowed to introduce and pilot this Bill through your Lordships' House.
  On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

  AGRICULTURE BILL
  5.40 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty The Queen to signify to the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Agriculture Bill, has consented to place Her Majesty's interest so far as it is concerned on behalf of the Crown, the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall, at the disposal of Parliament for the purpose of the Bill.
  THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  (EARL WALDEGRAVE): My Lords, in moving the Third Reading of this Bill, I must say that we have had very full discussions in our earlier proceedings, and I am sure your Lordships would not wish me to go over all the arguments again. But this is an important measure and has given rise to a great deal of interest and also, I fear, to some misunderstanding. I think it is incumbent upon me, therefore, at Third Reading, to take this last opportunity open to me to put it in its correct perspective, and to try to allay any lingering doubts due, as I believe, to misunderstanding, that may still remain.
  What does this Bill do, and why? Subordinate issues apart, it does only two things: it repeals the disciplinary powers, and seeks to improve the working of the landlord and tenant system. First, the disciplinary powers: I made a very full statement when we considered this matter on Report, and have really little to add to it. But I must repeat that we are repealing these provisions because, in the light of practical experience and the

  217
  needs of the times, we are satisfied that it is the right and, indeed, the only course open to us. We must face the facts. We are repealing these provisions on their merits, and there is no connection in our minds whatsoever with the financial guarantees which we dealt with quite separately in Part I of the 1957 Act.
  The landlord and tenant have always had their rights against each other for the protection of their own interests. These rights will remain with proper safeguards, and we are taking steps to make them work more effectively in the light of experience. All concerned, whether landlords, tenants or owner-occupiers, are subject to the economic forces which reward efficiency and penalise inefficiency. What we are repealing is the State's power to intervene, whether against the landlord, tenant or owner-occupier, to try to force him to be efficient with the ultimate sanction of depriving him of his tenancy or his freehold if all else fails. Experience has shown that our advisory services are hampered and not helped by the existence of these penal powers. You cannot force a man to be efficient with threats. You must instead create an atmosphere in which he will readily come to those who have help and advice to give.
  The second thing the Bill seeks to do is to make the landlord and tenant system work better. Few deny the need for this. Our landlord and tenant system, which is—I almost said was—the envy of the world, is steadily giving way to a system of owner-occupation. The private landlord is either selling up or taking the land in hand and farming it himself with a manager. The result is that young men find it ever harder to enter the industry. Acre for acre, an owner-occupier needs probably at least three times the capital that a tenant needs. So the advantage is probably always on the side of the older man with the money, against the younger man with initiative and drive.
  Of course, owner-occupation has its rightful place, notably on specialist or intensive farms, on which most of the capital is farmer's capital. But that is not typical. On a typical farm the landlord's capital is a far larger contribution 10 the total than the tenant's, and it is There that the immense advantage of the system of dual partnership is found. Here express a personal view, though one
  218
  which is widely held. What I think cannot be gainsaid is that the two systems should be allowed to develop and compete with each other naturally. Our aim in this Bill has been merely to remove obstuctions which have distorted the natural trend.
  What are the reasons for this running down of the landlord and tenant system? There are, I think, two main causes. First, the security of tenure provisions, which were meant to protect the good farmer, have tended to make all tenants virtually life tenants. That is why I had to resist, at an earlier stage in the proceedings, the suggestion put forward by some noble Lords opposite that personal inconvenience or hardship which might be suffered by the tenant should be allowed to be an overriding factor, a bar to termination of the tenancy, no matter what other grounds might be established. That would indeed have meant life tenancies. As the Bill stands the position is fully safeguarded, not only by the proviso of reasonableness, but by the provision that in any case when the landlord bases his case on hardship the tenant is secure if he can establish his greater hardship. It is the present position which has produced the log-jam in which landlords hesitate to re-let their farms when a tenant dies.
  Secondly, the rent provisions which were meant, quite rightly, to protect the sitting tenant from exploitation, have tended to keep rents too low and out of line with the landlord's maintenance expenses. In the short term, this has enabled the second-rate tenant to hold on at the expense of a better man. In the long term, it has frightened landlords into selling or direct farming. And all the time it has made it difficult for landlords unless they have outside money, which cannot be assumed, to fulfil their obligations under the landlord and tenant system. This is the situation in which we have proposed what are no more than slight adjustments of provisions for security of tenure and provisions for rents, adjustments designed to cure the ills which the authors of the 1948 Act cannot have foreseen or intended, and to enable the system to function. It is surely perverse to call this a landlord's charter, or to talk of the Bills loading the dice against the tenant. It is not a landlord's charter in any derogatory sense. We are trying to save the landlord and tenant system.

  219
  To sum up. The only real change of policy and principle is in Clause 1, which repeals the State's power to evict, and this, we feel, is the course which in present circumstances is clearly right on ethical and practical grounds alike. The rest of the Bill does not change policy. It is designed in the light of experience to find better means of giving effect to the true intentions of the Act of 1948. Left to run on unchanged, that Act—meant to give the landlord-tenant system a new lease of life—might well have broken it up. Now I hope that it will be able to function properly with all the benefits that will follow in its train. I beg to move.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Earl Waldegrave.)
  5.49 p.m.
  LORD SILKIN: My Lords, the noble Earl, in moving the Third Reading, opened his remarks by saying that he intended to do what he could to ensure that there was no further misunderstanding about this Bill, and that he intended to allay any lingering doubts. I should like to assure him that he has done nothing of the kind. There was no misunderstanding of this Bill on this side of the House, and we had no lingering doubts; we had real doubts, and he has not allayed them. We started off with a feeling that this was a bad Bill designed to upset the balance as between landlord and tenant in favour of the landlord, and we remain of that opinion. There may be good reasons for it, but the fact is that it is quite wrong to suggest that it does not change the balance which has existed, certainly since the 1947 Agriculture Act.
  It has changed the balance in two very material respects: first, it has taken away from the tenant the security which he hitherto enjoyed. I have no particular objection to giving a tenant a tenure for life if he is farming his land well and paying a fair rent. If the noble Earl has equally no objection, then that view is not translated into the Bill, because it is possible for a tenant who is farming his land quite efficiently and is prepared to pay a fair rent to lose his security of tenure. That is one of the things we object to in this Bill. The other is that it enables a landlord to charge an increased rent not on the basis of what is fair and economic having regard to the quality of the land but
  220
  on the basis of scarcity value. That we think is wrong; we think it is the wrong criterion.
  Our final objection to this Bill is that in the last resort it removes the power of supervision which enables the community to get possession of a farm which is being badly farmed, although a substantial subsidy is being paid by the community in respect of that farm. So far as the tenant is concerned, that assurance of efficiency still exists, because one of the grounds for obtaining possession by the landlord is that the farm is being inefficiently worked. But so far as the owner is concerned, the owner-occupier of a farm, this particular power is being taken away. I think the figure is that about two-thirds of the farms in this country are owner-occupied. Therefore, as regards two-thirds of the farms there is no longer any sanction against bad or inefficient farming.
  Over and over again the noble Earl and others on the other side have said that there is a sanction; that the sanction is the economic one; that if you farm inefficiently and badly you lose money. But what sort of an argument is that? After all, if that were the case, if efficiency could be ensured by that means, there would be no bankruptcies. Everyone has the urge of making a profit and if that was sufficient to ensure that people were efficient no losses would be incurred, either by individuals or by companies, and of course the plan would work. But we know that, in spite of the fact that it is not good business to be inefficient and the result of inefficiency is, generally speaking, disastrous, nevertheless there is a good deal of inefficiency. Where the State has an interest in ensuring that there is efficiency because it provides a subsidy, we think that this sanction ought to continue. We certainly think it is wrong that it should continue as regards one section of the community and should be taken away as regards the other.
  I do not want to develop these arguments. I have put them forward, both at this stage and at earlier stages, I had hoped without misunderstanding and that at any rate there was no lingering doubt in the mind of the noble Earl as to what our views about this Bill were. I would conclude by saying that this Government has produced some pretty bad Bills. I

  221
  have had to condemn a good many of them root and branch. I think the last one I condemned was the Local Government Bill, but I should not have said about the Local Government Bill that it was particularly a partisan Bill. But I do say it about this Bill; I say it is cynically partisan. And apart from the fact that it is a Bill which, in my view, is uncalled for and will not really work, I think it is one the Government will long regret as having created bad feeling in the farming community and the belief that they are not holding the balance as between one section of the farming community and another.
  5.55 p.m.
  THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, this has been a fairly controversial Bill, and as, unfortunately I have been prevented from being here at any of the earlier stages of the Bill I certainly do not want to become involved in any agricultural controversy on the Third Reading. I do not intend to speak for more than one or two minutes.
  With regard to the final objection of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, concerning the removal of the disciplinary powers in Part II of the 1947 Act to enforce good farming on owner-occupiers and so on, I am, of course, very familiar with the noble Lord's case, because it is a case which was approved by the National Farmers' Union and also by some landowners: I think that the English Country Landowners' Association decided at one time to support Part II of the Act, although the Scottish landowners were more cautious about committing themselves. I have always taken a different view, which I have expressed to your Lordships more than once. The reason why the farmers were afraid to lose Part II of the Act was not because they liked these disciplinary powers but because they were afraid that the removal of the stick might also mean the removal of the carrot; and that sooner or later tile Government might say, "We have no power to enforce good farming upon you, and therefore we are under no obligation to guarantee that you get a fair price for your products." That is what they were afraid of.
  I have always held the view, however, that if, owing to a flood of cheap foreign imports, some future Government, in response to pressure from public opinion, should decide to change our agriculture
  222
  policy and abandon price guarantees, the existence of Part II of the Agriculture Act, 1947, would not make the slightest difference, one way or the other, either to public opinion or to the decision of the Government. I have expressed the view to your Lordships before that the existence of these powers has had a negligible effect on improving the general standards of farming, at least in times of peace. They are powers which could be justified only by the most desperate national emergency. They are so entirely contrary to all our traditions of liberty in this country that they could never have survived so long had not the farmers been afraid that the abolition of Part II would also mean the end of Part I. The power to turn a man out of his home on the decision of a committee appointed by a Minister, without any appeal to any open court, is utterly contrary to all the traditions of freedom which we like to think we stand for in this country.
  These powers were first imposed at the beginning of the war, in September, 1939. Your Lordships may remember that only about seven months later, in April, 1940, a certain Hampshire farmer. whose name I think was Mr. Walton, who lived at a farm called "Burrow Bridge" near Itchen Stoke, was ordered by the Hampshire Executive Committee to plough up four acres of old pasture and to summer-fallow it in preparation for sowing it out with wheat in the following season. I understand that Mr. Walton was quite a good farmer, but he was an opinionated man and he refused to obey this order. He was a man of over sixty, I think a bachelor, who had lived at the farm all his life, and so had his father—he and his family had been there for nearly 100 years.
  Two months later the Hampshire Committee gave him notice to quit, to leave his home, because he had refused to plough up four acres of grass. A month later because he had not gone, they gave him notice, I think on July 20, that he would be evicted by force. Two days later a force of police arrived to turn him out. He barricaded his house and opened fire on the police with a shotgun. I think the battle lasted for about eighteen hours. Unfortunately, several policemen were wounded, and the farmer himself, Mr. Walton, was mortally wounded, and died a day or two later. Of course, the verdict at the inquest was

  223
  one of "justifiable homicide" because he had been killed while unlawfully resisting the police in the execution of their duties. I believe that the Coroner observed that this case had excited some notoriety, but when it was all boiled down there was very little in it.
  I have no doubt that this Mr. Walton was a very obstinate, probably a very tiresome and unto-operative sort of man. So, I think, was John Hampden who refused to pay ship money to King Charles I at a time when money for the Fleet was badly needed in the national interest. I sometimes think that it depends a good deal on the state of political feeling at the time whether a man of this kind is forgotten as a tiresome nuisance or remembered as a hero and a martyr for human liberty. As for the agricultural executive committees, of course, they never have spent all their time in turning people out of their homes by force. Most of them are good, kind people who are doing their best to help their neighbours and to increase production. But exactly the same can be said of all the authoritative, corporative bodies set up in any industry in any Fascist State. They are not all violent hostile people. Most of the Fascist corporative bodies maintaining discipline in an industry are well-meaning. But this system that we have had under Part II of the Agriculture Act, is nothing else than pure unadulterated Fascism, and it is a wonder that it has survived so long in our society.
  As for the misunderstandings which the Minister and the noble Lord opposite have referred to, I do not want to pursue them, because I think that if they are misunderstandings they will certainly be removed in the course of the next twelve months or so by events. If noble Lords opposite are right in their objections, no doubt there will be a dissatisfaction in the industry. But if, as I believe, the new provisions in this Bill about the fixing of rents are based on fairness, and that the instructions to the arbitrators are such as to instruct them to make their decisions not on scarcity value but on real and fair value, then I think that the discontent will rapidly disappear. The experience in working the changes made under this Bill, rather than the assurances of the Minister or the objections of the
  224
  opponents of the Bill, will be the decisive factor in showing whether or not the Bill is justified. My own view is that the discontent and misunderstanding, if it has not disappeared now, will disappear within the course of the next year or two as we see how the Bill works.
  6.6 p.m.
  LORD MACPHERSON OF DRUMOCHTER: My Lords, I have listened to a great deal of the discussion on this Bill as it has passed through the House, and I take this opportunity, for a few moments, of expressing my complete disapproval of it. Speaking as a farmer, and as one who has taken some interest in agricultural and political affairs here for a number of years, my view is that the effect of this Bill will be to cripple, and eventually destroy, the safeguards for agriculture contained in the Agriculture Act, 1947. I sat in another place during the years 1945 to 1950, and I thought that one of the greatest achievements of the Labour Government during that time was the passing of the Agriculture Act, 1947.
  I think it is true to say that the average farmer in this country has regarded the 1947 Act as a Magna Charta of British agriculture. Its most outstanding provision was that concerning guaranteed prices, and markets to farmers. The confidence that the industry has achieved, and its great achievements in production and efficiency since those days, is evidence of the great success of the Act. Why seek to destroy it? Who wants to repeal the basic provisions of the 1947 Act. Every organised body of farming opinion in this country is opposed to the Bill now before the House. Almost every local branch of the National Farmers' Union throughout the length and breadth of the land, is opposed to the Bill. Who wants to destroy the 1947 Act? I submit, as did my noble friend Lord Silkin, that it is a few people who were opposed to that Act, and who have been opposed to it all the way through, and who are now seeking this occasion and this method to sabotage and destroy it.
  The main provision of the Bill now before the House—I am reading from the Explanatory Memorandum—is to repeal the
  " powers of supervision, direction and dispossession under Part II of the Agriculture Act, 1947."

  225
  The supervision and direction of agriculture is an essential condition of guaranteed prices and markets. The agricultural industry thoroughly understands and accepts that. May I remind your Lordships that the total net income to-day of British agriculture is£360 million, of which£285 million comes from direct Government subsidy. To put it another way, for every£1 of the net earned income of the farmers of this country 16s. comes from the taxpayer. A country which supports its agricultural industry so generously surely has a right to ensure that the land is properly and adequately farmed. The fear of the average farmer in this country is that if this arrangement is scrapped it will not be long before subsidies and guaranteed prices will also he scrapped.
  To-day, every major country in the world fosters and protects or subsidises its agricultural industry. We here in the United Kingdom need agricultural subsidies and protection more than any other country. Great Britain is the target for every food "dumper" in the world, and without the protection of the safeguards provided for us in the 1947 Act our agriculture would be in a very bad state. I submit that not only has the time not passed for using the provisions of Part II of that Act but rather the need for that Part of the 1947 Act is greater than ever. There is still far too much waste land and badly farmed land in this country, arid far from scrapping these provisions we require to-day rather a tightening up of them and increased encouragement and supervision for good farming in this country, in order to get rid of the badly farmed land that we see up and down the country to-day. I believe that this is a bad Bill and I hope that it will be rejected.
  6.12 p.m.
  LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Waldegrave pointed out that one of the objects of this Bill was to make it easier for young farmers to get farms. I want to add a little to that, and to point out that the 1947 Act has also had some effect in preventing good farmers from getting on in the world. If I heard him correctly, the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said that two-thirds of the agricultural land in this country was in the hands of owneroccupiers—I hope I am quoting him correctly. I believe that the process has
  226
  been accelerated by the 1947 Act. I would point out to your Lordships one effect of extending owner occupation, because while I know that from a political point of view it tends towards political stability, as far as agriculture goes I believe on the whole it is very bad.
  I will give your Lordships a case of which I know. A very good farm of about 150 acres was bought on the break-up of an estate, and the new owner-occupier, who was a thriving, go-ahead farmer, did well on it. He wanted to farm on a larger scale. Such a man should be able to farm on a larger scale, and had he been a tenant on the estate before he had had to buy he would have had very much less capital invested in the farm and would have been able to go to a new farm, whatever the conditions of his lease; because it is a well-known truism that no sane agricultural proprietor ever willingly gets rid of a good tenant but that no agricultural proprietor can ever retain a tenant who wants to go. The tenant can always break his lease and it never pays to try to stop him. In this case this farmer had his eye on a farm which he had the opportunity of buying, on very fine land further up country—a larger farm. He wanted to be an offerer for the farm but was prevented, because he could not sell the farm he was in and had not sufficient capital to undertake both farms. There was a man whose operations deserved to be extended yet he was hampered in them because he was an owner-occupier.
  It seems to me that there is another danger attending when too much of our agriculture is in the hands of owner-occupiers. Men grow old arid die. They know they are going to die, and two things happen as a man approaches the end of his life. First, his energy flags and he is unlikely to farm his land so well. Secondly, he wants to make provision for his children, and the tendency, therefore, is for him to get all the money he can out of his farm. Then sulphate of ammonia comes into its own and the fertility of the land is reduced in order that the farmer may provide for his children. Moreover, it often happens that on his death the place has to be sold; and that also is bad. So it is not only for the sake of the young aspirant that one wants a Bill of this

  227
  kind; it is also for the general benefit of the farming community as a whole.
  6.15 p.m.
  EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, I am really sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, still feels that he must call this a "cynically partisan" Bill, because I do not feel that it is anything of the kind, and I can only conclude that I have marshalled my arguments very badly if that is what he still thinks. The noble Lord, Lord Macpherson of Drumochter, who also disapproves of this measure, laid great emphasis on the excellence of the 1947 Act. Nobody would deny that for a moment; but it is no wish of ours to destroy the 1947 Act. We have brought in the 1957 Act which takes the place of Part I of the 1947 Act and, in our view, puts the guarantees on a longer and more secure foundation.
  The noble Earl, Lord Dundee, said, I believe rightly, that farmers originally misunderstood the position. I stress the word "originally" because I believe their opposition has very largely, in fact almost completely, died down. Originally, quite wrongly (and I believe this was the basis of the misunderstanding) they coupled Part I with Part II, believing that if Part II should go Part I would also go. But they were wrong, because the 1957 Act has replaced the previous provision on the guarantees. The relationship is not what it was before the 1957 Act. I suggest to your Lordships that justification of State eviction from a freehold home is something which a Government ought to have in its power to do only in the direst emergency, not as a normal business; and it should not be on the Statute Book but never used.
  I do not believe that the new rents will be scarcity rents. I believe I can sum up in the words of the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, that "time will show." I shall certainly be very surprised if we get scarcity rents and alarm and despondency in the farming industry as a result of the working of this Act. We cannot go over all these arguments again, and if I may I should like to end on a small personal note. At an earlier stage the noble Viscount, the Leader of the Opposition, who cannot be here at this time, was kind enough to say some nice
  228
  things about me, which, coming from an old hand is always warming for a novice. But, and I hope I shall not be accused of "looking a gift horse in the mouth", in doing so the noble Viscount implied that I was making the best of a bad job; that I was batting on a sticky wicket. My Lords, I am afraid I cannot accept that. I do not think this is a sticky wicket. I think it is such a sound and true wicket that if I have not made runs it is entirely my own fault. I commend this most excellent Bill to your Lordships, with complete confidence.
  On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

  LANDLORD AND TENANT (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) BILL
  6.20 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a,—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  LORD LATHAM: My Lords, we on these Benches think that the Third Reading of this Bill is an appropriate occasion for restating our view that the Bill is quite unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, and to regret that our successive efforts to improve the Bill met with no success. The intention, of course, of the Bill is to protect the tenants of those dwellings which, under the Rent Act, 1957, will be decontrolled in October, from the hardships and indeed one might well say the suffering to which many of those tenants may be subjected. There are some 800,000 dwellings that will be decontrolled in October next, which means that there will be in total some 2,400,000 persons affected in one way or another. In London alone the number of dwellings is estimated to be 190,000, which means something in the region of 570,000 persons.
  I have some sympathy with the Minister. This Bill was not his originally. He found it, as it were, on the plate when he sat down at the ministerial table in January, 1957. Unhappily for him, he adopted it with enthusiasm. Having

  229
  had quite a lot of close association in another sphere with the present Minister of Housing and Local Government, I feel bound to say, and indeed entitled to say, that I do not think he has ever really understood the housing problem. He has seen, and I think still sees, the housing problem as one of rents and economic returns; whereas, of course, the housing problem is a matter of homes in which families can be brought up.
  The Government generally take the view, so far as I can judge from their pronouncements, that the housing problem is more or less solved in this country except for slum clearance. An examination of the lists of waiting applicants for municipal houses clearly shows that that is far from the case. It is estimated that there are two million people sharing accommodation or existing in inadequate housing accommodation; that there are seven million dwellings which are substandard to the extent of having no separate lavatories, no bathrooms, no separate kitchen sinks, no separate stoves, and lacking many other ordinary amenities. I submit, that when this grave shortage still exists it is idle to say that there is a free market in housing. It reminds me of the satirist's comment, "There is no housing problem; only a rumour put around by people with nowhere to live! "Indeed, in our submission, the present Bill is proof that there is no free market. There is a "scarcity market" and properties are letting at "scarcity" rents. If there were a free market, there would be no need, in my submission, for this Bill.
  The present Minister was warned what would be the consequences of the provisions of the Rent Act. He proved, however, obdurate—I sometimes think he mistakes obstinacy for firmness of mind—and he refused to take account of the warnings given on numerous occasions about what the situation would be in October of this year under the decontrol provisions of the Rent Act. For instance, as recently as February 11 of this year the Minister said in another place [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 582, col. 188]:
  "I have already said that, while there will be no amendment of the Rent Act, I am quite sure that the great majority of difficult cases will, in fact find a solution before October."
  230
  I repeat, that that was said on February 11. Less than two months afterwards, on April 2, the Minister made his statement of intention to introduce a Bill having, roughly speaking, the terms of the Bill now before your Lordships' House. What happened to change the Minister's mind? One can only think that it was the circumstance that we were then approaching the county council elections, including that of the London County Council; and the present Minister is not unaware of the housing activity of the London County Council; nor is he unaware of the still grave and serious housing problem which there is in London. And so, having sworn that he would "never consent." he consented; and the critics of his proposals as embodied in the Rent Act were proved right and the Minister has been proved wrong. Hence this Bill.
  In some quarters it has been suggested that some of the difficulties likely to arise in October flow from the alleged threats of municipalisation contained within the Labour Party policy on housing. I confess that I was a little sorry, and more surprised, to find in a statement made by the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack that that attitude was adopted by him in his speech on the Second Reading of the Bill. I should like to quote what was said by the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor on July 3 [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 210 (No. 87), col. 530];
  "Circumstances since the Rent Act became law have not been favourable. Credit restrictions, essential as they are in the national interest, have deprived many who might otherwise have bought their homes of the means of doing so."
  That is a matter of policy for which the present Government must carry and accept full responsibility. The noble and learned Viscount went on to say:
  "Threats of municipalisation of rented property made by the Labour Party, with only the vaguest of references to compensation, have frightened many owners, who might otherwise have been willing to re-let, into trying to sell."
  If I may say so, with appropriate respect, I think that the noble and learned Viscount has the chronology wrong. It is the case, of course, that the statement of Labour Party policy was published in June, 1956, whereas the Bill was not introduced until November, 1956, and received its Second Reading in

  231
  another place on November 21, 1956. The statement of Labour Party policy was made, therefore, six months before the Bill was introduced into another place—not after, but before—and the Government were on full notice as to the policy of the Labour Party in regard to housing, as were the public. Nevertheless, the Minister went forward with his proposals, and although he was urged on many occasions in another place to amend his proposals, he steadfastly refused to do so.
  It is, therefore idle, in my submission, to claim now that the policy of the Labour Party has contributed to difficulties which will be met with in October of this year. It is, in my submission, complete conjecture—convenient conjecture, no doubt. No evidence has been produced that owners are refusing to let because of the declaration of policy embodied in the Labour Party brochure. Further, if some owners are selling, then there are some persons who are buying in what the Government says is a free market. Those persons are evidently not frightened, and it seems to me that it is a little tenuous to contend that the difficulties which will be met, and which this Bill is designed (inadequately, as we say) to meet, arise from any statement of policy by the Labour Party.
  Our contention is that this Bill casts the whole burden of securing protection upon the shoulders of the tenant. A tenant has to satisfy the court as to his incapacity to pay the rent which is demanded. He has to satisfy the court that he has taken every proper step to find alternative accommodation. He has then to satisfy the court that his hardship will be greater than the hardship of the landlord if he is required to give up possession. Now, my Lords, that is a pretty serious and, I submit, unfair burden to cast upon the tenant.
  There is another unfairness in this Bill—a very serious one. Large numbers of dwellings are owned by companies or corporations. For instance, there is one company that owns 5,000 decontrolled dwellings in London; another with 2,000; another with 815, and a further one with 650. How can one appraise the relative hardships as between a corporation, which is the landlord, and a tenant? A corporation, it has been said, "has not a body to be kicked nor a soul to be damned";
  232
  but a tenant and his family will be out in the street if the notice is allowed to run. If, on the other hand, the notice is not allowed to run the worst that can happen to a corporation is that it will be short of the higher income that it would have obtained from the premises if they had become vacant and if the corporation had been able to let them at a higher rent. How a county court is to be able to compare the hardship of a corporation with the hardship of a tenant and his family who are to be evicted I find difficult to comprehend. It seems to me that that provision indicates a cynical disregard of human rights: a reduction of human rights and of human considerations to the base material of pounds, shillings and pence, represented in a profit and loss account or by way of dividends which are paid. We therefore take the view that, as with the Rent Act so with this Bill; it represents a housing policy which is wrong and which a succeeding Government will have to correct in due time.
  6.36 p.m.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, at this stage of this Bill I am somewhat reluctant to follow the noble Lord into controversies which really relate to the Rent Act itself. I will therefore limit my remarks to the shortest and most effective answers that I can. The first is that I am deeply sorry—and I am sure that someone like my noble friend Lord McCorquodale of Newton, who was there at the same time, must he deeply sorry—for the late conversion of the noble Lord, Lord Latham. I only wish that he had taken these views about the need for homes when the noble Lord and I were fighting, day after day, to try to persuade the Labour Government to build more than 200,000 houses a year. We could not persuade them. We came back from our Divisions over and over again, and asked them to deal with the human problem; and they refused. The noble Lord, of course, agreed with that.
  So to-day, when he talks of the position, I ask him only to remember two things. First, if his policy had gone on there would have been over three million people added to those looking for homes but who to-day, fortunately, thanks to the fact that the policy to which he clung was done away with and our policy substituted, are now comfortably in homes

  233
  of their own. That is the first thing the noble Lord should remember when he talks about the policy being a matter of homes. The second thing is this. As I reminded him more than once during the passage of the Rent Act (I cannot recall the exact period, because I have not verified it again, but I think I am right within a matter of months) it is now something like five years since the next most distinguished Member of his Party to himself and the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, in this field of politics, said that we were getting near, if we had not already reached, the point when there was a sufficient number of houses. The only difference, of course, is that since that time a least a million more houses have been built. I hope that he will remember that point. I am sure that if he looks up the debates he will find the exact figures and will have them at his disposal.
  Another point I want to put to the noble Lord—again with great brevity—is with regard to the Labour Party's policy. The Labour Party's policy, of course, is the municipalisation of all houses privately owned and coming within the Rent Act limits. According to Mr. Greenwood, that would cost£2,500 million. The Labour Party have not quantified it officially as a Party, but that is the estimate of one of their Front Benchers. In addition to that, there would be a vast payment—perhaps not as big as the£2,500 million, but still a vast payment—for maintenance and repairs.
  The result of that policy, apart from the question of municipalisation itself, would, of course, be higher rents—because there would be no Rent Act running against a municipality. It would mean higher rates for owner-occupiers. It would mean higher taxes for the taxpayers, who would have to find these vast sums of money. It would mean higher prices, and the pouring of£2,500 million to£5,000 million into the economy would be bound to cause inflation. If brought into operation, it would almost certainly cause a devaluation of the pound and difficulty for this country in buying its imports abroad. These are the results, the inevitable and indisputable results, of the Labour Party's municipalisation policy. If the noble Lord thinks that that policy is one which has helped
  234
  to create confidence during the last few years, then he is a spirit of the fantastical which even his speech tonight would hardly have made me credit.
  These are the general points and noble Lords will accept my apologies if I have made my answers on the brief side. I always enjoy the arguments I have with the noble Lord and no doubt again we shall be able to develop this one at length. Let me come for a brief moment to the only material point—that is, the Bill at present before us. I have followed the noble Lord into pastures new, but as shortly as I can.
  With regard to this Bill we have always said that it is not a Bill to erode decontrol in any way. Like so many other people, we have said that the Rent Acts have created a problem, but, unlike the noble Lord and his friends, we have solved the problem which they created and from which the noble Lord and his friends shrank. Having done that, we have said that this Bill does not erode the principle of decontrol. But we discovered that there would be a residuum of hard cases, because there are a certain number of people who are old or who are sick or who are not otherwise in a position to make the search necessary to find other property. We have dealt with them on the principle stated in this Bill.
  The noble Lord has done me the honour of not only listening to, but also reading, some of my speeches. I quoted the case of Birmingham, a large city with, as we know, a considerable housing problem. The estimate there is 5 per cent., but, as I pointed out, Birmingham is not a typical case because there are many districts where there would be nothing like that percentage constituting this problem. Therefore, we have to deal with a small problem, but in our way we have tried to seek justice. These people are cases of hardship and we are not in the least afraid of coming forward and saying that we have found these cases and will deal with them. It will be a poor day when the Conservative Party is ashamed of being an emperical Party that deals with problems as they arise, irrespective of the preconceptions or prejudices it holds. It is in that way that we have dealt with this problem, and it is for that reason that

  235
  I ask your Lordships to give a Third Reading to and to pass this Bill.
  On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed.

  CHEQUERS ESTATE BILL
  6.46 p.m.
  House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
  Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of July 21), Bill read 3a, and passed.

  INTEREST ON DAMAGES (SCOTLAND) BILL
  Read 3a (according to Order) and passed.
  MERCHANT SHIPPING (LIABILITY OF SHIPOWNERS AND OTHERS) BILL
  Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
  PARK LANE IMPROVEMENT BILL
  Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND MISCELLANEOUS FINANCIAL PROVISIONS (SCOTLAND) BILL
  Returned from the Commons, with one of the Lords Amendments agreed to, with an Amendment, and with the remaining Lords Amendments agreed to: the Commons Amendment to be printed.
  THE SUMMER RECESS
  EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, if all necessary business has been disposed of, it is hoped that it will be possible to adjourn the House for the Summer Recess on Friday, August 1. I will make a statement early next week about the proposed date of reassembly.
  PIER AND HARBOUR ORDER (SHEERNESS) CONFIRMATION BILL
  Reported, with Amendments, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House.

  MANCHESTER CORPORATION BILL
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
  House adjourned at twelve minutes before seven o'clock.