Lords Sitting of 8 December 1959

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers read by the Lord Bishop of St. Albans
The Earl of Glasgow—Took the Oath.

IMPORTS FROM CHINA
2.35 p.m.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, seeing that (1) trade with China has ceased to expand this year largely because the volume of imports has remained static, and (2) Her Majesty's Government have expressed their desire for an expansion of this trade, they will say what steps they are taking to enable China to increase her earnings of sterling here, thus assisting her to place a larger proportion of her earnings with British firms.]
THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (LORD MILLS): My Lords, United Kingdom trade with China so far this year has shown a small decline, but this is more marked in the case of our exports than our imports. The Government's arrangements for regulating imports provide for about four-fifths of our total imports from China to be admitted free of any quota limit and the quotas fixed for the rest of the trade allow for a general expansion. These arrangements thus provide scope for China to increase her earnings of sterling here.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord. Is he aware that the Common Market countries are increasing their imports from China, which is affecting their position as sellers; and is this not a very perilous moment, therefore, for us to check our imports from China?
LORD MILLS: My Lords, I am quite aware of the situation in regard to other European trade with China. Perhaps the noble Viscount is also aware that there has been a very considerable increase in our trade with China, and I hope that the present figures, which show a small decline, are showing only a temporary decline.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, would my noble friend the Minister tell me what products can be imported from China which are not equally well obtainable in the Commonwealth or from friendly Western countries?
LORD MILLS: My Lords, I think that the products which we take from China are suitably adaptable to our needs. Having examined the list of what we take from China, I think there is also scope for expansion of our imports from China, and, it is to be hoped, of our exports to China, too.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, is it not the case that Questions from both sides of both Houses of Parliament and letters in the Press from very prominent industrialists show great anxiety at this check in the imports from China?
LORD MILLS: My Lords, I have already said that imports show quite a small reduction this year compared with those for last year. It is not so very long ago since the noble Viscount was asking Questions which were aimed at congratulating the Government upon their increase in trade with China.

GIRLS' BORSTAL AT AYLESBURY
2.40 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps are being taken to reassemble as a unit the girls' Borstal Institution which was until recently situated at Aylesbury.]
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, a new security Borstal for about 100 girls designed to replace the former security Borstal at Aylesbury is about to be built at Bulwood in Essex.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his reply. Could he at the same time give me an assurance that a section of girls who were sent to a wing of Cardiff Prison will be sent to this new Borstal when it is ready—that their residence at Cardiff is only temporary?
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, yes; I can assure the noble Viscount that that is so, not only for the section that is at Cardiff Prison but also for other sections at other prisons to which they have gone.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, for further information, could the noble Earl say when this Borstal will be completed?
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, tenders are out this month and it is hoped that this Borstal will be completed by October, 1961.

DIFFERENTIATION IN BANK OF ENGLAND NOTES
2.41 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether it is proposed to issue £1 and 10s. notes of the same size as each other; and, if so, what form of differentiation will be used, so that blind persons may distinguish between the two denominations.]
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (THE EARL OF DUNDEE): My Lords, on 19th November the Bank of England announced that they proposed to issue £1 and 10s. notes of identical size. They have, however, assured the Chancellor of the Exchequer that they are fully alive to the difficulties which this will cause for blind people, and last Thursday the Bank discussed the problem with representatives of St. Dunstan's and of the Royal National Institute for the Blind. I understand that the Bank of England have undertaken to reconsider the matter and to keep in touch with the two organisations with a view to finding some method by which one denomination may be distinguishable from the other.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his Answer. Can he not say whether it is true, as reported in the papers, that they are going to make these notes the same length but of a different width?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, the new £1 notes will be of smaller width than the present ones. I tried to find out why the Bank could not just leave things alone.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I understand it is thought that the present £5 notes are too large, and that it is desirable to have a smaller variation in size than at present for purposes of convenience in handling. It is very difficult to get four different kinds of notes of four different sizes which are all of convenient dimensions for handling and which can be economically manufactured by machinery. But I am told there may be a possibility, which the Bank are examining, of making some differentiation which will enable a blind person more easily to distinguish between £1 and 10s. notes. The main object of the Bank is to get the four different denominations of more or less the same size for convenience of handling, but of different colours.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that the new £5 notes are very much like our Scottish £1 notes and it would be a terrible thing for a Scot to give away £5 in mistake for £1?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, on the other hand, it is a very great advantage to him to be given a £5 note in mistake for a £1 note.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, could the noble Earl tell us whether, if the sizes of these notes are going to be very much the same, it is possible for the Bank to consider having some sort of embossment in some place on them in order to help blind people to distinguish them in another way, and not only by size?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I will certainly represent that to the Bank of England. I daresay they have thought of the possibility. I know they are trying to see if something can be done.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I thank the noble Earl.

IRRIGATION AND RIPARIAN OWNERS' RIGHTS
THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government (1) whether they are satisfied that the existing rights of other riparian owners at Common Law are sufficient to enable them to prevent the abstraction of water for the surface spraying of crops; (2) whether, in view of the uncertainty as to the legal position owing to the fact that this particular method of abstraction has never been considered by the courts in relation to the rights of riparian owners, they would consider issuing a statement for the guidance of all concerned, and (3) whether they consider that the Common Law rights of riparian owners should be reviewed in the light of the completely different circumstances now obtaining and so as to make them"consonant with wider public benefit".]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): My Lords, a sub-committee of the Central Advisory Water Committee is inquiring into the extent and the effect of abstractions from rivers for irrigation and other purposes. I understand that their report will be ready before long. Until it is available it is not possible to assess the seriousness of the problem and whether any action by the Government is needed. In the meantime, I am sure that the noble Earl will appreciate that it would not be proper for the Government to attempt to define the extent of Common Law rights, which can be determined only by the courts.
THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Viscount for his answer.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES COMMITTEE
2.44 p.m.
Order of the Day read for the consideration of the First Report from the Select Committee.
The Committee reported as follows:
1.—APPOINTMENT OF SUB-COMMITTEES
(1) The Sub-Committee on the Library was appointed as follows: E. Attlee, E. Home, V. Esher, V. Simonds (Chairman), V. Soulbury, L. Birkett, L. Burden, L. Chorley, L. Reid, and the Lord Great Chamberlain, with the Clerk of the Parliaments.
(2) The Sub-Committee on the Refreshment Department was appointed as follows: E. Gosford, E. St. Aldwyn, L. Amulree, L. Henderson, L. Killearn, L. Lucas of Chilworth, L. Macpherson of Drumochter, and the Lord Great Chamberlain, with the Clerk of the Parliaments.
The Sub-Committee was given power to co-opt further members and to appoint its own Chairman.
(3) The Sub-Committee on the Windows of the House was appointed as follows: D. Wellington (Chairman), M. Salisbury, E. Crawford, E. Munster, L. Burden, L. Kenilworth, and the Lord Great Chamberlain, with the Clerk of the Parliaments.
(4) The Sub-Committee on the Housing of Historical Documents in the Victoria Tower was appointed as follows: M. Salisbury (Chairman), E. Home, E. Lucan, E. Munster, V. Stansgate, V. Thurso, L. Amulree, L. Rea, and the Lord Great Chamberlain, with the Clerk of the Parliaments.
2.—VENTILATION IN THE CHAMBER
The Lord Great Chamberlain reported on the method of ventilation in the Chamber.
3.—SUPERANNUATION
The Committee approved the adoption of the provisions of the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1959, for the retired staff of the House of Lords.
4.—REVISED SCALE OF PAY
The Committee sanctioned the application of Establishments Circular No. 39/59 giving a revised scale of salary to the Clerk of the Records.
5.—CUSTODIAN STAFF
The Committee approved a re-grading and sanctioned revised rates of pay for the Custodian Staff.
6.—RESIGNATION OF A CLERK IN THE LORD GREAT CHAMBERLAIN'S OFFICE
The Committee sanctioned the payment of a gratuity under section 39 of the Superannuation Act, 1949, to Mrs. I. D. Locket.
7.—RETIREMENT OF HOUSEMAIDS
The Committee sanctioned the payment of gratuities under the Superannuation Acts, 1949 and 1957, to Mrs. H. F. Cobb, Mrs. E. Simmonds and Mrs. S. Thompson.
8.—ESTIMATES
(1) The Estimates for the House of Lords for 1960–61 were laid before the Committee and approved.
(2) Travelling expenses of Peers—The Committee recommended that the Committee of the Whips be asked to re-consider the existing arrangements for the repayment of Peers' travelling expenses.
(3) The Committee appointed a Sub-Committee, consisting of the Chairman of Committees and the Whips together with the Clerk of the Parliaments, to consider future Estimates before being laid before the whole Committee.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD MERTHYR): My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now considered.
Moved, That the Report be now considered.—(Lord Merthyr.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, I do not think that there are any points about which I need comment particularly in this Report: but, needless to say, if any noble Lord wishes to ask a question, I will do my best to answer it. I beg to move that this Report be agreed to.
Moved, That the Report be now agreed to.—(Lord Merthyr.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL
2.46 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Dundee.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair]
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
In the Schedule:
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved to omit from the enactments continued in force Section one of the Aliens Restriction (Amendment) Act, 1919. The noble Lord said: On the occasion of the Second Reading of this Bill, I gave notice to the Government that I proposed to put down an Amendment to the Schedule. The purpose of the Amend
88
ment, is, broadly speaking, this. The Schedule contains a list of measures which it is intended shall continue in force for another year. These are, in the main, measures which come up annually and have to be approved by this House annually. The Schedule includes, among other measures, the Population (Statistics) Act, 1938, though in fact a Bill on that matter is going through the House and will in the course of the current year be converted into permanent legislation: and so, next year, instead of having five measures in the first part of the Schedule, there will be only four. The Amendment which I have put down is designed to delete from the Schedule Section 1 of the Aliens Restriction (Amendment) Act, 1919; and if the Amendment were carried it would mean, in effect, that we should have to find some other way of dealing with the question of aliens. There are to-day about half a million aliens in this country. Many of them are refugees from persecution, and it is perhaps appropriate that in this year, World Refugee Year, there should be some discussion about the question of aliens in this country.
Under Section 1 of the Aliens Restriction (Amendment) Act, 1919, which I want to delete, the Government are empowered to make regulations dealing with the entry and treatment of aliens in this country. Under that provision they have made the Aliens Order, 1953, which is the substantive Order under which aliens in this country are dealt with. The first point I want to make, then, is that they are, in effect, dealt with under an Order made under Section 1 of the 1919 Act. This Order of 1953 is a Consolidation Order. It consists of a number of Orders that were made in the past under the 1919 Act; and, as is the case with all other Orders made under Statute, it is not capable of amendment: it had to be accepted as a whole. And in fact the 1953 Order has never been debated in detail by either House as a whole: it has been accepted year after year under the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill—sometimes with some discussion, sometimes not. But no one has ever gone through it in detail, or has been in a position to move Amendments to the Order. I hope that under this Amendment a full discussion will take place on the contents of this Order.
I want to say in the first place that nobody is suggesting that it is not necessary to have some kind of provision for dealing with the entry of aliens and for those aliens who are permitted to remain in this country. I recognise that, if my Amendment were carried, it would mean that Section 1 of the 1919 Act would go and, consequently, that the Aliens Order of 1953 would go. Therefore the noble Earl who I understand is to reply will not be surprised to hear that it is not my intention to press this Amendment, certainly not to a Division, and I hope that he will be able to give me satisfactory assurances which will permit of my withdrawing the Amendment altogether.
As I have said, the 1953 Order, which is the substantive matter about which I want to talk, is made under the 1919 Act. In fact, that Act was a continuation of the Aliens Act, 1914, which was passed on August 4 of that year, with some score of other measures, without discussion and obviously under critical and emergency conditions. We have had this Order and its predecessors coming up every year under the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill for 40 years. I do not remember what happened during the 1914–18 War but presumably it came up even then, and, if so, it has been coming up for 45 years. At any rate, I can say definitely that under the 1919 Act this measure has come up 40 times before your Lordships' House and before another place, substantially unchanged, although admittedly there have been minor changes and there has been the Consolidation Order of 1953.
I hope your Lordships will agree with me that the time has now come when we should make up our minds whether the treatment of aliens, which has been established over all these years, should be regarded as a permanent part of our legislation, whether we want to make any amendments to it and whether we want to introduce legislation which will permit perhaps of annual discussions. I do not think that there would be any objection to the possibility of an annual review of the situation, although I hardly think that is necessary, if the Home Secretary is required to make an annual report, but it could be left to your Lordships' House or another place to decide whether they wanted to have a discussion on the matter. It is not every
90
year that a discussion would be necessary. Nevertheless, I think that the time has arrived when the terms of the Order should receive detailed examination.
I think that both in tone and in substance the Order leaves a good deal to be desired, and I should like to mention a few matters which I feel ought to be reconsidered. First, there is the position of the naturalised British subject. In theory the naturalised British subject assumes all the rights, privileges and obligations of a natural-born British subject. Nevertheless, in practice, I understand that in certain cases he is still liable to deportation. I am not suggesting for a moment that this is wrong, but it is a matter that Parliament ought to consider specifically. On the face of it, it seems to me somewhat anomalous that, having accepted a person and conferred these rights upon him, we should reserve this one right to deport him in certain eventualities.
Another matter which I think ought to be reconsidered is the position of an alien who is brought here as a child, possibly of parents who fled their country in fear of persecution and were refugees, who knows no other country, who has been brought up here and knows no other language, yet becomes subject to the possibility of deportation. In a case of this kind deportation can be extraordinarily cruel. It is cruel for such a person to be sent to a country with which he has no ties and no associations and of which he does not know the language—to be just dumped in that country. I think that the position of such a person ought to be considered.
I am not professing to give the answer to the question this afternoon. I realise that it would be wrong for me not to appreciate the fact that although, under the Order, deportation can be arbitrary, in the vast majority of cases it follows a conviction on a serious crime, and one would hardly have much sympathy with such a person. Nevertheless, deportation becomes an additional penalty. At the end of a term of imprisonment which has been imposed such a person is subject in addition to this extraordinarily cruel treatment of being sent away from the country in which he has been brought up to a place about which he knows nothing. I appreciate that since 1956 the opportunity has been provided of making representations to the

91
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in a case of this kind. I have no doubt that such representations are always sympathetically considered, but there is no appeal against the decision and the opportunity of making these representations is in no sense a judicial procedure. The Chief Magistrate acts in accordance with his own discretion, and that is the end of it.
Another matter which in my view deserves further consideration, though again I do not wish to express a final view on the matter, is the question of the registration of aliens. Obviously, some form of registration is necessary. If we are going to restrict the admission of aliens, there must be some registration. But is it really necessary to have the complicated procedure which we have at the present time—periodic registrations; notification within 72 hours of every change of address; attendance at the police station and so on? Could not this procedure be simplified? I should like to ask the noble Earl whether it serves any useful purpose commensurate with the amount of administration involved in carrying out this registration. I am not for the moment putting this suggestion forward as something to relieve aliens who are in this country; that is not the point of my inquiry. The point is: are we maintaining a piece of machinery which, while it may have been useful at some time, is no longer necessary to-day, or at any rate, could be substantially eased?
There is one particular example of this to which I should like to refer, and that is the alien woman who is married to a British subject and who desires to retain her nationality. It may sound extraordinary to your Lordships that there are women who desire to retain the nationality of their origin, even though they get married. Such women remain aliens and have to go through the same procedure as any other alien; and it is a source of considerable inconvenience, and sometimes annoyance, when during a journey the husband goes through one barrier and the wife goes through another, and the wife finds herself subjected to all the restrictions of an ordinary alien. Then again there are people who came here as children, who have lived in this country for many years and are of perfectly good behaviour,
92
yet have to go on indefinitely carrying out this rather meticulous registration.
I am not asking the noble Earl to give me a definitive reply on these questions. It is not a matter, I think, on which it would be satisfactory to have a final reply from the noble Earl this afternoon. I am putting these comments merely as illustrative of the kind of matters contained in the regulations, which, if they were incorporated in a Bill and came before this House, we should have an opportunity of discussing and criticising, and on which we could put down Amendments and eventually come to some agreement. I can assure the noble Earl that there is no Party political difference about all this; it is a matter, to a large extent, of tidy administration. Moreover, I have read through the regulations and I think that their tone is rather grudging, illiberal and inhospitable, and not in accordance with the present ideas in this country. In a Bill a great deal of that could be improved upon and remedied.
As I have said before, I am not advocating any drastic change in the control of aliens; that is not the purpose of my Amendment. I think that, certainly since the war, we have acted with great humanity in admitting people to this country, particularly those who have been suffering from persecution in their own country. In this respect we have done as well as any other country in the West, and I hope that we shall always do so, particularly in the case of refugees fleeing from persecution. I should like to congratulate the Government on their recent action in accepting for treatment in this country some hundreds of persons suffering from curable tuberculosis, who will be receiving here as good treatment as any British subject would receive under the National Health Service. That, I feel, is a piece of generosity of which we can feel proud.
I am sure the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, will appreciate that I am not in any way criticising the general administration of the Aliens Order. The 500,000 people who are in this country have, on the whole, given little trouble. I do not know whether the noble Earl is fortified with the figures as to the crime among aliens, as compared with the general population, but I would say from my own impressions and experience that, on the whole, they are as law-abiding as

93
British subjects, and that generally they have been integrated into the life of the community. Many of them are a credit to themselves and to us; they are rendering great service and fully justify their admission. There are, of course, black sheep, but, as I have said, I do not think the number of these is exceptionally large. It is rather significant that where troubles have arisen recently they have been primarily in connection not with aliens but with members of the Commonwealth—though I do not want to pursue that aspect, because it is outside the subject matter of my Amendment. I will conclude by hoping that the Government will recognise the need for bringing to an end this annual event of having to approve the Aliens Order, and will undertake to introduce in due course legislation which will give us the opportunity of looking at the Order in detail, while if they so desire, retaining the possibility of an annual review through a procedure which can be incorporated in the Bill. I submit that both on the grounds of sound and good administration and to enable our policy to be conducted as humanely as possible and in accordance with the spirit and the letter of the Charter of Human Rights, to which we have fully subscribed, it is desirable that what I ask for should in fact be carried out. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 7, leave out lines 7 and 8.—(Lord Silkin.)
3.10 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has raised two questions: first, whether this Act, under which the Aliens Order is issued, should be continued and renewed every year under the Expiring Laws Continuance Act; and secondly, the question of the Aliens Order, 1953, on which he made a number of observations which I think your Lordships will agree were most reasonably and moderately expressed, and which will certainly all be considered by my right honourable friend.
On the first question, whether we should have some permanent Act of Parliament instead of renewing this Order annually, everybody agrees that it is a little untidy, and possibly anomalous, to have laws which are obviously meant to be permanent laws
94
—at least, so far as it is humanly possible to foresee at the present time—renewed every year instead of being embodied in a permanent Statute. While your Lordships will not expect me and the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said he did not expect me—to give any undertaking with regard to the future legislative programme, the Government will give careful consideration to the suggestion on this point which has been put forward by the noble Lord. I feel that I ought to point out, however, some of the considerations which might weigh against having a permanent Act, apart from the obvious one that every Home Secretary for a long time must have always wondered:"Why should I undertake the very great burden, and perhaps the odium, of doing something which none of my predecessors has thought it necessary to do for the last forty years?".
I cannot help feeling conscious of these considerations which might be thought to constitute a disadvantage to permanent legislation. One is the opportunity for discussion, to which the noble Lord has already referred. This is an Order which does something which we believe to be unavoidable, although we do not like it, and for that reason we may perhaps want to discuss it regularly every year. In your Lordships' House, of course, it is nearly always possible to find time for any substantive Motion of any importance and general interest which is put on the Order Paper. In another place that is not so, and if there were no opportunity of discussing this Order every year under the Expiring Laws Continuance Act, I think the only alternative would be to take up a Supply Day in doing it. I see that one suggestion made in the debate in another place was that an Act of Parliament should be passed of only one year's duration, in order that it might be discussed again the following year, when it was reintroduced. It seems to me that there is little difference in principle between that and going on with the present Expiring Laws Continuance Act. The noble Lord opposite suggested that instead of doing that there might be an annual report by the Home Secretary which both Houses could debate or not, as they liked. But I think the present system, although it may be untidy, does at least give an opportunity which

95
would not recur in the same manner if there were permanent legislation.
Another advantage of the present procedure is this. Suppose that it were found possible, and desirable, to make our laws in regard to aliens more liberal than they are now, possibly under some international agreement. You would then have the lengthy process, which would occupy a good deal of Parliamentary time, of introducing amending Bills to the Aliens Act, whereas all that is required of the Government under the existing state of affairs is to submit an amended Order in Council, which is subject only to the Negative Resolution procedure in both Houses. I think that if we were to have a permanent Bill in place of this annual recurring feature in our legislative programme it would be a major piece of legislation, and it would need a good deal of Parliamentary time, which is always a problem. That is not to say, of course, that the Government rule out the possibility of having a permanent Act of Parliament at all.
When the noble Lord came to the discussion of the Aliens Order, 1953, I thought at first that possibly that might lead to a discussion of rather considerable length, and I was therefore careful to note down the particular points which the noble Lord raised. If I may say so, I think he was very successful in selecting the most salient points in the Order which can perhaps be dealt with in a short time. I could not help feeling that if we did have a permanent Act of Parliament, it would not be quite so easy for him to raise these matters in exactly that form in which he has done so this afternoon.
The noble Lord dealt first of all with deportation, then with the treatment of residents and, finally, with the general control of aliens. He suggested that it was particularly harsh that a naturalised British subject should be subject to deportation although he had been naturalised; but he also said that he did not think it was wrong that that should be so. He also mentioned that in the case of refugees, deportation can be extraordinarily cruel. It is in fact extremely rare for a long-resident alien to be deported. The noble Lord gave a hypothetical case of someone who has been brought up here. I have been unable to ascertain whether there is any
96
actual case of that having occurred, and I think that possibly his example may be theoretical rather than real. All cases of deportation of people resident in this country for at least two years, as the noble Lord proceeded to mention a little later, have since 1956 been subject to review, if leave is given, by the Chief London Magistrate. Leave is always given to submit the case to the Chief London Magistrate, unless the deportation is a result of a judicial recommendation in court—in which case, of course, it would be unnecessary to review it—or is a case of a spy, in which event it would not be desirable to have it reviewed. In all other cases, the person against whom the deportation has been ordered is entitled to have his case considered by the Chief Magistrate.
Since 1956, there have been only 47 people who have been informed that they have this right, and 19 of them have not accepted the offer to have it considered. Of the 24 cases which have been considered by the Chief Magistrate, 19 orders have, in his opinion, been right, and only in 5 cases has he recommended that a deportation order should not be confirmed by the Home Secretary. I may add that in all these cases the Home Secretary has accepted his advice, although, as the noble Lord said, there is no question of judicial right: it is purely an advisory matter.
With regard to the treatment of aliens while they are actually here I thought, if I may say so, that the noble Lord put this matter in a very uncritical way. He gave instances of the alien woman married to a British subject; also of people of long-standing residence; and he was good enough to say that he did not think it would be a good plan for me to try to give him a definitive reply about this. With that I agree, because, as I think he is aware, the Home Secretary is extremely anxious, as the noble Lord and all your Lordships are, to administer this Order in the most humane manner possible. And as I think the noble Lord said, this is a question for discussion, whether you want to discuss some individual case of hardship, in which case any of your Lordships, of course, has a right to submit it to the Home Office, or whether your Lordships wish to discuss in a general way some possible amendment of the Order. My right honourable friend is always glad to

97
consider any representations of that kind, and he will certainly not do so in an unsympathetic way.
The noble Lord went on to say that he was not advocating any drastic changes in the control of aliens. He said that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has acted with great humanity, and he was kind enough to congratulate the Government on having admitted lately a number of people for some special medical treatment which they could not get elsewhere. I listened very carefully to what the noble Lord said, and I do not think he brought forward any particular matter of detailed criticism. What he said was that the general tone of the Aliens Order was, he thought, rather illiberal. I would suggest to your Lordships that although we do try—though all Home Secretaries have tried, and particularly, I think, the present Home Secretary—to act with the greatest possible measure of humanity and liberalism in this matter, however you look at it aliens restriction is an illiberal thing.
We all agree that it is necessary in our modern society. It is necessary from the point of view of labour not to admit too many competitors into our labour market without a permit from the Ministry of Labour; we are all agreed on that We are all agreed that we do not want the country flooded with people who might come here only to take advantage of our extremely highly organised welfare services. We all agree that we must have regard to national security. Indeed, I do not think there is any disagreement in principle about the need for this legislation. But although we try to make it as liberal as possible, there is no getting away from the fact that it is essentially an illiberal thing to do, whether we have the power renewed every year or whether we have a permanent Act of Parliament.
Which procedure would give your Lordships' House and the other place a greater control over the way in which our policy is administered I cannot say. I would suggest that if we are to have a permanent Act it would be not only
98
a major piece of legislation but in many ways, perhaps, controversial. We should have to decide whether it was going to be the Home Secretary who was to have the responsibility, as he has now, or whether it was to be some judicial body. You cannot have it both ways; either the Home Secretary must be responsible or not. We might possibly have to decide whether the question of Commonwealth immigrants was brought in or not. In any case, a permanent Act would be a major piece of legislation, and while I do not say that the Government should rule out making an attempt to do something of that kind, I could not honestly say that it is so urgent that it ought to have a very high priority among all the other legislative projects which are now competing for a fairly limited amount of parliamentary time. But I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin for the very reasonable way in which he has submitted his views to your Lordships. I will certainly convey them to my right honourable friend, and they will most certainly be considered by the Government.
LORD SILKIN: I said that if I received satisfactory replies from the noble Earl on the points I raised I should not press the Amendment. I thank him for the kind words he said about the way I moved this Amendment, and I should like to reciprocate by expressing my appreciation of the manner in which he has dealt with it. I do not think I want to continue the discussion. I am perfectly content to leave the matter where it is, on the assurance that what I have said will be brought to the notice of the Home Secretary and will be considered by him. I would add only that I should be grateful if at some time I could be informed of the result of that consideration. Subject to that—I am sure the noble Earl will be able to give me that assurance—I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.

DISTRESS FOR RATES BILL
3.27 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this is a Consolidation Bill. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

JUDICIAL PENSIONS BILL
3.28 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, your Lordships may remember that on the Second Reading of the Pensions (Increase) Bill last July the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, asked me what the Government proposed to do about the pensions of members of the higher Judiciary for whom the Pensions (Increase) Bill made no provision. In reply I told the noble Lord that this was a matter to which the Government were giving careful consideration and that they intended to put proposals before Parliament in a later Session. This Bill is the result of that consideration, and I hope your Lordships will think that it honours in full measure the undertaking which I gave.
As I then said, in answer to the noble Lord, there has been no increase in the pensions of the higher Judiciary in England and Wales for some 134 years. In the year 1825 legislation was passed which abolished the sale of offices in the superior courts and fixed the pensions of the Judges of those courts at figures which have long been familiar to many of us, including the £3,500 which was until 1950 the pension payable to a High Court Judge on retirement after fifteen years' service on the Bench or earlier on account of permanent infirmity. Then in 1950 the Administration of Justice (Pensions) Act of that year introduced a scheme of widows' and children's pensions and lump sum benefits for members of the higher Judiciary on their retirement.
100
In return for benefits of this kind the Judges surrendered a quarter of the amount of their own pensions, so that these pensions themselves are now actually less than they were in 1825. For instance, the pension of a High Court Judge in England to-day, unless he opted out of the Act of 1950 as he was entitled to do, is £2,625 and not £3,500 a year.
The result of the recent increases in salary of members of the lower Judiciary—I repeat,"the lower Judiciary" whose pensions are linked to their current salaries, is that their maximum pension entitlements have increased to a point where they come near to, and in a few cases actually exceed, the pensions of the higher Judiciary. For, as your Lordships will remember, no increases were made in the Judges' pensions when their salaries were increased in 1954. In these circumstances I do not think anyone can deny that the time has now come for a review of the pensions of the higher Judiciary throughout the United Kingdom, and some, indeed, may say that such a review is overdue.
The Bill introduces some new features of considerable importance into the pensions structure of the higher Judiciary. Hitherto, as your Lordships know, these pensions have been payable at a flat rate and are earned, as I have said, on retirement after fifteen years' service or earlier because of ill-health. The Bill introduces for the first time a scheme of graduated pensions dependent on length of service. This has, of course, for long been the rule in the case of all other public service pensions, including those of members of the lower Judiciary.
The application of a scheme of this kind to the higher Judiciary was recommended by the St. Aldwyn Commission, presided over by the grandfather of my noble friend in 1913, and perhaps I may be allowed to quote to your Lordships some words from that Commission's Report. They said:
"We do not wish to see Judges appointed late in life, but it seems to us unfair to compel one who has been so appointed to serve, perhaps, for some years beyond a reasonable age for retirement before he can obtain any pension; unfair to the Lord Chancellor, to limit his choice of Judges to men below a certain age; and unfair to the tax payer that in this department of the State alone permanent infirmity should entitle a person, irrespective of his length of service, to the same pension as that to which he would have been entitled had

101
he served the full term. We think that Judges compelled to retire by ill-health or by the age limit should only receive pensions in proportion to the length of time they have served …"
What the Bill proposes is that the pensions of fudges appointed after it becomes law should be on a graduated scale starting with one-quarter of the Judge's last annual salary after five years' service or less and rising by equal annual increments of one-fortieth to a maximum of one-half of the salary after fiftteen years' service.
Perhaps I might give your Lordships some illustrations of the effect of this. The pension of a High Court Judge in England will be £2,000 a year for five years' service or less, rising thereafter by £200 a year to £4,000 a year at the maximum. The maximum pension of the Lord Chief Justice will be £5,000, and that of the Master of the Rolls or a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary £4,500. I am sure that your Lordships will agree that, having regard to the changes in the value of money and the incidence of taxation since 1825, these figures are no more than properly compatible with the importance of the office and of an independent Judiciary in a democratic State.
Lump sum payments and widows' and children's pensions under the Act of 1950 will, of course, continue to be payable as heretofore, but will be calculated by reference to the new pension scales. The graduated pension scheme will not apply to Judges who are in office at the time the Bill becomes law unless a Judge elects that they should do so, as he may well do in order to take advantage of the new right which is given him by Clause 2 (2) of the Bill to retire at 70 years of age, even though he may not have completed his fifteen years' service. This is a point to which I will return in a moment. In default of an election of this kind, serving Judges will be entitled to a pension at the new rate of one-half of their last annual salary when they retire after fifteen years' service or for reasons of ill health.
The next important innovation made by the Bill is the introduction of a compulsory retiring age. This was first recommended in 1913 by the St. Aldwyn Commission from whose Report I have already quoted, and was endorsed by the Royal Commission under the chairman
102
ship of the late Lord Peel which reported in 1936. Both the St. Aldwyn Commission and the Peel Commission suggested that the retiring age for Judges of the Queen's Bench Division—they were dealing only with Judges of that Division—should be 72, though the St. Aldwyn Commission recommended that a Committee consisting of the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice of the day together with any ex-Lord Chancellor still sitting as a Lord of Appeal, should have power to extend it to 75 if they thought it in the public interest to do so.
The Peel Commission, on the other hand, thought that any power to extend was undesirable since, as they said:
"a conditional extension of office might conceivably be thought to endanger, in however small a degree, the independence of the Judges."
The then Master of the Rolls, Lord Hanworth, who was a member of the Peel Commission, while expressing some doubt about the wisdom of a retiring age, thought that if there were to be one it should be fixed at 75, the age proposed by the Bill. I should also tell your Lordships that the Bar Council have recently taken this matter into consideration and arrived independently at the conclusion that there should be a fixed retiring age of 75 for the Judges.
My Lords, I have considered long and anxiously before making up my mind about this question of a retiring age, for there can be no doubt that if a Judge is called on to retire on reaching a certain age the State may well lose the services of a man at the height of his powers with several years of valuable work still ahead of them. That is true, and it is still true whatever age one takes. But I think it is equally true that it is in the best interests of the State and of the Judges themselves that a Judge should know clearly in advance the age at which he will have to relinquish office. What is important is that the age should be fixed sufficiently high to ensure that we do not lose too early the knowledge, experience and ripe judgment of the older Judges; and it is for this reason that I think that the age of 75 is the right one.
The effect of the new retiring age coupled with the system of graduated pensions introduced by the Bill will be that a Judge appointed in the future will have to retire on reaching 75 years

103
of age; and I would repeat the point I have already explained and would emphasise that this does not apply to existing Judges. A Judge appointed in future will have to retire at that age, taking the graduated pension to which his length of service entitles him. This will mean that a man appointed after the age of 60 will not be able to earn a full pension; but it will nevertheless give me a freer hand than I have at present in choosing a man over 60 for appointment, because he will qualify for some pension even though he has been appointed at a later age than has been customary in recent years.
I have already mentioned the beneficial provisions of Clause 2 (2). This will enable a Judge who has attained the age of 70 to retire if he wishes to do so, taking the proportionate pension to which his length of service entitles him. I hope that a provision of this kind may be found useful by a Judge who may perhaps find the continued burden of work on the Bench something of a strain and who would like to go sooner than is normally contemplated. This provision, as I have said, is something of which a Judge now in office may take advantage if he is prepared to accept the new scheme as a whole, including its provisions for graduated pensions and compulsory retirement at the age of 75; but, of course, it is entirely for him to decide whether he wishes to take advantage of the new scheme. Otherwise the retiring age may not be applied to existing Judges. I am sure your Lordships will agree with that principle. They have taken office on the basis of no retiring age, and unless they want to come into the scheme it should not apply to them.
I can deal with the remaining provisions of the Bill quite shortly. Clause 4, which appears at first sight to be somewhat complicated, is intended simply to ensure that a member of the lower Judiciary, such as a county court judge, who is promoted to high judicial office shall not suffer financially if he is obliged to retire after a short time on the High Court Bench. I could give your Lordships details, but I am sure there will be no objection to that principle. It is obviously fair and just. This clause, therefore, enables a person in this position to elect on retirement between the
104
pension and lump sum to which his office as a High Court Judge entitles him and the pension for which he would have been eligible if he had continued in his former office, together with a lump sum calculated by reference to his former salary.
To Clause 5 I refer with some diffidence, for it proposes, as your Lordships will see, that the pension of the Lord Chancellor should be increased to £5,000 a year—the figure at which it was fixed in 1832. The reduction of one-quarter in judicial pensions which was made in 1950 in return for the retiring benefits and widows' and children's pensions meant, however, that the Lord Chancellor's pension, in the sense of the amount of money which he actually received so long as he was alive, was reduced to £3,750 per annum; and I hope your Lordships will agree that it is not unreasonable that some increase should now be made in that figure. At £5,000 the pension will, of course, be less than one-half of the Lord Chancellor's salary, which is only right in view of the fact that the pension is payable without any qualifying period of service on the Woolsack. Moreover, it has long been the practice, and there is in my view a moral if not a legal duty, for ex-Lord Chancellors to assist by sitting in your Lordships' House and the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council when the Lord Chancellor asks them so to do and they can do it, with due allowance for health and so on.
Clause 6 makes it clear that not more than one pension can be paid for service in two different judicial capacities. As I have told your Lordships, retired High Court Judges have not had the benefit of any increase in their pensions such as has been given to the members of the lower Judiciary and public service pensioners by the various Pensions (Increase) Acts that have been passed in recent years. Clause 7 atones for this neglect by providing that any holder of high judicial office who retired before July 9 of this year, when the last Pensions (Increase) Act was passed, is to receive an increase of 12 per cent. in his pension. Subsection (2) of Clause 7 provides that this increase shall not be taken into account in calculating widows' and children's pensions, but this

105
is only because these pensions can be dealt with under regulations which I propose to make under the Pensions (Increase) Act.
Finally, I ought perhaps to mention the provisions of Clause 8. Subsection (1) repeals the provision in the Judges' Remuneration Act, 1954, which provided that when the Judges' salaries were increased their pensions should remain at their previous figures. The effect of Clause 8 is that in future pensions will be linked to current salaries. Subsection (2) of Clause 8 may at first sight seem to be rather puzzling. It deals with the case of a Judge in office at the passing of the Administration of Justice (Pensions) Act, 1950, who elected not to come into the widows' and children's pensions scheme for which that Act provided. Those benefits, as I have said, were made in return for a reduction of one-quarter in the Judges' pensions, but a Judge who opted out did not have his pension reduced. To calculate the new pension of a Judge in this position on a salary notionally increased by one-third—which is what subsection (2) proposes—is, as the mathematicians among your Lordships will already have worked out, equal to giving the Judge a pension which has not been reduced by one-quarter.
My Lords, I hope I need say no more except to commend this Bill to your Lordships as one which makes fair and reasonable pension provision on modern lines for the Judges, for whom such a provision is beyond question needed. Good pension rights are to-day regarded as a necessary element in considering the attractions of any form of employment, and it is plain that the Judges' pensions should bear a fair relationship to the pension which a man of comparable ability could earn elsewhere. I hope your Lordships will think, as I do, that the new scheme will be of real benefit to the Judges, and that you will now give the Bill a Second Reading so as to ensure its early passage into law. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a Second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. (The Lord Chancellor.)

THE MONCKTON COMMISSION
3.50 p.m.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (THE EARL OF HOME): My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, will allow me to intervene I will not stand between him and the House for more than a few moments, but I think that the House would like to know the names of the Government, Parliamentary people to serve on the Monckton Commission which have been announced by the Prime Minister in another place. The names are as follows: my noble friend Lord Crathorne; the Right Honourable Sir Lionel Heald, Privy Counsellor, Member of Parliament for Chertsey; and the Right Honourable Hugh Molson, Privy Counsellor, Member of Parliament for the High Peak.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, am I to understand that that completes the list of Privy Counsellors to be appointed?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, as the noble Viscount knows, we were not able to complete the Parliamentary representation in the way we had hoped because his Party felt unable to serve. Therefore there are three places vacant. If the Prime Minister felt it wise or necessary to reinforce the Commission in any way I have no doubt he would do so from the wide field of independent people outside.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I do not want to delay the House, but I hope that the noble Earl the Leader of the House will have a look at the statement of Sir Roy Welensky of yesterday, which seems to justify the attitude of my Party. He makes statements which do not quite agree with the Preamble to the 1953 Act.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I will look at the statement made by Sir Roy Welensky, but I think that that has nothing to do with the answer I have given to-day.
EARL WINTERTON: Hear, hear! Or with this House.

JUDICIAL PENSIONS BILL
Debate on Second Reading resumed.
3.53 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble and learned Viscount for the clear explanation which he gave of the Bill which is before us. Indeed, it is not a very easy Bill to follow. To understand it would be an almost impossible task without some such explanation as the noble and learned Viscount has given us. Therefore, in the normal course of events I should have registered a very strong complaint about the great haste with which this Bill is being taken. I would remind your Lordships that the Bill had its First Reading last Friday, when most of us were otherwise occupied, and it comes up for Second Reading to-day.
I recognise the courtesy of the noble and learned Viscount in notifying me of this in very good time and of giving me some explanation of the Bill in writing, but I think it is a most undesirable practice to give the House, in effect, fortuitously one sitting day in which to consider an important measure of this kind. If it had not been for the fact that we were meeting unexpectedly yesterday, we should have had the First Reading on a day when we do not normally sit and the Second Reading on the following sitting day. I imagine that there must be some urgency about the matter; and if the noble and learned Viscount will explain what is the urgency and whether it would make the slightest difference to Judges if this Bill were passed in February, say, as against some time before Christmas, there may be something to be said for the haste. But in the interests of those who try to take an intelligent interest in our proceedings I hope that this practice of rushing legislation in this way will be a very rare thing and will not become the common-place.
I think we are entitled to pride ourselves on the eminence of those who go to the High Court Bench. We are getting, I suppose, persons who are among the most eminent people in this country. They come to the Bench in the prime of life and certainly in the prime of their earning powers. Generally speaking, a person who goes to the High Court Bench is a barrister of the highest stand
108
ing, earning large sums of money and is likely to do so for a good many years to come. It is in many cases a great financial sacrifice to accept the office of High Court Judge, even at the increased salary which has now been prevailing for some years. But obviously even Judges are not immune from material considerations, and a great many silks of the highest eminence have, to my knowledge, refused judicial office because the terms were not sufficiently attractive. It is to the credit of the Bar that so many silks of great eminence have accepted office and have made the sacrifice. However, we are not entitled to demand of people that they should make such great sacrifices in the public interest. Therefore I welcome this Bill which goes a long way towards making the position of the High Court Judge more attractive and more secure.
In the past the difference between a High Court Judge's earnings and a Judge's pension has been so marked that unless he had private means of his own (and in these days it is increasingly difficult for any professional man to acquire private means out of his earnings) retirement meant a tremendous drop in his standard of living. It is not surprising that Judges who might normally have been expected to retire have continued to function simply because they felt that they could not stand the drastic drop in their standard of living and were compelled to go on.
I do not wish to deal with the details of the Bill. It provides an increased pension and, as I have said, I think that it is welcomed. I was not able to follow very clearly whether the lump sum which is provided and the widow's pension are additional to the half-pension after fifteen years' service, but if it is so I personally do not grudge that either. But, of course, it is an additional attraction. One thing the Bill does which on the whole will be welcomed is to ensure retirement at the age of 75, and it even tempts existing Judges who are over that age to retire immediately. The noble and learned Viscount has discussed the question of the appropriate age at which Judges should retire compulsorily in the future. I suppose that whatever age one mentions, whatever age one decides upon, is bound to be arbitrary. There are bound to be people at 75 or even at 80 years of age who

109
might be described as being at the height of their powers and capable of rendering great service. But one has to draw a line somewhere.
I have given serious thought to the retirement age. What is the age at which one ought to draw a line? One gets no assistance in deciding upon the age of 75 by comparing it with the retirement age in other professions or occupations which I would submit are equally arduous. If you take the case of the civil servant, he retires at the age of 60, or, at the most, at the age of 65; and if you judge by the recent increases in the salaries of the top civil servants, you find that a senior civil servant in this country receives the same remuneration as a High Court Judge. Presumably, therefore, he is of the same calibre—and, with some experience of senior civil servants I would not challenge that. The multiplicity of their duties, the complexity, and so on, are such that we really need people of that calibre. But, if that is so, why is it that they are required to retire at the age of 60, or 65 at the most? Are they not, many of them, at the height of their powers at the age of 75, or might they not be?
A county court judge is required to retire at the age of 72. Does that mean that county court judges are lesser lights, and presumably mature and their powers come to an end three years earlier than a High Court Judge? Directors of companies are required to retire at the age of 70 unless there is an annual resolution of the company enabling them to carry on until they are 75; but 70 is the normal retiring age. So I wonder whether there is any providence which especially protects High Court Judges against the ravages of old age, or whether this is a compromise which the noble and learned Viscount has been compelled to make and which is perhaps the best he could do.
In my view, there ought to be a similar retiring age for all comparable occupations. While, as I have already indicated. I have the highest respect for the Judiciary of this country, I cannot think that they are specially protected and are of such a calibre that they have a three-year longer useful life than most of us. That, of course, does not apply to politicians and Members of this House. I realise that until now retire
110
ment has been entirely at the discretion of the Judge himself, subject to a Joint Address by both Houses—and I cannot imagine that that was likely to happen. Judges have therefore decided for themselves as to their retiring age, and it may be that to fix the age at 75 is better than to have no retiring age; but it does strike me as a somewhat unsatisfactory feature of the scheme that this should be, I suppose, the highest retiring age of any in the country.
Furthermore, it does not apply to the Lord Chancellor, though the Lord Chancellor's pension is dealt with in the Bill. I know I can say this to the noble and learned Viscount who occupies the position at present, because he can view the great many years which still exist between himself and the present retiring age of 75 with complete equanimity, but if it is right that ordinary Judges should retire at 75, why is it not right that the Lord Chancellor, who has very heavy duties on his shoulders—not only judicial, but other duties, too; administrative duties—should not equally be required to retire at 75?
My Lords, these are some of the questions which occur to me, but I certainly wish to put no difficulties in the way of the passing of the Bill. On the whole, I think it is right that pensions should be increased. I should have liked further consideration to be given to the question of the retiring age, and no doubt there may be an opportunity when we get to the Committee stage of the Bill to have a further discussion on it; but, subject to that, I certainly approve the Second Reading of this Bill.
4.6 p.m.
LORD REID: My Lords, I propose to say little about the main purpose of this Bill, because it may be that, some day, I shall myself be affected by it. But there are two proposals which are tacked on to that main purpose, not in my view essential to it, on which perhaps I may be allowed to offer some criticism, I hope not too controversial, because these two purposes will never affect me. The main purpose of the Bill is to increase the amount of the pensions as they stand to-day, but what the Bill really does is to go a considerable way to restore part of what has been taken away by inflation in the last twelve or fourteen years. I take into account, of course, not only

111
the figure of pension provided in the Bill but also the advantages which were granted in 1950 and which have already been mentioned. To add up the present position, including those advantages, and compare it with the true value of the pensions given in 1945 would no doubt require an actuarial calculation, but I think it fairly safe to say that the leeway has not quite been made up.
I make no complaint at all about that. So many people have suffered so much from the erosion of inflation that I do not think it would be proper to make any complaints of that kind. Nor do I complain that the pension is now to be only one-half of the salary, whereas traditionally it was considerably more than that. I think that the restoration of the position to what it was at the end of the war is reasonably complete, and one should acknowledge that fact. But there are two matters on which I do not see eye to eye with the Bill. As I say, I do not want to be controversial about them, but I think that the other side of the argument ought to be presented. Those two matters are the age limit and the reduction of the existing pension which would be payable to a Judge in the event of his being incapacitated by illness during his first few years of service. If I may, I will take the age limit first.
I know that there is room for difference of opinion on this matter, both as to whether there should be an age limit and as to what it should be, but the argument is far from being all on one side; and in my view an age limit is not in this case in the public interest. I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, would agree with a practical test to see what the effect of this will be. Let me suppose that this age limit had come into operation 60 or 70 years ago. I think that is fair enough, because I do not think that we or our successors are likely to age more rapidly than our predecessors—at least, I hope not. I also think that 60 or 70 years is a fair period, because those of us who have grown up in the law, at least, and probably many others, have either personal knowledge or first-hand information about the position during that period.
I do not think anybody would deny that outstanding services and contributions of permanent value in the develop
112
ment of the law have been given during that period by a fairly large number of Judges when they were over 75 years of age. I think that there is no doubt about that. And, of course, if this age limit is introduced, all that will be lost. On the other hand, one must plainly admit that sometimes—not, I think, very often, but sometimes—a Judge has been known to remain in office for a year or two when it would have been wise for him to retire. I do not think that it happens very often, because a friendly hint often solves the problem; but it does happen. One has, therefore (and this is the test I would suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin), to balance the advantages which have undoubtedly accrued within the last 60 to 70 years from the non-existence of an age limit against the disadvantages which will equally undoubtedly accrue. Balancing those two seems to me to be a matter of personal impression. My own impression is quite clear. On balance, we have gained a great deal more than we have lost by the absence of an age limit during that period.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, would the noble and learned Lord apply this to other professions?
LORD REID: My Lords, I am just going to do so. I know, of course, that the stock argument is that this is an anomaly. The stock argument is the fact that the age limit applies in almost every other profession. In my view, the age limit is often absurdly low when we look at the capacity of those who have to retire. And I hope that this answers the noble Lord's question.
In my view, the real justification for an age limit in other professions is that it opens the door to early promotion. If we look at the man who is retiring, in many cases it is almost absurd. But if we look to the good of the profession, to the fact that men could be promoted at an appropriate time, then I think there is a great deal to be said for an age limit, although, even so, some age limits are too low. But this does not apply in the least here. I have not heard anybody suggest that owing to the absence of an age limit Judges have to be appointed too late in life. On the contrary, my noble and learned friend who sits on the Woolsack has said that one of the advantages of this Bill will be that it will now be possible to appoint

113
Judges even later than they are normally appointed at present. In my view, therefore, the main argument for an age limit in other walks of life does not apply here at all.
May I take the matter one stage further? In other services, earlier promotion normally always means an increase in income for those who are promoted. As the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has pointed out, however, that is not often the case where a Judge is appointed. Very often he suffers a considerable drop in income, and the reason is not far to seek. If we take the existing judicial income, deducting income tax in order to find its purchasing power, and if we take the purchasing power of the judicial income before the First World War—at the time of the St. Aldwyn Commission, for example—we find that the present income of a Judge is less than one-quarter in worth of what it was 50 years ago. I do not complain about that, but it has this important result. In the old days a Judge was on a reasonable equality financially with leaders in other walks of life—in business, in industry and in the other professions. To-day that is not so.
That leads me to my second criticism of this Bill—namely, the matter of retiring pension when a Judge has to retire prematurely owing to illness. At the moment, although he may be paid much less in real value than other leaders in the country, a Judge at least has this advantage that even if illness overcomes him within a short time of his appointment, he has financial security. I do not think that there is any legal obligation to pay a pension, but for a long time there has never been a refusal to pay a full pension to a Judge who retired, however soon after he took office. For some reason which I am wholly unable to understand, this Bill takes away that security. I cannot think why. It is not done in order to achieve any considerable economy, because I do not think that there can often have been any period in recent times when there have been more than three or four, or perhaps five, men who have had to retire prematurely in their early years on the ground of illness. If we take the difference between a full pension of £4,000 and a half-pension of £2,000 and allow for income tax and suppose that there are five cases. at the outside, the net saving to
114
the Treasury is £5,000 a year: that is all. Is it worth it? That is the question I ask.
It is true that this is coupled in the Bill with a new provision which is an improvement. I do not think that it amounts to much, but it is an improvement. It applies to Judges who are appointed over the age of 55 and enables them to retire at the age of 70, if they want to, although they are not in the least incapacitated. Of course, in almost all cases where a Judge accepts this option he will be getting a very large proportion of his full pension. I should not expect that a large number of Judges would so so. As I say, it applies only to Judges appointed over 55. Therefore the net cost to the Treasury is negligible. But why combine this, which is a voluntary matter applying to a limited number of Judges, with the other provision, which is compulsory and applies to every Judge who may be incapacitated at an early date?
What will happen, of course, is that every Judge who is appointed will feel so much the less secure financially than he does at present. He risks losing three-quarters of his income if he falls ill. He may have commitments. It may be a serious matter. Again taking the argument from other services, I know that in those cases no pension is given in the initial stages—or only a very small one. But, my Lords, there really is no comparison. In all the other services a man joins in his twenties. A man is rarely appointed to the Bench before he is fifty, and I think that 30 years' legal practice is not wholly irrelevant, if a comparison has to be made.
I do not think it can be denied that deliberately reducing the present pension which a Judge could get if he became infirm in his early years—because that is what is happening—is to some extent diminishing the security and the attractiveness of the Bench. To my mind, it is going to be difficult enough in 20 years time to fill judicial posts. At present the financial advantages, direct and indirect, in other walks of life for men of high ability are so much greater than in the law that it is going to be extremely difficult to keep in the law a sufficient number of the kind of men who will want to fill these vacancies in 20 or 30 years time; and I venture to say that every little impairment—and this is one—of

115
judicial security is most unfortunate in the public interest. I cannot of course take this matter any further than posing the question: why should this be, looking to the extremely small saving which will result? It would be quite wrong to think of proposing any kind of Amendment and to impose a charge on the Exchequer, but I hope that, somehow and at some time, means will be found to repair what I can only regard as a blemish on this Bill.
Finally, if I am not detaining your Lordships for too long, I think I ought to say a word or two on the two Royal Commissions which have been used as advocating these changes. Both of them were making general reviews of the position in the King's Bench Division (as it then was). The St. Aldwyn Commission in 1913 almost assumed that an age limit was a good thing, and the discussion there was really on whether the age should be 72 or some other figure. I did not find in that Commission's Report any substantial acknowledgement of the fact that valuable services would be lost by the imposition of such an age limit. But when I came to the part of the St. Aldwyn Report which dealt with the question of reduction of pensions of Judges who have to retire prematurely, I found it illuminating, and not, I think, helpful to the advocates of the change. One argument was the one that I have been dealing with: that it is done in all other services; and the other was that it is not fair to the taxpayer that this tax should be paid. Of course there was some substance in that in the year 1913. In those days the judicial pension was £3,500, which was a very large sum of money, and I can well understand the St. Aldwyn Commission thinking that the taxpayer had an interest to see that reduced. But what did the Commission recommend? They recommended that the pension should be £1,500 a year if the Judge had to retire during his very early years—and I would note that the purchasing power—again after allowing for tax, as is proper—of £1,500 a year in 1913 was more, and considerably more, than the purchasing power of the whole salary of a Judge—namely, the £8,000 a year which he receives to-day if in office. It does not in the least follow, because the St. Aldwyn Commission thought £1,500 at its then value was a suitable sum in 1913, that
116
it would be thought that £2,000—well we know how much less that is worth than it used to be—would be a suitable sum to-day.
The Peel Commission dealt with retiring age rather more at length, but they incorporated in their Report a note which I think it worth reading. They said—and of course they were dealing only with the King's Bench Division (as it then was):
"Men of exceptional legal ability will in most cases have found their way to one of the superior courts before reaching the retiring age for Judges of first instance."
So that the Peel Commission were far from advocating a universal age limit for Judges. I should say at once that if there is to be a limit at all, I agree that it ought to be universal; you cannot pick and choose. But the Peel Commission cannot be quoted as advocating a universal age limit. On the reduction of pensions, I do not think they added anything to what had been said before. I hope that I have not said anything that in my position I ought not to have said, or have detained your Lordships unduly long. I felt that it was desirable, and indeed necessary, to put on record the objections to these comparatively small parts of this Bill, but that does not in the least weaken either my welcome or my support for the Bill as a whole; and on that note I would conclude.
4.27 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I should like to say a word or two on this Bill, because it seems to me that up to now most of the points made, while no doubt important ones, have not brought out what to my mind is the real importance of the Bill. This, in a way, is an historical Bill, because it is the first time in history—or for many hundreds of years, at all events—that a retiring age for Judges of the High Court has been fixed. One can imagine how delicate a matter it has been to bring in a retiring age, since it is not less than 46 years ago that the St. Aldwyn Commission reported on the subject. According to Professor Dicey, the normal time in this country for a new idea to arrive on the Statute Book is 30 years, so this one has taken a good deal longer than is normally the case; and I must congratulate the noble Earl, Lord St. Aldwyn, in

117
seeing, as a Chief Whip to a Government, his grandfather's recommendation coming into effect. At what age a Judge should retire is, I suppose, largely a matter of opinion. I should have thought that it was a sensible thing, having regard to all the circumstances, to provide that a Judge must retire at 75, but can retire, if he so desires, from the age of 70 onwards.
In this country we are most fortunate in the standard and calibre of our judges. There are those of us who know other systems who would be prepared to say that there is no other country with a judicial standard as high as ours. The reason for that is that we have, I suppose, somewhere between 40 and 50 Judges of the Court of Appeal and the High Court for a population of some 50 million, whereas in most other countries they have a large number of judges who are career judges and who are not particularly well paid, and they cannot expect to get the very high quality that we get here. We are able to do this by reason of the fact that well over 90 per cent. of our criminal cases are heard by magistrates, who are laymen. I gather from the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, that he does not want to see that percentage in any way diminished; and I think he is right.
I do not want to say much on this Bill, other than to welcome it and to make one or two points. In the first place, I hope that the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor will now, under the provisions of the Bill and, in particular, the provisions of Clause 4, feel entitled to appoint more Judges from the county court. I have often wondered over the years why more county court judges were not promoted. It seems to me that this is an excellent training ground for High Court Judges, and now that county court judges often have jurisdiction in divorce—they sit as Commissioners of Divorce—I feel it would be a great encouragement to them if more of their number were promoted to the High Court Bench.
The other point I want to make is this. The sole source from which our Judges have been selected has been the Bar—and whether that is right or wrong is not for me to say at this moment. The solicitors' profession has never been a source either for High Court or for county court Judges. How long is the Bar going to
118
be able to provide Judges of the high quality that we have both in the High Court and in the county court? It is no use shutting our eyes to the fact that the Bar is going through a crisis; that the able young men are no longer in a position in many cases to stay at the Bar. They have to go out to commerce, and it is no good blinding ourselves to the fact. I believe—and this affects the Lord Chancellor and whoever has to select Judges—that the Bar and the Law Society will have to get down very soon indeed to a realistic approach to this whole problem. The first approach will have to be a common training of both barristers and solicitors, and a common system of examination, so that the young man who goes in for law will not, as he does now, have to decide before he starts training which of the professions he is going into, but will be able to decide after he has passed his examinations—that is, if it is decided to keep two professions in being.
The second reform which is a matter of immediate concern is that the Bar should permit its members to form partnerships. I believe that this is essential for the health of the Bar. That does not take into account the more debatable point, as to whether there should be two professions or not. I will not go into that question to-day, because I think I should be out of order if I did. I have my own views on it, and I have no doubt that many of your Lordships have as well. I believe that these reforms can be achieved without any legislation, by the administration of the Bar and the Law Society itself. These reforms are urgent, and if they are not put into practice very soon I believe that the noble and learned Viscount and his successors will have great difficulty in maintaining the high standard we have known in the past.
4.33 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, the question of the age limit is obviously one of great importance and relevant to this Bill. I should like to say something about it, but I should also like to say a word or two on the point which has just been suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, and by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Reid. The problem of recruiting the High Court Bench is obviously going to be a very difficult one in a few years' time, and I feel in

119
sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, has said. It has always seemed to me that it was quite unfair to the solicitors' branch of the profession, of which I have the honour to be a member, that it should be left out of the running for promotion to judicial office. Some of the solicitors with whom I have had to deal during my time at the Bar were lawyers of obviously great ability, and would have made admirable Judges.
I quite appreciate that the difficulty of selection is greater in the case of solicitors. They do not come before the supreme Tribunal or the Court of Appeal, so that at present, at any rate, it is difficult to form a judgment as to how capable they would be as members of the Bench. I think that if the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, for more promotions from the county court were carried through seriously, and the opportunity were taken to promote solicitors to the county court in the first instance, it would not be difficult to discover how well they were carrying out their judicial duties as county court judges. In my time as a young barrister I appeared a good deal in county courts, and among the county court registrars, who used by agreement between the parties to take the small cases in order that everybody might get away fairly quickly, there were a number of really first-class judges. Three or four county court registrars, whose names I could mention, would have made admirable county court judges; there cannot be any question about it whatever. I think they might well have qualified with their experience as county court judges for the High Court Bench itself—one or two of them might well have done so. This would require legislation, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, said, it is a little peripheral to the main subject and I will not take it further.
The question of the retiring age is one of great importance to-day, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Reid, is undoubtedly right when he said that some of the finest judgments that appear in the law reports over the last fifty years would not be there if this 75-year retiring age had been enforced during this period. Some of the best Judges in the House of Lords in my own subject of commercial law were over 75 years of
120
age. I am pretty sure Lord Sumner was over 75 when he was giving outstanding judgments, and also Lord Finlay and others, if one went through the ages and made a detailed comparison. I am unhappy about this point, because undoubtedly the job of being a Judge in your Lordships' House and in the Court of Appeal—though perhaps not quite to the same extent—is an occupation requiring unusual qualities of experience in the handling of judicial data which comes only to a man of outstanding ability, if he is to be a really great Judge of Appeal, after considerable practice in the problem. I have discussed this subject with one or two Members of your Lordships' House on the judicial side, and I do not think there can be any question about it. It is a special faculty which comes, in a sense, after unusually long experience, and then is often maintained for a very long period.
I have mentioned one or two outstanding cases in your Lordships' House. If we go across to the other side of the Atlantic, where our Common Law has been the legal basis of much of American life, we find that the two greatest judges of this century in the United States were, I suppose, Justice Holmes and Justice Learned Hand of the Second Federal Court of Appeals. Undoubtedly the Common Law has been enriched by outstanding contributions which certainly none of our greatest lawyers have bettered—though several of them have no doubt equalled them. Justice Holmes retired at over 90 years of age. It may well be that in his last few years he was not at his best, but he was certainly so when in his eighties. Justice Learned Hand retired two or three years ago and was well over 80 also. I feel that the Common Law would have been poorer if it had been deprived of the outstanding contributions of these men, and indeed of some who are Members of your Lordships' House at the present time.
I am sorry that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Reid, felt that there was no difference between the Judge of the first instance going round on circuit and the Judge of Appeal and that the same rule should be applied uniformly. I would be prepared to say that that should not be so. I would be prepared to apply the rule to what one may call the hardworking Judge, who is buffeted about

121
travelling on circuit, handling jury cases, and dealing with witnesses; and this would apply to the county court judges, many of whom have their circuits and have to get up early in the morning and work into the night. Undoubtedly that type of work takes it out of a man in a way in which work in your Lordships' House or the Court of Appeal does not. If the noble and learned Lord, Lord Reid, after reconsidering the matter, were to put down an Amendment at the Committee stage of this Bill, I should be glad to support him, because I feel that it is most important that in the highest ranks this 75-year age limit should not be imposed, otherwise some of the finest judgments we have in our law reports will no longer appear there.
4.40 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I rise only for a few moments to express my own doubts about the compulsory age limit for retirement. May I say how delighted we all are to see my noble and learned friend Lord Reid back in our midst, restored to health and in such vigorous form.
We have heard something of the disadvantages of the proposed age limit; I think we have heard cited in its favour only the conclusions of two Commissions, and, I think, the view of the Bar Council. I am not suggesting for one moment that forcible reasons cannot be given, but I think it is a case for balancing advantages and disadvantages, and I am bound to say that the disadvantages of the age limit may be very great. I regret that I had not realised sufficiently early that this Bill was coming on this afternoon and therefore did not reinforce my memory by looking up the age at which some of our greatest Judges gave some of their greatest judgments. But I think that, if we applied the test suggested by my noble and learned friend, Lord Reid, of considering how this proposed age limit would have worked out over the last 60 years, we might find that some of the greatest judgments reported in every textbook would not have been there for us to see. If that were so had this age limit been applied in the past, it is likely to be so increasingly in the future, because on the whole the tendency to live longer and to remain vigorous longer is increasing; in a few years' time many men at 75 will be at least as vigorous as many
122
men a few years ago were at a far earlier age.
Is not this provision really a provision for compulsory waste of great talents? If these men are in their full vigour—and I rather agree with the noble Lord who has just sat down that perhaps we think in this matter mainly of the Appeal Court and of this House—I think that the national loss through the waste of talent may be considerable. I agree entirely with my noble and learned friend, Lord Reid, in his reply to a cogent intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, that different considerations apply in the Civil Service; namely, the prospect of promotion of others. That does not apply in the same sense or to the same extent in this case for the reasons given, I think, by the noble Lord, Lord Reid. If, however, that were the answer, if what influenced the demand for this was really a desire to give better prospects to younger men to get promoted to the Bench, I think we should be told that. At the moment I do not think sufficient reasons have been given for this age limit, and I believe an examination would show that, had this been in force earlier, we should have been very much the losers. Even in the days since I was first called to the Bar, I can think of some cases of Judges in the King's Bench Division, as it then was, or the Queen's Bench Division, and still more in the Court of Appeal and in this House, who have certainly enriched the law of England at ages greater than 75, and I hope very much that full consideration will be given to this matter.
There was one other point that occurred to me when the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, raised the very interesting point about civil servants. I think it may be unfortunate that some of our best civil servants may have to go at the age of 60, but a civil servant in the position which he would occupy as the head of a Department does not enjoy one advantage that older men have in the Court of Appeal and in this House, of having cases before them very well argued by others; though the case before them will still need the most vigorous attention of very vigorous minds, it does mean that their life is not quite as strenuous as that of some civil servants might be at the head of

123
their Departments. But the main purpose for which I rose was to say emphatically that I share the doubts about the age limit expressed by my noble and learned friend, Lord Reid.
LORD RAGLAN: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said that the only persons who are to be allowed to remain in office until the age of 75 were the Judges. I would remind him that magistrates are retired at the age of 75. I am a magistrate; I have very nearly reached the age of 75, and that age limit seems to me absurdly low.
4.45 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am grateful to your Lordships for your reception of the Bill, and I should like to deal as shortly as I can with the important points that have been raised. First of all, may I say to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, about the timing of the introduction, that I think everything he said is justified as a matter of general principle, and in this case I throw myself on his mercy—for this reason. I am very anxious that Parliament should allow this Bill to be carried through before the Recess at Christmas, because, of course, apart altogether from the subjects that have been discussed, it means a general raising of the pension paid. That may mean that some Judges who did not wish to retire on the smaller pension will now wish to retire; and it would be most helpful, not only for them but for me—because I have to recommend replacements—if they could have the Recess and that I should know before the end of the Recess what changes I have to recommend, so that all the Divisions of the High Court could start work with the replacements at the beginning of next term. I hope that the noble Lord will not think that is an unreasonable ground, but it is the one which impresses me. But I do assure him that, as a general principle, I am entirely with him in considering that the notice was far too short. I have always tried in Bills with which I have been connected to give full notice, and I hope the noble Lord will not take this as a precedent.
The next point which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, raised was one which has been discussed by your Lordships; that is, the question of the retiring age. The
124
noble Lord, Lord Silkin, approached it from this angle: If civil servants are required to retire at 60, or shortly after, and company directors at 70 and county court judges at 72, unless of course there are compelling reasons of the national interest, why should a higher age be fixed for High Court Judges? To some extent, the arguments that have been advanced on the other side have been directed to meeting that point: that, broadly, there is a more reflective and deliberative quality required in the Judiciary, and especially in the Appellate Judiciary, which is a reason for having a higher age limit. As I have said, I have considered this matter most carefully, and I want shortly to reinforce what I said in introducing the Bill.
This matter was considered for King's Bench Judges by both the St. Aldwyn and Peel Commissions, and I would remind the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, that the Peel Commission included, among other distinguished members, one for whom he and I have particular respect, as well as friendship—my noble and learned friend Lord Monckton of Brenchley. Both those Commissions took the view that there should be an age limit of 72 for the King's Bench Judges who were hearing witnesses. Lord Reid has shown that there is a view that one should not discriminate. I chose the age of 75 for all the Judges. What I would say to noble Lords who have been doubtful about this proposal is that they must consider the whole picture. They must balance against some notable figures over 75 who have given judgments of high quality, those who before that age have found the strain of their work very heavy. It is a matter which must be considered. To use a cliché, justice must not only be done but must appear to be done. We say that every day, and in almost every connection. There have been cases—I should not dream of mentioning any names—where, even when the mental powers have remained, the appearance has been such that it is doubtful, to say the least of it, whether justice has appeared to be done.
I would also put this point (it was one that I put rather shortly in opening): that there is no more difficult problem in life than to judge one's own dispensability and expendability. We all find

125
it, and some of us find that the problem gets more difficult as the years advance. But I ask your Lordships to face up to the existence of that psychological problem. It is in no spirit of levity but simply to illustrate my point that I recall to your Lordships a very old story of the law. There was one Judge—I shall not give even the country in which this took place—who was obviously failing; and when he left two Judges who were promoted, made an agreement with one another. They swore on all that was holy that each would draw the attention of the other if he saw in him any sign of failing. The time came, with the passage of the years, when one of the two began to fail, and the other thought hard,"What is the least difficult way in which I can approach him?" So he said to the other,"Do you remember that conversation we had on the retirement of X?", the other said,"Yes—and a more distasteful, inhuman and uncharitable conversation I never took part in."
I hope your Lordships will not think that I recall that story in any spirit of levity, but it does illustrate the great difficulty we have of judging our own powers as the years pass. Therefore, I say that, looking at the picture as a whole, it is better for the Judge and better for the community that there should be an age at which the Judge knows he will have to stop. As I said—and I repeat—I have been anxious in consideration, and I think reasonable in decision, in taking the age of 75, which is not too low, as the speech of Lord Silkin showed, giving that point of view, but, on the other hand, I think, not too high, in view of the arguments that have been advanced.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, before the noble and learned Viscount leaves that point, would he mind answering the point that I made as to the possibility of distinguishing between the trial Judge and the appeal Judge? He has rather brushed it aside. It seems to me that it is a most relevant point.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, of course I did consider that point. The noble Lord will appreciate that the St. Aldwyn Commission and the Peel Commission were considering the King's Bench Judges, and they fixed the age for them at 72. There was opinion
126
(I am not going into this; if the noble Lord cares to look up the evidence he will find it interesting) the other way; there was opinion for his point of view. But I should have thought that, on balance, it was better not to make this distinction, because after all one is bound, in the general deployment of judicial power, to use people for both appeal work and for work involving witnesses. After a great deal of consideration I formed the same view as my noble and learned friend Lord Reid, that it was better to have an age for the Judiciary as a whole.
I want now to say one or two words on the other points. I would say first to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Reid, that the distinction he drew as to promotion being in the sphere of a positive matter in the Civil Service and not in the law, is not one that I can accept. I have in my time seen long jams of a very serious nature, which in my view have driven silks away from the Bar to the City, because there has been the thought that promotion has seemed so hopeless. Therefore I do not put too much on this point; but I would not dismiss it, and I hope that my noble friend will not dismiss it.
Now I want to say a word or two about the graduated scheme. I am not going to follow my noble and learned friend Lord Reid into the details of the Reports of the various Commissions, but I would just point this out to him with regard to his illustration. He took the time when a judicial pension was £3,500 and the St. Aldwyn Commission suggested that the minimum pension payable should be £1,500 a year. The rise in the full pension is from £3,500 to £4,000, excluding for the moment the other benefits—that is, a rise of one-seventh. The rise of the minimum pension is from £1,500 to £2,000, a rise of one-third. I think he must take that into account. But the point one must face up to is that made by the St. Aldwyn Commission: is it right that this should be the only branch of people paid out of public funds who receive a full pension if they become permanently ill after serving a negligible time—a day, a month or a year?
I would remind the noble and learned Lord, Lord Reid, that this does not apply to the lower Judiciary at the moment: they are payable on a graduated scale.

127
Nor does it apply to the Civil Service. Apart from that, there has been a beneficent financial reform since the days when anyone I see around me was working at the Bar. In our sad times we had not the advantage of the Finance Act, 1956, under which up to 10 per cent. of income, or £750 per year, can now be devoted to ensuring a pension, and set off against income tax. If that were done for ten years—and, after all, few people are appointed to the High Court Bench who have not been making £7,500 a year for a period of ten years; and most of them, of course, make a great deal more—that would provide a pension, at 70, of £1,500 a year, or a widow's pension whenever death may come, of £750 a year. It must be pointed out that the effect of the Finance Act is that that can be done out of monies which previously would have gone to pay income tax. That is an improvement which must be borne in mind.
I listened very carefully to the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Reid, but he did not deal with the point which I have tried to put: that when a comparison is made with other people this provision is a fair and reasonable one. Nor did he deal with the point which one must bear in mind: that our Judiciary is probably the best paid in the world. There may be some offices in New York State which are better paid, but I cannot think of any other place where the payment of the Judiciary is as good.
That brings me to the third point (although I do not want to occupy too much of your Lordships' time) raised by some noble Lords and developed with an interesting suggestion which I am bound to consider, by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, about the position of the Bar. There is something unattractive in somebody who happens by good luck to be at the top of the ladder to-day shouting down the ladder to those who are coming up, and I hope your Lordships will forgive me if anything I say sounds like that. But I do not want noble Lords to let this defeatism about the position of my profession go out. To those who love it and who are attracted to it the Bar has attractions which better-paid industry can never have. It is a profession where one is free and one's own master.
128
Secondly, it is a profession in which one shares in the continual joy of battle with one's peers in cases in the courts. These are attractions which are of tremendous importance. Thirdly, it is a profession in which one can make an enormous income—and I do not think I am exaggerating in saying that, even to-day, £40,000 a year is such an income. And even after paying tax there is a good deal left.
All the time of one's life one is sharing in a worthy cause—the administration of justice; and in the autumn of one's years one can devote oneself to the same cause and at the same time be adding to the law of our country. If one is to reduce the matter to terms of money—which I deprecate because I have spoken of the attractions which I hope will always call people to the Bar—then, after all, this is a profession where large incomes can be earned and one in which, when a man gets to the age of 50, there are 200 pensionable jobs for a profession whose whole membership in the range between the ages of 21 and whatever may be the age of the older members is only some 1,900. The number over 50 eligible for judicial appointment must be quite small by comparison—and there are 200 pensionable jobs.
From whichever way we look at this matter, my Lords, I do not believe that this defeatism about the Bar is justified to-day. When I was a young man at the university an old friend, afterwards a Member of this House—then Sir John Buchan—said to me:
"There is more nonsense talked about failure at the Bar than about most other things in life. If anyone really cares intensely for the Bar, is prepared to devote himself to it and make it his main interest, then, if he has no obvious defect he will get a practice. If he is anything better he will get a good practice."
With all the reserve about the good fortune which I happen to have had, I believe that that statement is as true to-day as when Sir John Buchan said it to me, 40 years ago. I hope your Lordships will forgive me for rather going off the point and stating my own view on a matter so near to my heart. I hope that your Lordships will now give this Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

COMMONWEALTH SCHOLARSHIPS BILL
5.8 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, the House is familiar with the story of the Commonwealth Education Conference which was held in Oxford last July, at which the Conference delegates who were there assembled decided that there should be a new initiative which would add to the number of Commonwealth students who could take advantage of education at scholarship and fellowship level; that the educational facilities should be given by each Commonwealth country and that each should accept responsibility for providing a number of additional places in their educational systems.
The delegates agreed that the number which could reasonably be absorbed by the Commonwealth countries was 1,000 new scholarships. There have, of course, been Commonwealth Scholars before, as your Lordships know well, but this was a new effort, additional to anything we are doing at present, to try to meet the clamant demand within the Commonwealth for scholars, technicians and teachers. This Bill deals with the United Kingdom's portion of the agreed effort, which was to provide 500 additional Commonwealth scholarships; and there will be 500 of those scholarships in operation at any one time once we have reached that total.
I want to make only two or three general points in proposing the Second Reading of this Bill. First of all, I would say that we have moved with speed. The seed of this Bill was sown in the Montreal Economic Conference of 1958; it was followed up in the Oxford Conference of July, 1959; and should your Lordships clear the way for this Bill and pass it, then we shall be ready in this country for the reception of the Commonwealth students in the autumn of 1960—that is, in the autumn of next year. That has been, I think, good progress; and so that the progress should be maintained and the enthusiasm and momentum kept at a high pitch it was agreed that there should be another Education Conference in 1961 where the progress and working of the present scheme should be reviewed.
130
Secondly, as I have said already, these scholarships are additional to anything we are doing at present in this country and represent a very substantial expansion of resources already stretched. Anyone who has seen the programmes of expansion at universities and technical colleges in the next five years will realise that. This additional burden has been cheerfully accepted by the authorities of the universities and colleges concerned, because they realise very well the true value of this Commonwealth scheme.
Thirdly, in this initial stage, I think it is wise—and we have certainly done it—to keep the scheme fairly flexible, so that we may benefit from experience. Your Lordships will see that at one end of the scale the scheme provides for fellowships of one year for people who have done their post-graduate work but who may want refresher courses in any particular subject. As for the ordinary run of scholarships it will be from the post-graduate to the under-graduate level as regards all three years for which the scheme provides; and I think this will provide some places for undergraduates, particularly since, as noble Lords will realise, in many parts of Africa, in the Colonial Empire at present, there may be students who are well worth sending to a university but who cannot yet qualify to fill the postgraduate places.
Now a word on the mechanics of the plan. The Conference were unanimous that the scholarships provided should, in the first instance, at any rate, be largely concentrated in the post-graduate and research field; and from the preliminary forecasts that have been made, while there will undoubtedly be a large number of applications in the technical field, nevertheless, it looks as though the demand from the students is going to be fairly evenly balanced between science and the humanities and the arts.
As noble Lords will see, a Commission is to be set up with the duties of selection, of placing and of generally overseeing the work while the scholarships run, and we will, of course, take the greatest care that that Commission shall be representative of the life of the country. We hope to get people from industry, trade unions and public life. As well as those who have distinguished themselves in the field of

131
education we want men of the world. The work on the administrative side will be done by the Association of Universities of the British Commonwealth, and the British Council have undertaken to look after the welfare of the students while they are here. I think that that is a sensible and practicable division of labour.
However efficient the official organisation of such a scheme as this may be, I feel it will not be really complete unless it meets with the friendly co-operation of the people of our country as a whole and unless they understand the contribution which they can make to it. We are warm-hearted people, I believe, but also we have a kind of reserve which it is rather difficult, especially for a student from an African or an Asian country, to penetrate. I was told that a West Indian student said the other day that it is possible to make friends with the English but it is so much trouble that it is not really worth while. As a Scotsman, it would be in rather doubtful taste for me to pursue that further. But we shall use every effort to tell the people how they can help these Commonwealth students, particularly in the university vacation when so many of them find themselves at a loose end and do not know where to go. I am certain of this: that once they have made the experiment, the hosts of these students will find that they enjoy the experience and will want to repeat it.
So far as employers are concerned, too, I hope that over the whole range of industry and in the professions it will be looked upon from now on as part of the intelligent management of business to send young men and women to a Commonwealth country for part of their training. It has too often been the attitude that a period of service and training overseas is a tiresome interruption. Indeed, I would go further and say that it is often looked upon by the individuals concerned as a handicap to advancement and that their careers therefore will suffer when they return and they will find themselves on a lower rung of the ladder of promotion than they occupied when they left this country. It is surely possible to arrange matters so that no one should suffer if he goes abroad for two years or so in the course of his apprenticeship or training
132
or business. And if there is a will in industry and business, I am sure the way can be found, and that people who are sent abroad and come back to this country will be of great benefit and value to the business by reason of the broadening of their experience.
Therefore, in commending the Bill I would simply remind your Lordships of the words which were used by the Commonwealth delegates themselves and upon which they agreed at the Oxford Conference. They said they were certain that this scheme
"will enrich each country of the Commonwealth by enabling an increasing number of the abler citizens to share the wide range of educational resources available throughout the Commonwealth, and thus promote equality of educational opportunity at the highest level."
With that recommendation, and with a willingness to answer any questions your Lordships may wish to ask, I would commend the Bill for a Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Home.)
5.18 p.m.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Earl for the clear and concise way in which he has introduced this Bill, which, although it is only a one-clause Bill, is by no means unimportant and by no means simple in all its provisions. Indeed, there are a certain number of ambiguities on which we shall ask for answers. But I can say, first of all, on behalf of my noble friends, that we wholeheartedly welcome this evidence of co-operation in the educational field. We have often had conferences of Commonwealth Finance Ministers and so on, but I do not think there has ever before been a Commonwealth Educational Conference—certainly none that has borne fruit so quickly.
We are duly conscious of the generosity of the university authorities in this country who (I think I understood the noble Earl to say) have willingly accepted the additional burden of some 500 students, in spite of the fact that many of them are heavily overburdened already with students. The noble Earl mentioned undergraduates: but, if I read the Bill aright, the bulk of the provision of 500 places is intended for postgraduate students, with a few visiting Fellows and, as I read it, undergraduates would be admitted into the

133
scheme only in rather exceptional circumstances, such as if they were thought so intellectually promising that there were no facilities in their own countries where they could get the proper university training. I do not suppose anybody has thought what the proportions of the different categories will be, but it seems that the undergraduate section will be a small one. That is all to the good, because of the citizens of our Commonwealth coming to London I think it is the young man of undergraduate age who has the most difficult time in adjusting himself to conditions here. The post-graduate, the man of some little maturity, can cope much better with the strange conditions that he finds here.
The noble Earl also mentioned welfare, and that brings up the question of accommodation. I am connected with one of the voluntary bodies that is struggling to get funds to set up a students' hostel for just this category of student—the post-graduate, or the student in industry or in technical college. The difficulty in opening the taps of money for such purposes seems to be very great, and yet there is undoubtedly this enormous need for accommodation, preferably of the club or hostel kind, reasonably sited in London, where students from all countries in the Commonwealth, or even from the Provinces of this country, can mix in their off-duty times. I think that the need for such accommodation will become more and more apparent as more and more Commonwealth students come to this country.
There is one other point that the noble Earl touched on which really is worth a whole debate to itself, and that is the question of persons from this country taking up jobs in the Commonwealth and then returning to take their place on the ladder at home. I cannot say anything about industry or business, but in some of the professions—medicine in particular; and, I imagine, in the academic world also—appointments in this county are filled by committees who advertise for applicants. They sift the applications into a short list and interview those on that short list and make their choice. It is universally believed (and I do not think it has ever been disproved) that somebody of some seniority who has been overseas for two, three, or four years stands a less good chance of
134
getting back into a job suitable to his status and his seniority than if he had stayed at home. That is a very serious difficulty that affects this particular project as well as many others, and it deserves a good deal of thought—and, possibly, a debate in your Lordships' House at some future date.
There are just three points on which I should like the noble Earl's comments. Unfortunately, the conclusion of this Commonwealth Conference—this Commonwealth Scholarship and Fellowship Plan—seems not to be comprehensive. In other words, without beating about the bush, South Africa seems to be the only Commonwealth country that is not taking part in this scheme. We should all like South Africa to take part in it. We should like to welcome South African students here. But I think we ought to say, here and now, that we would not agree to British students going to South African universities which have now had to abandon their old liberal traditions and conform to the present racial policy of the Union.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, if I may interrupt, may I say that as a matter of fact the noble Earl has not been quite right; but I will put that point right later. But does he mean that if a student wants to go to South Africa, then he is not going to allow him to go?
THE EARL OF LUCAN: I do not think he should be given a scholarship. He can go on his own, of course, if there is free entry into South Africa, but I do not think that we in this country can possibly countenance a scholarship. Look at the Report of the Commonwealth Education Conference, in paragraph 5 on page 4:
"The Commonwealth is a new experiment in human relationship. It is founded on a belief in the worth and dignity of the human individual and a recognition of the value of freedom and co-operative action."—
and there is much more in that tone. That is what we believe in; and so I think we must say that we should like the co-operation of South Africa, but not at any price.
There is one other question, and that is on the composition of the Commission that is to operate this scheme. The Commission is, I think, to consist of a chairman and not more than fourteen members, of whom not less than four are to

135
be appointed"as the holders of high academic office". My Lords, I wonder why that was put in. Why"high academic office"? Indeed, what is"high academic office"? Is there any definition of it? I quite see that the Government wish the Commission to be composed not only of academic people but, one might say, of the general public—people in other walks and of other callings—but the fact that they lay down that at least four must come from academic life means that they must set some store by that. But why restrict it to people holding"high academic office"? Surely, if the word"high" is removed, the Government will then be perfectly free to appoint nothing but Vice-Chancellors if they like, but they will also be free to appoint one or two younger men in the academic world; and that, surely, would be all to the good.
Finally, my Lords, on the Bill itself, I hesitate to bring this point up because it is a matter of constitutional custom, but we see that the Bill is
"An Act 10 make provision for matters arising out of the recommendations of the Commonwealth Education Conference."
Then it says, at the bottom of page 1:
"In this subsection 'the Commonwealth Scholarship and Fellowship Plan' means the Plan so named which was put forward by the Commonwealth Education Conference held at Oxford in July, nineteen hundred and fifty-nine."
That is all we have about it. Is it not unusual to give statutory force to the proceedings of a Conference without putting those proceedings in a Schedule to the Bill? I think that it may be argued that the Bill shows trace of rather hasty drafting. Clause 1, subsection (2), lays down qualifications required of people to be considered for scholarships, then subsection (3) is about the composition of the Commission. It seems to me that for ease of reference the different matters should be separated and logically arranged in the Bill. I should like the noble Earl to say whether he is satisfied that the implementing of the decisions of a Conference in this way is not creating a precedent in legislation. Nevertheless, I would repeat that we welcome the great step forward which the Bill represents, and wish it every success.
5.32 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I welcome this Bill, and I am glad that the Government have acted so quickly in bringing before your Lordships' House in legislative form the recommendations of the Conference. The principle of the Bill I accept, but there are a few questions that I should like to ask on matters of detail.
First, what sort of people do the Government intend to invite to serve on the Commission? The noble Earl, Lord Lucan, has referred to the four members"of high academic office", but there will be at least another ten. Who are they to be? Have they yet been chosen, and what is to be their term of service? I gather from what the noble Earl, Lord Home, said to-day that in the main the scholarships will be for post-graduate students, but he has made the plea that there must be vacancies for undergraduates. I think that this is especially important with reference to East Africa, where there is no university. There is a university college at Uganda and a technical school at Nairobi, and it is hoped that within the next few years the United Kingdom Government will establish a University for East Africa, embracing the three territories and Zanzibar. They have not done so yet, however, and it will be some time before any university is in existence, and I think that this region in the Commonwealth is one which will have to be looked at carefully and, if necessary, some special provision must be made, so that Africans from that area will be placed on a basis similar to those from other territories with universities, who will be in a better position to qualify under the scheme.
From what the noble Earl said to-day, I also gather that the 500 places which the Government are putting at the disposal of students will be 500 places at any one time: it is not simply a once-for-all effort. When the first batch have concluded their studies, another batch will come forward. If 250 scholarships are awarded in the first year, there will be 250 in the next year and another 250 in the third year, so that under the scheme we shall always have 500 students from the Commonwealth in this country. I was interested to hear the noble Earl say that he believes (I gather that this can be only an inspired guess,

137
as the Commission has not yet been set up) that arts and the scientific side will be about equally represented. Generally speaking, we find that, with the paucity of science and mathematics teachers, it is not easy to get a balance of this kind, and usually there are more arts than scientific students, so if we can get an equal number I think the balance will be about right.
With reference to married students, it is important that all students, whether post-graduate or undergraduate, should be able to bring their wives with them. The scheme provides for one wife, one student, but it makes a curious distinction between the children. If a man is over 35 (which I think is the age mentioned), he can bring his children as well, but if he is under 35 and brings them he will have to pay for them himself. This seems to me to be the wrong way round. If a man is under 35, he is likely to have young children and if he brings his wife and leaves them behind, who is going to look after them? From all points of view, I think that this part of the scheme should be looked at and all restrictions on students' bringing their wives and children should be washed out. A student should be able to have his wife and children with him. This is important not only from the point of view of the student but also from the point of view of the wife and children. The wife will learn a great deal when she comes here with the children. If a wife does not come over with her husband, when he goes back home there tends to be a gap between them in their experience. If a student is able to bring his wife, not only is he happier and able to do better but the wife also is being educated, and we are getting double value for the money. I hope that this principle of allowing all students to bring their wife and children will be established.
This scheme will be a success or otherwise not so much by what students learn from the college but by what sort of treatment they receive outside—in other words, by the social relations established in this country. The noble Earl has told us that the British Council are to be responsible. I think that the point he made about students during vacations is important. It is especially important that those who are going to be the leaders of the future should be looked
138
after. We ought to make a special effort both through voluntary organisations and through volunteers who are not connected with these organisations, to look after students during vacations.
Students like these are apt to misunderstand the habits of people in this country. Two or three years ago an African wrote to me saying that he had been very upset. He had got into a train at Victoria Station to go somewhere within the Southern Region. He was the only African among Europeans, and when he came in everybody in the carriage took up a newspaper and began reading. Nobody said a word to him on the journey. He felt humiliated. He thought that they had not taken any notice of him because of his colour. As we all know, if you get into a carriage of a train going from Victoria in the evening, or to Victoria in the morning, nobody takes the slightest notice of you, whoever you are. People read their papers or look glumly at their feet, and nobody says a word. But with people not of our lugubrious race that sort of conduct tends to be misunderstood. Therefore I think the public also have some sort of duty here.
What universities are to be chosen? I guarantee that in most cases people will ask to come to Oxford, Cambridge or London. In my view, Oxford and Cambridge already have far too unhealthy a predominance in the educational life of this country—and I say that as a governor of a public school; there is certainly an unhealthy predominance, so far as all three of these are concerned, in the minds of all those who wish to come from overseas to enter our universities. Indeed, in many cases they have not even heard of any universities other than those three. I believe that, as a general rule, both for educational reasons and social contacts, they would be much happier in one of the universities other than the three I have mentioned: in other words, in one of the Scottish universities, the University of Wales or any of the provincial universities. For one thing, these universities or colleges are much smaller: they are better integrated into the life of the community around them. I believe that the students would get much more individual attention in these places.
Then I would ask what contributions other Commonwealth countries are

139
making. Of the 1,000 studentships, 500 are to be provided by this country, and Canada is providing 250. But we have not been told of any other country providing any at all. The noble Earl, Lord Lucan, has told us that South Africa has not yet said she will provide any, and has not come into the scheme. Presumably others have come into the scheme, but we have not been told so far how many there are. I should like to know what chances there are of interchange between the various Commonwealth countries. In other words, will an Indian university take certain Commonwealth students? Will a university in Australia take certain Commonwealth students, and so on? I think it is important that there should be a considerable interchange between universities outside the United Kingdom offering places to students outside the United Kingdom, to get that lateral flow that is not quite so great as it should be.
In this connection, I should like to mention an offer—I do not think it has anything to do with this scheme, but nevertheless it is a welcome offer—made by Tunku Abdul Rahman, the Prime Minister of the Federation of Malaya, about three weeks ago, on his tour of Australia, when he offered Australians 100 scholarships in the University of Malaya. He also offered to send teachers of Malay to Australia and to take people who wished to learn Malay to Malaya for the purpose. He said then—and I think he was perfectly right—that it was most important for Australians to learn the language of their 100 million Malay-speaking neighbours.
In another place the Minister of State raised a subject which had nothing whatever to do with the Bill—or, at least, possibly he replied to something that had been said which, so far as I can see, had nothing to do with the Bill. I do not know whether the noble Earl will feel himself in a position to exercise a similar latitude, because, although this matter had nothing to do with the Bill, I think it was an important statement of policy which was made in another place. The Minister of State then said that 500 places are to be provided for Commonwealth students in this country in teacher-training establishments. If that is so, I am sure that is a matter which all your Lordships would be
140
pleased to hear. I should like confirmation of that, because I think it is vitally important. When one realises the enormous increase in schools in the various Commonwealth countries, and particularly in Africa, one appreciates what an enormous burden there must be upon the teacher-training establishments in Africa and elsewhere to provide the necessary teachers. If 500 places are going to be found in teacher-training establishments here, that will be a great addition to their numbers. How the Government are going to do it, I do not know, because I gather that this year 3,000 applicants for places in teacher-training colleges could not be accepted. So there are 3,000 fewer teachers available to this country, owing to the fact that we have not places for them. Perhaps the noble Earl can tell us how he is going to get the 500 places for the Commonwealth.
Finally, I hope that this Bill will give a stimulus, as the noble Earl has indicated, not only to the universities but also to local authorities, professional bodies and industrial and commercial organisations, to do far more than they are doing in training students for the Commonwealth, in having students from the Commonwealth and in seconding qualified people to the Commonwealth, with, as the noble Earl has said, no loss of prospects, no loss of pay or retirement benefits and so on. As the noble Earls, Lord Home, and Lord Lucan, have pointed out, it is a sad fact that we must recognise that if one goes abroad in most professional jobs there is a risk of loss of promotion over here. That cannot be gainsaid. I think we must entirely eradicate that attitude and get the professional and other bodies to realise that people who go abroad on these jobs are doing at least an equally important job as they would have done at home and should not be penalised for it. It may mean that they will have to carry extra staff supernumerary for this purpose; but if so, that will have to be faced.
I hope particularly that my own profession of the law will give a lead in this way, although I must say that it has not done so up to now. As was mentioned in an earlier debate to-day, there are here two separate legal professions. A young man makes up his mind into which he intends to go before

141
he starts on either, and without a real knowledge of either; and then he is, so to speak, shunted off on to a line which is parallel to another line, and it is difficult to get from one to the other. Absurd as this anachronism is in this country for our own young men and women, it is disastrous for the people from the Colonies, because in the Colonies they have fusion; there are not two professions, but one profession. They come over here and learn something of the profession of the Bar, and then they go back knowing nothing whatever about the increasingly large proportion of the work they will have to perform, which is, in fact, the work of a solicitor. The professions here have never made any attempt to deal with that problem and have never helped our students from overseas to grapple with it. I hope that very soon there will be a common system of training and a common series of examinations which can be taken not only by students from abroad but also by our own students in this country. I put these questions in no critical sense, and I hope that the noble Earl will be able to answer some of them. I welcome the Bill, and I trust that it will have the effect that we all hope for.
5.50 p.m.
LORD BRAND: My Lords, I venture to make a few short remarks on the Bill before us to-day. If I may take a personal note, first of all, it is that I happen to have been one of the editorial committee of a quarterly magazine, the Round Table Magazine, which has devoted itself for 50 years now to the interests of the Commonwealth. In these days of television, broadcasting, Sunday newspapers, and so on, a quarterly magazine does not expect to have a heavy circulation, but we do get circulation in all the Dominions, and we get articles every quarter from each Dominion explaining the position in that country. So I have taken for a long time, and I take now, a great interest in the Commonwealth.
I heartily welcome this Bill. At the present moment, the British Commonwealth (that is, the great Dominions and all the other Dependencies in the Commonwealth) is bound rather tenuously together. It is bound together by the Crown, beyond that by material interests that the countries have together and, so far as the White Dominions are con
142
cerned, because the populations of those Dominions hold more or less the same thoughts and possess the same culture that we do. What would happen if there were a great war, and how far the Commonwealth, apart from the White Dominions and ourselves, would stick together, I do not think anybody can say. But, clearly, it is our object to strengthen the ties between all these different communities to the greatest possible extent, and I think that this Bill goes a considerable way towards accomplishing it over the course of time.
It is most important that the most intelligent young people in all these countries, and those most likely to lead, should learn when they are young what the culture is in this country and in other parts of the Dominions. It is equally important that our young people should learn what is happening in other countries, and take a part by becoming students at the great universities in different parts of the Empire. For that reason—and I will come back to this point—I do not agree with the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, about South Africa. So far as I can make out—but perhaps the noble Earl the Leader of the House will explain to me—the Bill deals in the main with students who are not technical students but who come to learn history, philosophy, or whatever it may be. Perhaps technical students are included, too. I am inclined to think that so far as the under-developed countries are concerned the most immediately important requirement of all is the increase in technical knowledge and industrial"know-how", and I should like to give some of my reasons for thinking so.
The general view in this country seems to me often to be that we have a duty to provide the under-developed countries with enormous sums of money. That we should provide them with some money goes without saying, but we are not able to give enormous sums of money. Moreover if you give money to a community, they must have technical and industrial knowledge; otherwise most of that money will probably be wasted. It probably has been wasted in various countries of which we know. I do not think that in what I am to say I go outside the terms of the Bill, but one has to remember that any money which this country gives to other countries

143
affects our balance of payments, and makes it more difficult to avoid our getting into a critical position. One has only to look at the United States at this moment. The United States consider—and I think they are probably right—that they have overdone lending and giving to the rest of the world and, in consequence, it is the case that they have now an unfavourable balance of payments of about 4,000 million dollars a year which they have to correct. Even the United States cannot go on doing that. Therefore, while we have to help these under-developed countries, we have to keep in mind the interests of our own people as well.
In any case, in my view—and I have given what study I can to it—in all these countries 90 per cent. of the work of raising the population to a higher standard must be done by the people of the country themselves. It is no good giving them great whacks of money if they are not giving the whole of their attention to the task themselves. If one looks at what the Chinese are doing now, and if one is to believe what one reads, one sees an example of what a community can do on its own, by its own efforts. That reinforces my view still further that these under-developed countries want technical education at present more than cultural education. They must have cultural education, too, but to my mind technical education is their first requirement.
I believe it to be the case—perhaps other noble Lords could correct me—that the tremendous rapidity in the growth of Japanese industry in earlier years was due to the fact that they had a sort of apprenticeship system, by which Japanese went not to a foreign university to learn technology, but to the industries themselves. They learnt the work in the industries, and I believe it might be a valuable addition to this scheme if one could have some scheme by which students from other countries could come, not as students at a university, but to industry, to learn the job they have to do in their own country, and being helped by industry here or elsewhere to become proficient at the work.
Lastly, I should like to say a word about South Africa. I believe it to be the case that South Africa has not yet
144
replied. I can understand that the South African Government will have considerable difficulty in replying, now that it has passed its Universities Bill which applies apartheid to the universities and does not allow the great universities of Cape Town, Witwatersrand and Durban to have black students or even coloured students. I do not know whether any of your Lordships read two articles on South Africa which I wrote earlier in the year in The Times, but I hold no brief whatever for Dr. Verwoerd's policy. Nevertheless, I think we damage the British side in South Africa and damage the possibility of the new Progressive Party in South Africa if we take up the violent attitude—it is a violent attitude—that we will not even allow a student to go from here, not to a Government university but to a self-governing university in South Africa in order that he should not only get education there—and they give a very good education—but should learn what is happening in South Africa and be able to come back and tell people in this country what he thinks of it.
It seems to me absolutely out of the question that we can take up an attitude towards a self-governing Dominion that they are so impossible, their Government is so impossible, that we will not allow a single student to go to a university there under this scheme, even if invited by the universities themselves. The more extreme our attitude is in this country, the more difficult the position of the moderate Afrikaner and Englishman becomes out there. I am not myself against the idea of apartheid if it were practicable. If it could be done practicably, I believe both natives and white people would vote for it, just as the Opposition, I think, wishes to have apartheid in Nyasaland. What they are asking for is, I think, equivalent to apartheid in Nyasaland—that no white people shall have any say in Nyasaland. In South Africa the great majority of the British would probably vote for apartheid itself if it were practicable, and many of them do, I expect, vote that way now. But the trouble is that apartheid is hopelessly impracticable and is leading Dr. Verwoerd finally into a brick wall. But I think the more extreme the attitude we take here, the more certain he is to pursue his course.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I

145
should like to comment on what he said about my remarks. Would he not agree that in a scheme like this what is essential is reciprocity, the same conditions at both ends? We read in the report of the Conference paragraph 7:
"Education is thus fundamental to the strength and stability of the Commonwealth, and to social justice and human dignity which must be its inspiration."
With those words, I do not see how any Commission set up by Her Majesty's Government could send scholars under this scheme to South Africa.
LORD BRAND: But the governing authorities of those universities have violently rejected the policy of the Government. They have done everything to stop it, and they are self-governing universities.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: They failed to stop it, surely.
LORD BRAND: It is not against human dignity to send a scholar from here to the Witwatersrand self-governing university. It is true he will not meet the natives there, because the Government have forcibly removed them, but that is nothing to do with the university itself. It has violently protested. It cannot finally break the law when it is passed. But are you going to say wou will not send a single student to any of the self-governing universities to receive an education—not to do anything else? They are not the Government.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I think we must point out that reciprocity in such a great and universal scheme in the Commonwealth as this is to be means the conditions under which Government grants are made. They may be making Government grants under the same conditions we offer. The whole point is whether we ought to make public grants in such circumstances, where a Government refuses to allow a student to come over and have education alongside all citizens of that particular country.
May I say to the noble Lord that we greatly respect the noble Lord and his experience and the manner in which he puts his case, but he really must not misrepresent the attitude of the Labour Party to the extent he has done in the latter part of his speech. We have never taken the line that whites must have no influence and nothing to say in Nyasa
146
land. What we have been trying to reach is that the Nyasalanders should be brought speedily to a state in which they are given a share, and a progressive share, in the government of their own country and have a voice in their whole future, and that is being largely denied to them at the present time—not wholly, but largely denied to them. I hope that when the noble Lord looks again at what he said and what our real case is he will not repeat his words in quite the form he did.
6.7 p.m.
LORD ELTON: My Lords, before the noble Earl, the Leader of the House, replies, I should like to ask a couple of questions, or perhaps I should say, make a couple of brief comments. I had no intention of inflicting myself upon your Lordships when I came to the House this afternoon, and my only excuse for doing so is that for twenty years and until very recently I was responsible for organising the selection of Rhodes Scholars all over the world; and of course the Rhodes scholarships were the prototype of all overseas awards and overseas scholarships. Indeed, it is because over the last fifty years the Rhodes scholarships have been, all things considered, so astonishingly successful that we are discussing this Bill this afternoon; for if they had not blazed the trail so successfully I do not suppose that we should be following it this afternoon so wholeheartedly as we very naturally are.
The first question, or comment, I wish to put is based on the fact that in the selection of Rhodes Scholars there are at least three features which have, I think, been essential to its very remarkable success. The first is that the selection has always been carried out by a network of specially appointed selection committees, all over the world, in the various countries of origin of the Scholars. The second is that no Rhodes Scholar has ever been selected without a personal interview with a selection committee. Thirdly, it has always been an instruction to our committees that they should attach at least as much importance to character as to academic qualifications. Indeed, if we had literally followed the precepts of the founder we should have told them to attach much more importance to character than to academic attainments. That was hardly practicable, but it has been a great

147
element in the success of the Rhodes scholarships that our selection committees all over the world have attached the greatest importance to the character of their candidates and not merely to what they can do on paper. It would be easy enough to select the inevitable laureate of the examination halls, the man who passes top in any examination but could never run a whelk stall successfully for a week. And perhaps there is rather too much tendency nowadays in many modern universities, under the pressure of the great spate of applications which they receive, to take the easy course of judging almost exclusively by the academic record.
My question, or comment, is this: that the noble Earl has told us, and indeed the Bill tells us, that the first function of this Commission is to select the recipients of rewards. I do not know whether that means what it says, that this body of distinguished persons is going to do the selection; or whether it means that they are going to organise the selection all over the world through other bodies or committees. If it means what it says—if they themselves are going to select—then clearly two, at least, of the three main elements in the success of the Rhodes scholarship system cannot be reproduced here. That is to say, there will not be a network of selection committees, specially arranged, in the countries of origin of these scholarships; nor will the Scholars have been sieved through a searching personal interview with the persons responsible for recommending their award. If that is to be so, then I hope all the more that the Commission will remember the moved importance in the experience of the Rhodes scholarships of that third main element, as I see it, in the success of their selection system—the emphasis placed on character.
Admittedly this makes selection a much more difficult job. It is, as anyone who has had first-hand experience of it must know, an extraordinarily difficult job to select the young man who is going to make his mark twenty years hence. But throughout the fifty years of the Rhodes scholarships we have been accumulating experience, and circulating it round our selection committees, and I can only say that I wish this distinguished body which is to be set up the
148
best of luck. I am sure it will not approach its task expecting it to be easy, because if it does so it will certainly be disappointed.
The only other thing I wish to do is to echo most heartily what the noble Earl the Leader of the House has said about the desirability of many outside academic circles going out of their way to extend a warm welcome to these 500 additional students from overseas whom we are going to bring to these shores. On the whole the Rhodes Scholars have been extremely fortunate in the hospitality which they have received in the vacations and outside Oxford, largely through the hospitality organised by the Dominions Fellowship Trust, of which many of your Lordships may have heard. I well remember meeting a professor in Chicago a good many years ago—and he was only one of a number who said much the same thing—remarking that, grateful as he was to Oxford and much as he had learned from Oxford, he was not sure that he was not more grateful and had not learned more from the hospitality which he had received in English homes up and down England through the good offices of the Dominions Fellowship Trust.
So we must be careful that something of the kind will be available for these new students, for we all know that many students from overseas who come to these shores meet with very different and much more unfortunate experiences. It was an overseas student—though not, I am thankful to say, a Rhodes Scholar—who said that what he had found was that an Englishman was cold and aloof and difficult to approach and that when you broke through the ice then what you found underneath was a great deal of cold water. That is not an experience which we want extended to any more students from overseas than we can help.
With those two brief comments, or questions, I can only echo the welcome which all other speakers have given to this Bill and wish the best of luck to those who will have to administer it, for in the last resort it is on them and the character of their administration that the success of the measure will depend.
6.16 p.m.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, and other noble Lords who have spoken

149
in giving a general welcome to the purposes of the Bill. Quite naturally, a number of questions have been asked, in order that the House may have elucidation, and I shall be glad to try to answer as many as I can. Perhaps I may begin with the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, and by my noble friend Lord Brand. This scheme is subscribed to by all the countries of the Commonwealth, but South Africa has not yet decided whether she will come in. I think perhaps I can extract any controversy from this debate by explaining how, if South Africa did come into the scheme, it would work. It would be that certain scholarships would be offered by South Africa in the South African universities, and they would, of course, be advertised all over the Commonwealth. Then it would be for decision by Canadian students, British students or students from Malaya, or from any other Commonwealth country, whether they wished to apply for a scholarship of that kind. If an individual did wish to apply, then presumably the student would go as he would to any other country, without interference by anyone in authority because it would be an act of his own free will.
The noble Earl, Lord Lucan, asked why, in the composition of the Commission, it was indicated that four persons should have high academic qualifications. I am bound to say that that was deliberate, in the beginning of this scheme, because it is absolutely essential that there should be a link between the Commission and the people who are at the top of our universities and technical colleges. This link is best achieved by having some of those people actually serving on the Commission. In the early stages a link is essential because, if there are hitches or troubles to be got over, these will have to be settled at the top level.
Then the noble Earl asked me why the plan which was recommended by the Conference was not attached as a Schedule to the Bill. In the ordinary way I should have done that when presenting the Bill to Parliament, but on this occasion I thought it was extremely desirable in the early stages that there should be flexibility. For instance, minor amendments may be found to be necessary. If, after a year's experience, it was found, say, that we wanted to alter the
150
financial conditions for wives or children, if the plan was in a Schedule to the Bill it would mean that we should have to come back every time to Parliament and ask for the change to be approved. So, after the debate in another place, we consulted Parliamentary Counsel and he assured us that there was nothing constitutionally improper in referring to the plan in this way in the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, asked me about married students. The question of children's allowances for students was considered most carefully, and it was decided, I think largely because finance is limited in the early stages, that the Fellows who applied and went on courses should have children's allowances. There are likely to be about 20 Fellowships, as opposed to 450 scholarships, so the noble Lord will see that if we were to include a family grant or a children's grant for scholars, the sum involved might amount to a pretty large figure. Post-graduates under 35 years of age will get an, allowance of £200 a year, and after one year's residence here will be eligible for the children's allowance of 10s. for the second child and 8s. for the third.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, did I hear the noble Earl aright?—£200 a year to live on?
THE EARL OF HOME: To help to live on, apart from the total scholarships, which will cost about £1,000 per student. This is something which should be looked at in the review of 1961, but for the moment that is the decision that has been taken on children's allowances; and I think probably it was wise. It was felt by those who consider these matters, I understand, that children were apt to take one's mind off one's work at university and that probably it was not wise to encourage too many married students to come.
I agree very much with the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, about the distribution of the students. I hope that the Commission will make sure that a number of them go to provincial universities, and to universities in Scotland or Wales, where I know they would get very good value from their scholarships. Then the noble Lord asked about the division of effort as between the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth countries. We are to take 500 scholars; Australia and India

151
have agreed to take 100 each; Pakistan, 30; New Zealand, 25; Malaya, 12, Ghana and the Rhodesias, 10 each; Ceylon, 6 and East Africa, 4. So far as the interchange of students is concerned, I know that when we conferred together at Oxford there was a great desire on the part of the Canadians and Indians—and, indeed, all Commonwealth countries—that this should not be simply a traffic between Britain and the Commonwealth countries but that whenever possible the students should be exchanged between different Commonwealth countries. The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, said he did not want to go outside the Bill, but he felt that of equal importance to the actual financing of scholarships was the expansion of teacher-training and the sending of more teachers to the Commonwealth. All I will say is that I agree. My honourable friend the Minister of State for Commonwealth Relations said in another place that we are including in the plans for the expansion of teacher-training colleges in this country 500 additional places for Commonwealth students training to be teachers; and I think the noble Lord Lord Ogmore will agree that that will make a big impact.
The noble Lord, Lord Brand, said—and I am sure he is right—that there should be a big demand for scholarships from students who were studying technical subjects. The scheme, of course, includes that—indeed, we anticipate that probably some 50 per cent. of the scholarships will be of that nature, although I should not like to-day to tie myself down to a figure. When we were discussing these matters at Oxford there was, again, general agreement, certainly by the Asian and African delegates, that education in technical subjects was really the most effective help which the United Kingdom could give to the underdeveloped countries at the present time, and I cannot say how much I should welcome it if a parallel scheme could be organised in industry and commerce whereby persons at some period in their careers could have the advantage of experience in a Commonwealth country. I would certainly give more thought to that, and perhaps if I could consult with those in industry we might achieve something good on those lines.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, on that matter would the noble Earl look at the training scheme which the United Africa Company have in Nigeria? He might get many fruitful ideas from the scheme they have in operation there.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I am aware of that scheme, and it might well be one which would be very valuable to quite a number of people outside, as well as for myself inside the Government, as I consider it to be a pioneer scheme of great value.
The noble Lord, Lord Elton, gave us his experience of the Rhodes Scholarship scheme, which certainly has blazed a trail and by its success has inspired others to follow on these lines. I can tell him that the principles which will govern selection will, I believe, be very much the same as those which are applied in running the Rhodes Scholarship scheme, and the Commission here will be assisted by bodies in the country of origin in order that students may be well and carefully selected; and I hope that a good deal of attention will be paid to character, as well as to the intellectual capacity of the individual concerned. I hope that I have answered most of the questions put to me by noble Lords. If I have missed any, I will certainly answer them by letter, and I ask that your Lordships should now give this Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

SEA FISH INDUSTRY BILL
6.37 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (LORD CRAIGTON): My Lords, before your Lordships embark upon the details of the Sea Fish Industry Bill I trust I may be forgiven for intervening. The past week has brought us grievous evidence of the perilous nature of our fishermen's calling. Your Lordships will have heard with deep regret of the loss, on Sunday night, near Duncansby Head, of the Aberdeen trawler George Robb. I am very sorry to say that all the crew must now, I fear, be presumed lost. There have also been

153
other sad losses of life during the recent violent storms off our coasts. Now, although I have not yet seen the full reports, I have been informed of the loss of the Broughty Ferry lifeboat which was launched early to-day to go to the aid of a lightship. It appears that the entire crew of eight have been lost. I am sure your Lordships would wish me to take this opportunity of expressing the great sympathy of this House with all who have suffered or have been bereaved as a result of these disasters.
6.38 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (EARL WALDEGRAVE): My Lords, I do not think I need delay your Lordships long in moving the Second Reading of this Sea Fish Industry Bill. First, I should like to say that I associate myself completely, and so does my right honourable friend in another place, with the statement that has just been made by the noble Lord the Minister of State for the Scottish Department.
This Bill deals with two aspects of fishery policy. It deals with the financial assistance given to the near and middle water and inshore sections of the industry, and measures for the conservation of fish stocks, both of which subjects are familiar to your Lordships. Clauses 1 and 2 of the Bill—and I will be as brief as I can—deal with the financial assistance, which takes two forms. There are the grants and loans for the construction of new vessels and the modernisation of old ones; and secondly, there are the operating subsidies, the white fish and herring subsidies. Between them these two forms of assistance are designed to help the industry during the period of transition while the fleets are being modernised.
These arrangements for loans have worked well. The new vessels which have been added to the fleet are in every way a great improvement on those they have replaced. They are more economical to run, they are more efficient catchers of fish, and they provide greatly improved working and living accommodation, which is so necessary for the men who follow this hard and hazardous occupation. But we still have some way to go, for there are still, I believe, some 200 of the old
154
coal-burners in existence and it is clear that the funds authorised by existing legislation for grants and subsidies will not be sufficient to see us through.
In Clause 1 of the Bill there is provision for an increase of £5 million (from £19 million to £24 million) for the operating subsidies for the white fish and herring fleets; and Clause 2 provides for a further £5 million (from £9 million to £14 million) for the construction and modernisation of fishing vessels. These additions should, we hope, see us through and cover subsidy and grant expenditure to 1962 and 1963 when the existing legislation terminates. We are not attempting to look further ahead at this stage, because we should not wish to take any decisions on long-term policy until we have considered the Report of the Fleck Committee which we hope to have before the end of next year.
May I now turn, very briefly, to the conservation clauses, which are Clauses 4 to 8? We all recognise the fundamental importance of effectively conserving the stocks of fish on which ultimately the whole existence of the fishing industry depends. An important new step forward was taken in this field when a Convention was signed this year by the fourteen States, including the United Kingdom, who are concerned with fishing in the North-East Atlantic area. When this Convention has been ratified it will replace the existing Convention which was signed in 1946.
That 1946 Convention provided for only a limited range of conservation measures. It provided for the regulation of the construction and size of mesh of nets and the establishment of minimum size limits for fish. Moreover, some kinds of fish, notably herring, were outside its scope altogether. The new Convention has none of these limitations. It applies to every kind of fish and provides for a much wider range of conservation measures. It envisages the regulation not only of nets but of every type of fishing gear. It provides for the establishment of closed areas and close seasons and also for the regulation of fishing effort: for example, by limiting the number of ships which may engage in fishing or the time they may spend. Finally, in addition to providing for this much wider range of what I might describe as negative measures, in that their aim is to limit or control the drain

155
of fishing operations on fish stocks, the Convention also envisages—and this is an entirely new feature—positive steps to cultivate and increase the natural resources at sea, by such means as the artificial propagation of fish and the transplantation of young fish. The purpose of the conservation clauses in the Bill is to give the Fisheries Ministers the additional powers which they may need to give effect to any measures which it may become necessary for us to put into force as a result of our membership of the Convention.
I do not propose at this stage to go into any further detail on these matters, but there is perhaps one subject which I should mention, and that is the subject of industrial fishing. We in this country have not so far legalised any kind of industrial fishing—that is to say (it is a little difficult to define), fishing for nonhuman consumption, the fishing of very small fish and sand eels for making meal, and so on—and the Government are very conscious of the potential dangers of this practice unless it is properly controlled. But while we should not defend indiscriminate industrial fishing, there may nevertheless be certain types of such fishing which could be permitted, subject to proper safeguards, without endangering either the stocks of fish for human food or the food supplies on which these fish feed. We feel, therefore, that it would be wrong for our legislation to bar the door completely to any sort of industrial fishing, and Clause 6 of this Bill would make it possible for the Government to legalise the practice, subject to whatever safeguards and restrictions might be necessary, if at some future date they decided to do so. The Government do not contemplate using these powers, except, of course, in strict accordance with our international obligations in relation to conservation and after full consultation with the fishing industry.
I might just mention that Clause 9 of the Bill brings the maximum fine for first offences into line with more recent legislation, and that, I think, is all I must say at this stage. The Bill does not, as your Lordships will see, introduce any fundamental change in Government policy. On the financial side it does no more than enable the present arrangements for assistance to the industry to continue for
156
a further period. On the conservation side, while our fundamental aims remain unchanged, the importance of the Bill is that it greatly enlarges the range of measures which may be used to achieve those aims. With these additional measures the Government's hand will be greatly strengthened in securing the international co-operation which is essential for effective conservation. These are purposes which I feel confident will command your Lordships' support. My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Earl Waldegrave.)
6.35 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, we are much obliged to the noble Earl for his introduction of the Bill, though I must say that, while he has covered the points in heads, it was a good thing, perhaps, that some of us had read the Reports of the proceedings in another place, so that we could get a little more detail than we have been able to get to-night. However, may I say that in reading the Reports of another place my mind goes back over a long Parliamentary experience, and I think there are few subjects that come before Parliament on which there is so reduced an amount of Party controversy as the question of what should be done for our sea-fishing industry. There is no question about that, and the announcement made tonight of the disaster to another trawler and to a lifeboat engaged in rescue work on the same coasts, only emphasises the strong feeling of sympathy and constant anxiety felt about those who have their livelihood in these waters, and persuades us to do all that we possibly can to help them.
It is a curious thing that, whatever side of Parliament we hear from, we never hear very great objections to a subsidy to the private industry of fishing. Of course, we cannot afford to lose sight of the enormous trade resulting from the extension of Government finance to-day for private industry. While I am certainly not going to raise that question in relation to the sea-fishing industry as such, I think we shall have to come before much longer in our present Parliamentary Session to a general debate upon how far Government

157
finance for industry should go without conditions.
As regards the fishing industry itself, there are continuing problems all the time. Apart from anything else, I would always justify some basic public help to the fishing industry and its trawlermen because of their repeated national service to our people, in times of war as well as in peace. No one who has sailed in a trawler on active service during the war, as some of us have done, to observe conditions, or who has any knowledge of the statistical detail of the service in the last two great wars, would doubt how great is the importance—and it still remains and is increasingly important, since probably our main danger in war in future will be from underwater attack—of the training, the life, the experience and the hardiness of the fishermen to our country. I remember in 1940, when we were getting the first real dive-bombing attacks on the East Coast, the tragedy it was then to feel that we had trawlers, coal-burning, frightfully slow, with no armament but the 12-pounder in the bows—a Lewis gun; I repeat, a Lewis gun—against aeroplanes. And so anything that adds to the efficiency, the modernity, of our fishing fleet to-day is something of a national strategic reserve, as well as an aid to the current industry.
With regard to the problems before us, I feel that to-night we are only passing in its final stage, the Bill having already gone through another place, a stop-gap measure. This is, in a way, a pity. We understand that the ground to be covered by the Sir Alexander Fleck Committee is very broad and very deep; but they have been sitting, I think, for two years at least, and I gathered from the debate in another place that we are not likely to get a Report until at least the end of next year. I therefore felt a lot of sympathy with those people who thought that we might have had an Interim Report in the meantime. When we have questions which urgently require to be dealt with, such as those which the Parliamentary Secretary has mentioned—the whole problem of conservation—we ought actively to be doing something about it now; we should not have to wait for a considerable time before we take any further definite steps. I hope that such steps are constantly being taken, though I confess that I do not know of any great ones except that there
158
have been experiments in producing artificially the growth of fish by breeding experiments in the havens, and the like.
But with regard to the general steps necessary to be taken, I thought that the Parliamentary Secretary seemed a little less enthusiastic about the industrial side of it than perhaps some Members of both sides of the House in the other place—I am sure that that was only because he has had to give so much sympathetic attention to the industry of agriculture as a whole; the use of fishing for industrial purposes has such a very great effect, in many ways, upon the agricultural industry that perhaps he was careful in choosing his words. I am sure it did not go any further than that. But I feel that, if you are going to get satisfactory conservation, you have got somehow to get an international agreement which will not unduly restrict the fish-feeding food—the food that the fish breed and grow upon—by overdoing the obtaining of fish for this industrial fish market.
I was not quite clear, reading the Reports of the debates in another place, where the Government really stood upon the nature of the problem at the moment. I saw that two or three of the speakers in another place quoted from a Report which said that they were not wholly satisfied with the stocks, as it were, of fish such as haddock and whiting. When you begin to lose from the ocean stocks of fish of that type—a type so commonly consumed by the people—then it is pretty serious; and if it is a fact that large quantities of those types of fish are being over-fished for industrial purposes, then I think that the matter needs fairly immediate attention.
The other thing which I think is necessary if we are eventually to get the industry on to a firm basis of its own is to try to get some better deal with the intervening processes of marketing and transport charges. When fish is sold in a retail store or from a retail dealer at a price of 2s. 8d., 3s., or 3s. 6d., per 1b., for which the fisherman has perhaps got about 6s. a stone—an enormous difference in the price—that must interfere very largely with the ultimate result of those engaged in the hard and laborious side of fishing itself. Of course, there would be many other ways of reducing the prices if they were properly controlled. I think it is quite evident to

159
anybody who reads about the industry that the whole tendency to-day is for the small man gradually to be squeezed out. The industry is going more and more into the ownership and control of quite substantial combines, or into collective ownership; and, therefore, the expenses which are being incurred between the actual dockside where the fish are landed, to the consumer are perhaps being intercepted on behalf of these large organisations—who, from their very size and their modern knowledge, should be better able than anybody else to arrange for a reduction in the charges, and for a general economy in the arrangements made to get the fish from the fisherman to the actual consumer.
The position of fish in our national life was never better seen than during the course of the wars: and, as to its benefit to health, I must say that I never imagined that we should ever get through a debate on the fishing industry without the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, taking part. He and I have been engaged in debates in another place on the fish industry for 35 or 40 years, but what we shall always remember with a quite nostalgic feeling is the detailed advocacy of the medical advantages of eating herrings as a contribution to physical health—though the price of the herring as I knew it as a lad, in the flush season: about 15 or 16 to the shilling; sometimes more—is very different now that they are sold at a fairly high price per pound. However, the herring is still an extraordinarily valuable food. I must tell the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, that I have had two herring meals this week—he used to boast that he had a herring meal nearly every day, I remember—and I found them not only very palatable but very strengthening. Yet, my Lords, what do we find? In the working classes that I knew so well when I was a lad we used also to eat a fish called sprats. But to-day we find that sprats also cost more per lb. in the shops than herrings—which only goes to prove what I have been saying about the cost to the consumer in the markets to-day.
I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us a little more about what the Government are doing now about these matters. Are they doing anything to try to get a better market for the fishermen themselves? Are they going ahead with
160
conservation? Then (I have not referred to it in detail, because I do not want to keep the House at any length) I should like to know whether there is yet any view held by the Government as to the prospects of the Conference which is to be held on the law of the sea, to see if we can get over some of the difficulties which are operating in the case of Iceland and which might well be threatened in other places—such as the Faroes, Norway, Denmark, and the like.
My last word is a word of thanks to the part the Royal Navy, through the Fisheries Department of the Ministry, has played in co-operating to protect our fishermen in the last two or three seasons. It is fundamental. It is one of the duties which has been carried out by the Navy whenever required. Apart from the ordinary fishing inspection vessels, there is the actual protection which has been given. I do want to-night to say a word of thanks to them. I should like to assure the Icelandic people that we do not want to restrict or confine them in any way, or to take away their livelihood, but I feel that they are being extraordinarily exclusive in their present claims, until there has been a real revision of the law of the sea as a result of the World Conference which is being held. If the noble Earl could give us any report on the progress that is being made, it would be helpful. By the way he dealt with the introduction of the Bill, I felt that he was probably not well briefed, but we will excuse him that if he does his best to give us some information on this matter.
6.51 p.m.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, I do not intend to detain your Lordships for more than a few minutes, but I should like to associate myself with the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, about the series of tragedies which have accompanied the recent storm—indeed, the continuing storm. It reminds us that danger is part of the fisherman's calling, as it is part of the miner's calling; and, alas! we are being continually reminded of that fact. This has been heavy weather for those who go down to the sea in little ships; and I am sure that your Lordships' House will concur with the noble Lord in offering your deep sympathy to the families bereaved.

161
I should like to correct a possible misapprehension which may have arisen out of a supplementary question which I asked the noble Earl the other day. I asked whether it was worth while going on subsidising the fish industry, if we were going to acquiesce in the relentless destruction of the fishing stocks. The noble Earl replied, quite rightly, that he thought that subsidies were very necessary. But there was a faint implication in what he said that I did not myself think them necessary. I do, indeed; I think that they are vital. But I also feel full of apprehension about the destruction of stocks in the North Sea to-day; and it is to that subject, and to that subject alone, that I intend to address myself this afternoon.
By and large, I agree with the noble Earl—though there may be one or two exceptions—that industrial fishing, as such, is a deadly danger. The Permanent Commission of the International Fisheries Convention reported that:
"… although there was a reduction in the stocks of whiting and haddock, this was not so substantial as seriously to reduce the yield from these fisheries",
and went on to say:
"A similar conclusion resulted from an experiment in the industrial fishery grounds for young herring in the North Sea."
I would simply say that I do not believe it. Scientists are not always right. Very often they are wrong. They predicted a very good autumn fishing off Yarmouth and Lowestoft. It was the worst we have had in this country since the reign of Henry VIII. That limits my confidence in the predictions of scientists. It is the same with economists. They always disagree with each other. Sometimes one section or another is right; but I do not think that we should give them unlimited confidence. For my part, I do not give fishery scientists any confidence at all at the present moment.
I remember the days, some thirty-five years ago, when I first became Member of Parliament for East Aberdeenshire. We were catching 2 million barrels of herring a year, and exporting them all over the Continent of Europe, to Russia, Poland and Germany. This country exported over 500,000 barrels a year to Germany alone, not to mention Russia and Poland; and that in
162
addition to securing ample supplies for the home market. To-day we are thankful for a couple of hundred thousand barrels. Something must have happened to bring about this extraordinary change, because the herring fishing industry is infinitesimal by comparison with what it was in this country twenty years ago, and for a century before that. It started in the reign of Queen Elizabeth; and has never, hitherto, dropped back like this. It is now a comparatively minor industry; and it used to be a great one, not only in Scotland but on the East Anglian coast as well.
What can be the reasons? We can blame the tides, and the moon, which has an effect upon herrings, but which somehow or other remains in the sky, and the movement of plankton, and"what have you"; but I know what the cause is, and so do the fishermen whom I represented in another place for thirty-five years. It is the absolutely ruthless trawling of the spawning grounds in the Channel, and the fisheries which take the immature baby fish in millions for industrial purposes in Denmark. I have visited Esbjerg, and I have seen their factories. It is no good telling me that the pulling out every year of millions of immature fish, which has been going on for the last seven or eight years, has had no effect on the herring fishing, and on the stocks of herring in the North Sea. I know it has had a dreadful effect, on the Dogger Bank fishing in particular. This ruthless trawling does enormous destruction among the little herrings lying on the sea bed, and herring heavy with spawn; because a trawl goes down to them and in this respect it is quite different from drift net fishing. The trawling in the Channel by the Belgians and the French particularly, at the late end of the season, has also had a disastrous effect upon stocks. I am sure of this, no matter what the scientists may say.
So far as the white fishing is concerned, the North Sea has been fished out twice in the lifetime of most of us here, and saved by two world wars. It was fished out in 1913, and saved by the First World War; and pretty nearly fished out in 1939, and saved by the Second World War. Now it is being fished out again. I believe (and this is almost the last thing I want to say tonight on the subject of conservation,

163
which occupies several clauses of the Bill) that in some respects the Icelandic dispute is basic. I do not want to sympathise with or approve of all the actions of the Icelandic Government; but I think that to some extent they have seen the need for a complete revision of the fishing laws. They may be a little premature. They may have overdone it a bit, but they have a point. As Sir William Duthie said in another place, the three-mile limit is archaic. It is based on the range of a breach-loading cannon shot, and was laid down heaven knows how many years ago. It has no relevance at all to modern conditions.
Without accepting, in general or in particular, the Icelandic case, I believe that new base lines are now necessary; and should be fixed by international agreement. I think that those base lines—and here I differ from the Icelandic Government—should take particular account of the breeding grounds, both of white fish and of pelagic fish. I think that there are certain things we ought to do in this country. We ought to be a bit tough ourselves, instead of complaining and howling all the time about what the Icelanders are doing. We ought, for example, to close the Moray Firth to foreign trawlers altogether. That is known to be one of the great breeding grounds. I have said this on and off, without the slightest effect, for thirty years. I shall say it for the remaining thirty years of my life; and perhaps thirty years after I am dead something may be done about it.
Apart from the Moray Firth, for which there are unaswerable arguments for its closure, not only to foreign trawlers but to all trawlers, I think that some control should be exercised over the Minch. I think that there should be a close season there, and that some limit should be put on the size of herring caught in the Minch and in Loch Fyne. The Loch Fyne fishery was one of the greatest we ever had in this country, and the quality of the herrings was unsurpassable. One could have lived happily on them for weeks on end, and never have wished to eat anything else. The flavour was supreme, far exceeding that of caviare. They have gone. Why? Because, I believe, no limits have been put on the catching of herrings in the Minch, and particularly in the Loch Fyne area. I
164
think that we might well set a good example by going to this Conference which is about to be held and saying that we ourselves have certain proposals for restriction, in the interests of fish conservation, which we should like to see put into operation.
I would further suggest to your Lordships that the fishery cruisers should be allowed, under any international agreement that may be arrived at, to close all fishing vessels and find out precisely what does go on. They should not merely ask them to wave one net in the air as a sample; but should get aboard and see what nets are under the deck, because I have a feeling that there is a lot of showmanship going on when these nets are asked to be shown and that special nets are produced for the consumption of the fishery cruisers, and the nets that are really used are kept out of sight.
This is, as the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, has said, a"continuation" measure—an interim palliative measure—which continues the subsidies. As such, it is good. We are awaiting the Report of the Fleck Committee, and we are awaiting the Report of the Conference on the Law of the Sea. But we should, I think, be under a delusion if we thought that the Bill as such did anything but fill a gap. It is not the final answer to the problem of our fishing industry. I believe—and I do not think the noble Earl who is to reply will disagree with me—that the forthcoming Conference in the Spring on the Law of the Sea may well decide the fate of the fishing industry in the North Sea, because the preservation of the breeding grounds of both white and pelagic fish seems to me to be essential. This is a common problem shared by ourselves, Iceland, Norway, Denmark, Holland and Belgium. If the North Sea is denuded of fish, we all go down. Therefore I would conclude my remarks simply by saying that we are all in the same boat—we are all in the same fishing boat—and if it is realised at the forthcoming Conference on the Law of the Sea, which has, after all, very wide terms of reference, that we all fish or sink together, then I believe that something really good may come of it. But I hope Her Majesty's Government will go to that Conference with constructive proposals for conservation, determined to make a success of it.
7.3 p.m.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, I must apologise to the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition if I did not speak for long enough. I thought that it was perhaps creditable at this somewhat late hour to be brief, and the Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill is very full in itself. This Bill is, as the noble Viscount said—and I am quite unashamed of the fact—a stopgap measure. The finances were running out; the legislation was going to run out in 1962–63 without the programmes being completed, and it was necessary to produce a short Bill to enable us to continue the subsidies. I hasten to assure the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, that I never thought for a moment that he thought the subsidies were unnecessary. Neither of us thinks that the subsidies are unnecessary. I should like to make that quite clear, in case anybody should have misread the record. A stopgap measure was necessary, and we have taken the opportunity in this Bill greatly to increase the scope of conservation powers that may be needed by the Ministers, the Secretary of State and my right honourable friend. We hope that the Convention will shortly be ratified by the 14 nations that are signatories of it (it has already been ratified by the United Kingdom, but not I believe so far by any of the others) and will take the place of the 1946 Convention. We shall then need to have the powers which we take in this Bill to put the conservation measures into force.
Tho noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, asked me whether I would speak of prices and marketing, but I rather doubt whether that arises under this Bill. The White Fish Authority, I am sure, always give this matter their closest attention and will no doubt continue to do so. I doubt if it would be proper on Second Reading—perhaps it might come up on a clause, but I cannot quite see which—to go into that matter in any detail. What this Bill does is to see that the finance for the operating subsidies and the construction and modernisation subsidies is not prematurely cut off. That is the important financial point of the Bill.
Then, the noble Viscount asked me (perhaps he had his tongue in his cheek) whether I would say something about the forthcoming Conference on the Law
166
of the Sea. I am quite unable to anticipate what will be the result of that vitally important Conference. We hope—and we have every prospect of our hope being fulfilled—that there will be a just and lasting settlement at this Conference of these questions of the breadth of territorial waters and the fishery limits.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Who is to represent this country?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: I am afraid that I am unaware which particular Ministers will represent this country. But the Government will, as I am sure the noble Viscount will agree, take all the steps that are open to them to achieve a proper, lasting and just settlement of this vital subject. While I am on this matter, may I turn to Lord Boothby's question of fishery limits—the closing of the Moray Firth and so on. That surely is more applicable to that Conference than to the conservation measures in this Bill. The noble Lord will forgive me, therefore, if I do not follow him in detail on the points he raised there.
LORD BOOTHBY: So long as the noble Earl suggests it.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: The thanks of the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, with his past association with the Royal Navy, to that Service for the splendid work it has been doing are most appropriately given. So far as this situation is concerned, I cannot remember the exact words of my right honourable friend in another place, but he said something like this: if the world was a more sensible place, this would never have happened. That is the situation in regard to the trouble that has arisen in the Icelandic regions; and the tolerance of our fishermen and the great forbearance of the units of the Royal Navy are beyond all praise.
I turn now for a moment or so to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Boothy, which were chiefly concentrated on industrial fishing. Either the noble Lord or the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, said that they had been discussing these matters for some 30 years. I do not think, therefore, that anything I have to say is going to alter their continuing arguments,

167
which I hope will go on for another 30 years. Both of those noble Lords are far greater experts on this matter than I am, however well I am briefed—and I have been well briefed. If I did not speak long enough before, it is not because I was not properly briefed—I want to make that plain. The noble Lord, Lord Boothby, said:"I know what the cause of the failure of the herring is and I am not going to listen to anybody else's suggestions. I would never believe the scientists or anybody else." So I really think it would be idle for me to try and join in this argument: the noble Lord knows the answer.
LORD BOOTHBY: If the noble Lord will forgive me for interrupting, may I say that I listen to them, but I am convinced that they are wrong.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: The noble Earl has listened to so many of them and has still remained unconvinced; so I shall not at this hour attempt to convince him any more. But I must, however, say this. As I said in answer to a Question put last week, the scientific evidence we have is that the industrial fishing, as done chiefly by the Danes at the moment, is not, according to the scientists, thought to be the major reason—may I put it as low as that?—for the decline of these East Anglian herring fisheries.
I do not know whether I have answered all the other points. I am sure that I have not satisfied the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, but I set out with no hope of doing that because, as he told us, he already knows the answers. If there are any other questions that I have overlooked and have not answered, I will try to do so by letter later.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

LORD HIGH COMMISSIONER (CHURCH OF SCOTLAND) BILL
7.11 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, the purpose of this Bill is to increase from £4,000 to £7,500 the maximum allow
168
ance which may be made in any year to cover the expenses incurred by the Lord High Commissioner to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. More than one Member of your Lordships' House has held this ancient office with distinction, and I need not spend time discussing its purpose and its history. The Lord High Commissioner, as Her Majesty's personal representative at the Assembly, symbolises the Crown's deep and continuing interest in the welfare of the Church of Scotland. In that capacity, the Lord High Commissioner discharges a function of importance and dignity, rightly held in high esteem. In the course of his duties the Lord High Commissioner has to incur certain expenses. He takes up residence in Holyroodhouse, which has to be prepared for the purpose, and he offers hospitality to members of the Assembly, distinguished visitors and guests from all walks of life in Scotland.
Expenses are met by an allowance from the Consolidated Fund. In 1948 the maximum allowance, which had for over a century stood at £2,000, was increased to £4,000. That figure has for several years proved not to be enough and must now be increased. There is a special need to make a larger sum available in 1960, because the General Assembly will hold two meetings, the Ordinary Meeting in May and a Special Meeting in October to celebrate the Fourth Centenary of the Scottish Reformation. The figure of £7,500 will enable these special expenses to be met, and provide a reasonable margin for future years. As is clear from the terms of the Bill, £7,500 is a maximum figure. The amount actually paid each year will be determined by the Secretary of State and the Treasury after reviewing the previous year's expenditure, and after consultation with the Purse Bearer, acting on behalf of the Lord High Commissioner.
Those distinguished Members of your Lordships' House who have held the office of Lord High Commissioner will know far better than I how necessary and justified this Bill is. It is not right to expect the Lord High Commissioner to go on every year putting himself or his friends to substantial financial sacrifice, if for no other reason than that this would limit to persons of substantial private means

169
an appointment for which should be chosen the man best qualified on personal merits, whatever his rank or means. I do not think it is necessary for me to say any more. I am confident that your Lordships will readily give this Bill a Second Reading. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Craigton.)
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, unfortunately our Scottish Members cannot be here tonight, but I entirely agree with the last sentence of the Minister. We have recollections of people like Jimmy Brown, George Mathers and others, and we think you should do what is necessary. Therefore, we give this Bill an unopposed Second Reading.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, before this Bill receives its Second Reading, I should like to say that I entirely approve of it. But I could not let the occasion go without expressing slight personal regret that some part of the money will be used in the forthcoming year to celebrate the memory of John Knox, who is no hero of mine. Subject to that reservation, I am fully in favour of the Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2a: Committee negatived.