Lords Sitting of 3 March 1959

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD MERTHYR on the Woolsack.
Prayers

RAILWAY CLEARING SYSTEM SUPERANNUATION FUND BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
TEES CONSERVANCY BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

NYASALAND AND NORTHERN RHODESIA
2.38 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I beg to ask Her Majesty's Government the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what the latest situation is in Nyasaland, what action Her Majesty's Government propose to take to reassure African opinion in this colonial territory, and what effect the unrest in Nyasaland is having in Northern Rhodesia.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COLONIAL AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF PERTH): My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will not object if I postpone answering his Question for about an hour, when I expect to be able to make a statement on the subject-matter of his Question—on Nyasaland—similar to one which will be made in another place by my right honourable friend the Colonial Secretary.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, I should have thought that that Answer was a little unusual for a specific Question on the Paper. I do not know whether this information is the kind of thing which has been refused by the Speaker in another place because, I understand, there is to
648
be a full debate there to-morrow; but surely, in ordinary circumstances, we are entitled to a direct reply now.
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, perhaps it is a little unusual, but, in the light of the circumstances, and with the assurance that within the hour, or approximately the hour, I shall be able to give a useful and full answer, I thought that that might be to the general convenience of the House.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I think it is rather more to the convenience of the House that we should make a principle of this matter. If a Question like this—a specific Question—is put on the Paper, and the information is available, then surely we are entitled to an Answer now.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (THE EARL OF HOME): My Lords, I should have thought that the noble Viscount, on consideration, would probably think it would be more convenient to have a rather longer statement at half past three than that which my noble friend could make in answer to a Question; and we adopted this procedure because we thought it would suit the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, better and that there would be the chance of rather more supplementary questions after the statement than would be possible on the rather narrow Question now.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, there is a procedural question here. Are our proceedings here to be regulated, and are we not to be allowed to ask Questions until the matter is dealt with elsewhere?
THE EARL OF HOME: What a fuss the noble Viscount would make if we answered this narrow Question now and did not make a statement at half past three! I should have thought it would be more convenient to combine the two.

GOVERNMENT AND EGYPTIAN COMPENSATION
LORD KILLEARN: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how much of the £3,300,000 released

649
from Egypt's blocked sterling balances accrue to them as shareholders in the Suez Canal Company.]
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (THE EARL OF DUNDEE): My Lords, no decision has yet been taken by the Suez Finance Company about the distribution to its shareholders of the instalment of compensation which it received on January 1, 1959, from the United Arab Republic.
LORD KILLEARN: My Lords, while thanking the noble Earl for his Answer—I do not want to pursue the matter any further to-day—can he tell us the proportion of the British Government's holding in the Canal Company?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I think I have that figure: it is just under one-third.

THE EGYPTIAN FINANCIAL AGREEMENT
2.41. p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question of which I have given private notice: namely, to ask the noble Earl the Leader of the House whether arrangements would be made for the Egyptian Financial Agreement to be debated on a Motion asking for the approval of your Lordships' House.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, as your Lordships are aware, my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made a full statement in another place yesterday, when your Lordships were not sitting, on the financial agreement with the Egyptian Government, now the Government of the United Arab Republic. The same afternoon, a White Paper containing the terms of the Agreement was laid before both Houses of Parliament and was made available to your Lordships in the Printed Paper Office. In the circumstances, therefore, I suggest that your Lordships would not wish me to repeat that statement here to-day—although, if the House thinks it still desirable or necessary, I shall be glad to do so. I imagine, however, that your Lordships will on this occasion prefer to take it as read, and allow us to proceed on that basis.
As regards the precise arrangements for the debate for which the noble Viscount has asked, perhaps your Lord-
650
ships would prefer to take a little time to examine this rather complicated document in detail before we make definite arrangements, through the usual channels, for a day to be appointed for the debate, and as to the precise form the debate should take. But, of course, we will provide every facility for a debate in due course.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I must say that most of the Answer that has been given is irrelevant to the Question that I put. We are well aware that there is a White Paper in the Printed Paper Office, and it is being studied. But there are certain things which call for some urgency in the opportunity of debate. My Question really is to the Leader of the House as to whether arrangements will be made in the form that we ask for it, namely, a Government Motion asking for the approval of your Lordships' House for the White Paper. That is the Question that I want answered.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, it is for the Government to consider the form of the Motion, but there will certainly be time for debate, and I think the usual channels provide the best method of arranging it.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, does that mean that the Government are uncertain as to whether it is likely to receive the approval of your Lordships' House?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, the noble Viscount must not make any such erroneous supposition.

RHODESIA: DEPORTATION OF MR. STONEHOUSE, M.P.
2.44 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I beg to ask Her Majesty's Government the following Private Notice Question: Whether it is true, as reported in the British Broadcasting Corporation's news this morning, that the Federal Authorities of Rhodesia and Nyasaland have forcibly deported Mr. Stonehouse, a Member of the House of Commons in the United Kingdom Parliament.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, there is no further information available to me at the moment than is available to the

651
noble Viscount, which he has quoted from the B.B.C. this morning, but I know that the Prime Minister of the Federation has made a full statement in Salisbury on the reasons for the expulsion of Mr. Stonehouse, and details of that should soon be available to me and to noble Lords. I would add that any restraint on a British subject gives proper cause for anxiety, and that of a Member of Parliament is of course of particular concern to both Houses here. I have therefore asked the High Commissioner in Salisbury for a full report of all the events which led up to the departure of Mr. Stonehouse from Northern Rhodesia. I have naturally taken the highest legal advice, and there can be no doubt that the Federal Government have acted entirely within the legal rights conferred on them by the United Kingdom Parliament in the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland (Constitution) Order of 1953.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am obliged for many parts of the Answer which the Leader of the House has given me, and I share with him the anxiety about an event of this character within the Commonwealth concerning a Member of the United Kingdom Parliament. May I ask whether the Government now propose to make representations to the Government who are responsible for this act, and whether in any case an inquiry will be held into the matter?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, as I have said, the Federal Government have acted completely within the law as laid down by this Parliament. All I can do at the present time is to ask for a full account of the action before I make up my mind as to any further step that might be needed.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I agree. But I suppose it would be possible to make early representation to the authorities of the Federation that acts of this kind are not likely to induce confidence in the African population in the Parliamentary system.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I have no doubt that the Federal Prime Minister and all concerned in Rhodesia in this tricky and dangerous situation gave careful consideration to these points before they acted.
LORD REA: My Lords, could the noble Earl explain when and how the information he expects to receive from Salisbury will be available to Members of this House and the other place?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I gather that it is now public property in Salisbury and therefore will arrive here in the usual way in the newspapers and on the tape. But of course I shall get an account of it through the High Commissioner.

DRAFT AGRICULTURE (CIRCULAR SAWS) REGULATIONS, 1958
2.47 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (EARL WALDEGRAVE)THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (EARL WALDEGRAVE) rose to move, That the Draft Agriculture (Circular Saws) Regulations, 1958, be approved. The noble Earl said: My Lords, as both the sets of regulations on the Order Paper arise out of the same Act, it may be convenient to your Lordships if I discuss them together rather than to have two separate Motions. We already have regulations for avoidance of accidents to children and about the provision of first-aid boxes, and there are regulations for power takeoffs and ladders. Now we come to circular saws which can be very dangerous machines, and the regulations deal with the chief causes of trouble. They prescribe generally for sound construction, proper maintenance and adequate lighting. There are specific requirements about unsafe blades; top and bottom guards must be provided and, for the fixed bench type, a riving knife is also required to prevent the cut wood binding on the saw at the far side of the blade.
Provision of proper equipment is the concern of the employer but the employee has certain more limited responsibilities such as making use of safety devices and reporting obvious specified defects such as missing teeth in the blade. No one under 16 may work at a circular saw, those between 16 and under 18 must be supervised, and any inexperienced workers must be instructed. Most of the regulations come into force in 12 months' time, although only 6 months is allowed for some requirements such as restrictions on highly dangerous defective

653
blades and certain operating conditions. Consultation with the organisations concerned has been both wide and helpful.
There is one point on the Circular Saws Order to which I should like to refer. Some noble Lords may ask why we have not covered all types of saw. The reason is that we are out to tackle the most common and serious risks first. Circular saws, by far the most extensively used in agriculture, and, of course, in forestry, fall by common consent into this group. It was in full agreement with the main agricultural interests that we gave them high priority in our programme of safety regulations; and though we have had the fullest consultations with interested organisations, we have not been asked to include other types of saw in these present regulations. Other specialised types, such as the band saw, are more appropriate to the timber trade. In brief, our policy is to protect the greatest number in the shortest time (we have in preparation other regulations designed to cover a wide field of risks) and to leave until a later stage the less common causes of accidents.
May I now turn to the second set of regulations. Places used by agricultural workers during their employment are the subject of the second set before us to-day. Safety standards are laid down for floors (including catwalks), fixed ladders and stairs. Openings of various kinds in walls and floors, also grain pits, stokeholds and furnace pits, must be guarded if workers run the risk of falling more than 5 ft. through them or into them. Stairs must be properly constructed—for example, there must not be any missing steps or other obvious defects—and they must have adequate handrails. Where stairs are so steep as to be virtually fixed ladders, there must be a handhold at the top for people getting on or off. The workers' own share of responsibility in all this is limited to making use of safety equipment and reporting certain obvious defects such as broken handrails and guards.
These requirements are all essentially simple arid the installation of safeguards will not be costly. The regulations will not come into effect until April 1, 1961. We shall, of course, try to make sure that everyone concerned knows what is required of him. As with earlier regulations, an explanatory leaflet will be
654
printed and given the widest possible distribution: we find this a very effective way of telling people just what they have to do. Other publicity channels, such as the Press, broadcasting and television will be used wherever possible to draw attention to the existence of these regulations and to the various dates of operation as they draw near. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Agriculture (Circular Saws) Regulations, 1958, be approved.—(Earl Waldegrave.)
2.50 p.m.
LORD KINNAIRD: My Lords, I should like to apologise to the noble Earl, Lord Waldegrave, that I have not had an opportunity, as I have been away, of telling him that I was going to ask this question. The question is in regard to saws that are used mostly for crosscutting firewood. In our sawmills a great many people have a subsidiary saw which is a circular saw. It is not used for the dangerous operation of cutting long planks, but is normally used for cutting up firewood. In the same way, there are large numbers of circular saws used on a bench which is pulled out by a tractor into the woods. That is of great value in forestry operations, and it would seem to me, so far as I have been able to understand these regulations, that the same intricate safeguards are not necessary for cross-cutting firewood saws used for that purpose. I wonder whether the noble Earl can tell me if they will be able to be excluded from these regulations?
LORD DYNEVOR: My Lords, may I ask one question on this subject? Various obligations are placed upon both employer and worker, but the noble Earl made no mention of any penalty that might accrue to an employer where a worker, either at his bench or outside deliberately ignores the safety measures the employer has provided. It could operate the other way when perhaps an employer might not carry out the regulations to the full. What safeguard has the worker in that case?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, the first point is that these regulations will apply to circular saws of all sorts that are used by agricultural workers as defined in the regulations—that is to say, they apply to the circular saw taken out

655
into the woods for cross-cutting logs. With regard to the penalties, I am not sure of the scale, but I think it is important to realise that all these regulations are, as it were, negative in their application—that is to say, they forbid an employer causing or permitting a worker to use any saw unless the regulations are complied with, and where an employer orders an employee to contravene these regulations he is acting in breach of them and can be proceeded against. An employee who deliberately does not follow out these regulations also is in breach of them. I hope that that meets the points the noble Lord raised.
LORD KERSHAW: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for his explanation as to why other types of power saws have not been included in the regulations. That is a point which was raised in the Special Orders Committee, and by his remarks he has anticipated a question I should have been disposed to put in that connection. I am not at all satisfied—and I think the House ought not to be satisfied—with the fact that the Order has been confined to circular saws, because we all know the fearful damage done to men in the operation of all kinds of mechanical or power saws. I see no reason whatever why the whole series of mechanical saws should not have been included in this particular Order. The noble Earl has said that it is proposed to review that phase of the matter at a later date, but that does not excuse the Government for not having included in this particular Order the whole of the power saws that are used in connection with agriculture.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, I fully appreciate the point the noble Lord opposite has made. I hope that he will not press it and delay the approval of this Order because he thinks more ought to be in it. I can only reiterate what I have said before, which is that these regulations are designed to protect agricultural workers and forestry workers. We had the fullest consultations with the workers' side in this matter, and they have not asked for band saws and other forms of mechanical fixed saws, which are far more prevalently used in the timber trade where they are covered by the provisions of the Factories Acts, to be included. It would have made these
656
regulations a great deal more difficult if we had had to do that. We shall no doubt come to this, but there are many more things which we think are of greater urgency, such as the carrying of heavy weights. That is one we have on the stocks—we are getting ready to deal with the carrying of excessive weights—before we go into the really technical matters for which, at the moment, there is no demand from the workers' side. Before getting regulations to deal with saws which are not in common use among agricultural workers, we felt that it was right to go forward with these regulations to try to protect the workers against this very dangerous instrument which is well known to us all.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, may I ask two questions? First, is it not a fact that, in the modern development of the machine age of the farm, a great many machines are now being used on farms that were not so used a decade ago? Could the noble Earl tell me whether a farm which becomes almost self-contained in adapting itself for its plant and building extension, and that kind of thing, will come under the Factory and Workshops Acts dealing with these matters? There is no provision in this Order for them.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: I do not think I could answer that question completely without notice. It is a matter of legal definition, and I believe that there is already a great deal of Case Law on this subject. But whether all such places would come under the Factories Acts I do not find easy to answer. I think that where there are fixed saws and fixed woodworking machinery in an estate, probably they do come under the Factories Acts. But I wish to re-emphasise that we are dealing here with regulations to protect farm workers, and we are trying to deal with the kind of thing the ordinary farm worker is commonly called upon to use, such as a circular saw. The farm worker cannot be said commonly to be called upon to use complex fixed woodworking machinery, such as bandsaws, which I think are always governed by the Factories Acts.
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: My Lords, while nobody wishes to delay the passing of this very necessary legislation, I hope that the noble Earl will keep

657
in mind that the growth of the use of the bandsaw, or modifications of it, out doors is spreading very rapidly, and an adaptation of the factory type of bandsaw is now used for the felling of large trees in forests. To omit those most dangerous tools from regulations of this kind is rather unfortunate. Perhaps the noble Earl would look at the matter again, because I am sure that the House would willingly consider an addition to these regulations if he found it to be necessary.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, I will, of course, undertake to bring to the attention of my right honourable friend the points that have been raised. As I say, we are in process of bringing forward other regulations, and if there is a big demand for regulations in connection with other types of saw no doubt my right honourable friend will pay serious attention to it.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am obliged to my noble friend Lord Kershaw for opening up this matter this afternoon. I am grateful for that last answer. We shall watch with great care what is the next step to be taken by the Ministry. I hope it will be soon. With regard to the administration of these regulations, have the Ministry made definite inquiries into convenient movable protectors which can be used with, say, a circular saw that can be attached to any tractor on the farm, in any position on the farm? Because if you can help the farmers, especially the smaller ones, with advice on this matter it will be a very good thing.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, I think can reassure the noble Viscount that these matters have been gone into most carefully. Very wide and full consultations have taken place, and I have a great mass of illustrated designs for these protective devices. I believe that the subject has been well covered.
3.2 p.m.
LORD WISE: My Lords, may I say a few words about these regulations, because I am particularly interested in their passing. In a great measure I approve of them, because I am certain that they will be for the protection of the farm workers and also in the interests of farmers. The noble Earl said that he had
658
had long consultations with the interests concerned, and I understand that that is so in regard to the National Union of Agricultural Workers. They approve of these regulations, although it is probably within the noble Lord's knowledge that they would have liked the regulations extended or improved in some directions. Both these regulations and the Safeguarding of Workplaces Regulations throw duties upon both the farmers and the farm workers, and I hope that there will be the closest possible co-operation between both parties.
These are very essential regulations. I should not perhaps be right if I said that they were measures of control in the farming industry, but at any rate they are measures which will be very helpful. I am glad that the regulations prohibit a young man under sixteen from using circular saws and other equipment of that sort, and I am glad also that the question of the repair of the buildings and ladders and holes in floors most particularly is to be tackled under the Circular Saws Regulations. In that connection, I would ask the Minister whether works of some importance and some cast to farmers in putting their buildings in order would come under the improvement grants scheme and whether it is possible for a grant to be made.
I understand that a number of inspectors, some sixty or seventy, have already been appointed to carry out the work of the Ministry, and I want to suggest to the Minister that these inspectors should be asked to carry out their work with the greatest kindliness and interest, and should see that the farmers and farm workers are well aware what is contained in the regulations. The Minister mentioned the question of publicity. I think it is essential that the greatest possible publicity should be given to these regulations. He also mentioned the question of the B.B.C. There are one or two programmes soon after the news at six o'clock on television which could well cover some of the items which are included in these regulations. If that were done they would receive the attention of a very vast audience indeed, and it might be helpful in seeing that the regulations are put into operation quite rightly and perfectly in order.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, I think I can quite briefly reply to those

659
points. The National Union of Agricultural Workers was indeed consulted, as also were the National Union of General and Municipal Workers and other trade unions. With regard to improvement grants it will be possible, we feel, for works undertaken to comply with the Safeguarding of Workplaces Regulations to qualify under the Farm Improvement Scheme. On inspection: we have a large body of inspectors to deal with the matter: we have 73 Officers—the Chief Inspector, 2 Deputy Chief Inspectors, 8 Regional Safety Inspectors, 26 Field Officers (Grade 1), 36 Field Officers (Grade 2)—which is quite a large body of people to deal with this work. Finally—on publicity—I am quite sure that the B.B.C., and especially some of those programmes which we probably both have in mind, will take this matter up in their usual co-operative way.
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether any contact has been had with the manufacturers of these saws with a view to their designing the most safe kind?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, the answer to that is, "Yes." I have a list of all the people who have been consulted, and the manufacturing interests have been consulted.
LORD LATHAM: The noble Earl will agree that is the point of departure in matters of this kind.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: Yes. But from the very nature of the instrument it has dangers.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

DRAFT AGRICULTURE (SAFE- GUARDING OF WORKPLACES) REGULATIONS, 1958
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, I beg to move that these regulations be approved.
Moved, That the Draft Agriculture (Safeguarding of Workplaces) Regulations, 1958, be approved.—(Earl Waldegrave.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

TRURO CATHEDRAL MEASURE, 1959
3.7 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF TRURO THE LORD BISHOP OF TRURO rose to move to resolve, That, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Truro Cathedral Measure, 1959, be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent. The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, I beg to move the Resolution which stands in my name. I would just remind your Lordships that the ancient Cornish See was re-created in the year 1877 as the Diocese of Truro, and at that time the Bishop was made Dean, in the hope that some day a separate Dean might be appointed. We now see the way to the fulfilment of that hope. There is no opposition to this step in the Diocese: It will be good for the Bishop; it will be good for the Cathedral. The Church Commissioners have been sympathetic and have helped to provide the stipend, which proved the stumbling block in the past.
This Measure repeals the Acts of 1878 and 1887, though I need not bother your Lordships with its details. Its main purpose is to enable the offices of Dean and Bishop to be separated, and to sever the office of Sub Dean from the office of Rector, because there is a parish church attached to the Cathedral, so that the Dean will now become the Rector. This means that the right of patronage of appointment to the Deanery will pass from the Bishop to the Crown. When the Cathedral was built, there was nobody in whom the land could be vested, except the Bishop, because there was not yet a Dean and Chapter. It is now proposed, as a tidying-up measure, that the land should be vested as with all other cathedrals, in the Dean and Chapter. The Measure has passed through all its former stages without opposition. I beg to move.
Moved to resolve, That in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Truro Cathedral Measure, 1959, be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent.—(The Lord Bishop of Truro.)
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, the Government have nothing to say about this Resolution, which is in accordance with the Church of England

661
Assembly (Powers) Act, and to which I have no doubt your Lordships will agree. I have risen only because I feel that some-one ought to extend your Lordships' congratulations to the right reverend Prelate oil addressing your Lordships for the first time. We have listened with great interest to what he has told us about his Cathedral, the Dean and Chapter; and although we all know that Truro is a most delightful part of the country in which to live, we hope that the right reverend Prelate will, nevertheless, often find time to come to your Lordships' House and take part in our debates.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

ELECTRICITY (BORROWING POWERS) BILL
3.11 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE MINISTER OF POWER (LORD MILLS): My Lords, I beg to move that the Electricity (Borrowing Powers) Bill be read a second time. This is, as your Lordships will observe, a short Bill, but it is nevertheless a very important one. Its purpose is to increase the limits which are at present imposed by Statute on borrowings by the Electricity Council and the Electricity Boards in Great Britain.
Before I describe in detail what the Bill does, it might be as well if I were to say what it does not do. It does not in itself permit the Electricity Council, or any Electricity Board, to borrow any sum of money, from the Treasury or from any other source. All borrowing, whether temporary or by way of stock issues or advances from the Treasury, requires the specific consent of the Minister of Power or the Secretary of State for Scotland, and, except in the case of the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board, the approval of the Treasury. The Bill does not change the position in that respect. But the aggregate borrowings of the Electricity Council, the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board and the South of Scotland Electricity Board are subject to an overall limit imposed by Statute in each case. The borrowings are now approaching those limits, and the Bill proposes to increase them. In other words, this is a proposal to increase the authorised capital of the industry. Increases in the
662
issued capital will continue to be subject to specific ministerial approval.
The electricity industry is, as your Lordships know, expanding very rapidly. It has, indeed, pursued a course of virtually uninterrupted expansion since its beginnings in the last decades of the nineteenth century, and so far it is impossible to see any end to the process. The consumption of electricity in this country has quadrupled in the last twenty years. In 1958 the Electricity Boards in England, Wales and Scotland sold over 8½ per cent. more electricity than in 1957. This rate of increase, if continued, would more than double the sales in a ten-year period. In countries like the United States, Canada and Norway, where consumption in relation to the population is much higher than it is here, the expansion of electricity sales is still going on. We have, therefore, to provide for a continuing increase in demand over a long period—certainly for as far ahead as it is possible to foresee at present.
The industry in this country has been accustomed to finance a proportion of its expansion by borrowing, and the Electricity Boards are permitted to borrow by the Statutes under which they operate. Parliament thought it right, however, to set a limit to the total borrowings that might be outstanding at any one time. This was obviously necessary because the borrowings are, in general, guaranteed by the Treasury and such commitments must be subject to periodical review. From time to time the Ministers responsible for the industry must come back to Parliament to ask for an increase in the sums authorised.
The Electricity Act, 1947, which set up the British Electricity Authority (as it was then) and the Area Electricity Boards, limited the borrowing powers of the Authority to £700 million. It was expected that these powers would serve for about seven years. This proved to be an accurate forecast, for the need to increase borrowing powers arose next in 1954 when the Gas and Electricity (Borrowing Powers) Act, 1954, was passed. This raised the ceiling to £1,400 million, and it was expected that this new ceiling would carry the industry on for another six years. Again this proved substantially an accurate forecast. The present Bill has been brought forward a few months earlier than was expected. During this time, however, we have seen

663
the initial outlay on the nuclear power programme and some increases in costs generally. These additions have been absorbed in the investment programme, without making it necessary to advance the date of this Bill to any great extent.
The present Bill proposes that the limit of £1,400 million for the Electricity Council and the Electricity Boards in England and Wales shall be raised to £1,800 million or such greater sum not exceeding £2,300 million as the Minister may by Order specify. On present estimates it is expected that the first limit, £1,800 million, will suffice until about March, 1962. About then, or, rather, a little before that time, the Minister will have to lay an Order in accordance with subsection (3) of Clause 1 of the Bill; and this Order may raise the limit to £2,300 million forthwith, or it may raise it to such lesser sum as the Minister thinks appropriate in the circumstances prevailing at the time. While the period of seven years covered by the total of £2,300 million accords with the forward plans of the Electricity Boards, it became apparent that this period would take us beyond the life of the next Parliament. In these circumstances I suggested that in 1962 there should be a break, requiring the Minister to lay a statutory instrument to cover the necessary borrowing for the next period. The Electricity Council were well content with this course, for they recognised that it was only reasonable that Parliament should look at their record halfway to the period covered by their current plans.
The borrowing powers of the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board are at present limited to £200 million, and the Bill proposes to raise the limit to £240 million or such greater sum, not exceeding £300 million, as the Secretary of State may specify by Order. Similarly, the borrowing powers of the South of Scotland Electricity Board, which are at present limited to £75 million, are to be raised to £110 million or such greater sum, not exceeding £135 million, as the Secretary of State may order. Thus the total increase in the borrowing rowers of the electricity industry in Great Britian is to be £475 million, and this figure can be increased by a further £585 million by ministerial Orders.
In explaining the purposes for which these great sums of money are required
664
I propose to deal with broad principles rather than details, because there is a great deal of detail already available to your Lordships in the Annual Reports of the Electricity Boards and in two booklets, Power for the Future, published by the Electricity Council, and Scotland—Power for the Future, published by the two Scottish Boards. The electricity supply industry in England and Wales estimates the borrowings required between April 1, 1958, and March 31, 1965, at £1,150 million. The Bill provides for an increase of £900 million in the borrowing limit, and this sum, together with £260 million which had not yet been borrowed on March 31 last year will bring the total available to £1,160 million. Thus the Bill provides for meeting the requirements of the industry in England and Wales until the end of the year 1964–65; although, as I have already pointed out, there is provision for the borrowings to be authorised in two stages. The borrowing powers of the two Scottish Boards would expire by about 1960, and the total increases proposed in the Bill will, on present estimates, enable the Boards to continue, also in two stages, until the end of 1964.
A rising proportion of capital outlay is being financed from the internal resources of the industry: that is to say, from depreciation provisions, trading surplus and so on. In England and Wales over the last ten years 33 per cent. of the total capital expenditure came from internal resources, and the estimate over the next seven years is of the order of 46 per cent. The industry is therefore planning to provide more from its internal resources, and proportionately less from borrowing, than it has in the past.
In the South of Scotland area up to the end of 1957, some 40 per cent. of capital investment had been provided from internal resources. The proportion will fall temporarily, owing to exceptionally heavy capital development now being undertaken, but in later years the proportion of internal finance is expected to advance well beyond 40 per cent. In the case of the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board the proportion is much lower, but special considerations apply to the development which is being undertaken in the North of Scotland.

665
Taking into account the continuous increase in electricity demand to which I referred earlier, the Electricity Council consider that the peak load which will have to be met in average cold spell weather in the winter of 1964–65 will be 29·5 million kilowatts. This is an increase of nearly 9 million kilowatts on the peak load in this winter of 1958–59. To meet this increase they intend to provide new generating plant with a total capacity of 12¼ million kilowatts. Some of the existing plant will not be fully operated or will be taken out of commission because of obsolescence; and the net increase in output capacity will be slightly more than 10 million kilowatts. Allowance must be made for plant out of service for maintenance or repairs at the time of the winter peak, so that the 10 million kilowatts will effectively provide just over 9 million kilowatts available for meeting the peak demand. The South of Scotland Board expect to commission over one million kilowatts of new plant, and the North of Scotland Board about 460,000 kilowatts.
Apart from the hydro-electric plant in the North of Scotland Board's programme, practically all of this new plant will be either coal-fired or nuclear. Well over half will, in fact, be coal-fired, but as is well known, nuclear power stations are more expensive, in terms of capital cost, than conventional stations; and according to the best estimate that can be made nuclear power will absorb nearly 47 per cent. of the total amount of £1,100 million which the Central Electricity Generating Board propose to spend on power station construction. Such an estimate can only be provisional at present because stations may be put in hand during 1964–65, for commissioning after 1966, and we have not yet decided what the nuclear power programme will be in those later years. I should like to make it quite clear, however, that we intend to rely, in the long term, on our indigenous coal and on nuclear power. I do not, of course, exclude water power to the extent to which it can be economically developed in this country.
The programme for burning oil in power stations, which was undertaken in 1955, was always seen as a means of overcoming the probable shortage of coal in the years before nuclear power could be developed on a large scale, and it was on this basis that contracts for the
666
supply of oil were entered into between the Electricity Authorities and the oil companies. The Central Electricity Generating Board have already converted some existing power stations to oil, while retaining the plant necessary to enable them to revert to coal in an emergency. Other power stations specifically designed to burn oil are now in commission or under construction, but only in the case of one of those, namely, that of Bank-side, would it not be possible to convert to coal burning if the occasion should arise. Of the total investment in power stations proposed over the next seven years, less than 4 per cent. represents oil-fired plant.
The oil-firing programme was modified in 1957 with the co-operation of the oil companies—whose public spirit I should like again to acknowledge—so as to reduce the amount of oil that will be used in the early 1960's. I am pleased to be able to say that within the last week the oil companies, the Central Electricity Generating Board and the National Coal Board have reached an agreement under which the conversion of two further power stations from coal to oil will be postponed for a year. This will not only help to reduce our present coal surplus, but since the coal will be carried by sea, it will be of some assistance to the coastal shipping trade.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I appreciate very much what the Minister is saying about the help of the oil industry and the like. In view of the plight of the coal industry at the moment, was any suggestion made that those savings from giving up some use of oil should be brought to the help of the coal industry in the last year and this current year, instead of waiting until the early 1960's? Could that not be done?
LORD MILLS: My Lords, I have just explained about that; the noble Viscount could not have followed. In addition to the savings which have been arranged from 1960 onwards, the Central Electricity Generating Board, the National Coal Board and the oil companies have come to an agreement under which the conversion of two power stations, which is due now, will be postponed for a further year, giving us considerable savings now. That should help us with the surplus of coal.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: That is only temporary.
LORD MILLS: My Lords, I heard the noble Viscount say that that is only temporary. But it is to be hoped that the surplus of coal also will be only temporary.
I should like to return for a moment to the subject of nuclear power, because this new industry will play an increasingly important part both in our own electricity supplies and in exports. At present there are five consortia of firms which have design teams trained by the Atomic Energy Authority and which are capable of tendering for the construction of complete nuclear power stations. It seemed desirable—indeed, inevitable, I think—that the industry should develop in this way if it was to be built up quickly, bearing in mind that the Authority could not devote unlimited resources to training designers. There is in no sense "a closed shop", but a firm which contemplates entering the nuclear field must be prepared to spend a great deal of money on acquiring know-how and in development work before it can expect to see a return. Moreover, the number of nuclear power stations that will be built in this country before 1966 will not now exceed twelve to fourteen. They have been growing in size. The opportunities for a new consortium would, therefore, be somewhat limited in the near future.
However, there are opportunities both here and overseas for the manufacture of small reactors, including research reactors, and I know that a number of firms are interested in this field. The Atomic Energy Authority has given advice to some of these firms. The Authority cannot, however, cover all the possible types of reactors that could be built; other countries have undertaken development along different lines and if a British firm can obtain permission to make use of, say, American development work, so that it can sell in export markets reactors of a different type from those we have developed here, I see no reason why it should not do so.
I will now, with your Lordships' permission, refer for a few moments to expenditure on distribution. This is less, in total, than the expenditure on power stations and mains transmission, but for all the Area Boards together it amounts
668
to over £700 million for the seven years. This is a considerably higher rate than in the past. Naturally in the earlier years the available capital had to be largely concentrated in overcoming the shortage of generating plant, and expenditure on the reinforcement of the distribution system had to be kept down to a minimum. With the increasing load, much of this expenditure can no longer be postponed. Moreover, the number of consumers is still increasing. Many of the people who want supplies of electricity are in rural areas, and it is satisfactory to note that the Area Boards in England and Wales are slightly ahead of the programme they adopted in 1953 for connecting 85 per cent of the farms by 1963. At the present time nearly 75 per cent. of farms have a supply of electricity and there is every reason to expect that the programme as a whole will be completed on time.
An industry which is proposing to spend these vast sums of money must satisfy itself and must also be prepared to satisfy your Lordships' House and the country as a whole that it is making the fullest use it can of its capital equipment. One measure of this use is the system load factor, which is the ratio of the number of units actually sent out in a year to the number which would have been sent out had the maximum demand been maintained continuously throughout the year. To obtain a true picture, the ratio must be adjusted for weather conditions. The adjusted load factor has gone up from 42·7 per cent. to 46·8 per cent. in the last ten years, and the Electricity Council estimates that the figure will improve further, to 49·2 per cent. by 1964–65. This estimate does not take account of a recently announced change in the Generating Board's tariff which may lead to a further improvement.
I am not suggesting, my Lords, that we should rest content with the figure of 49 per cent., or something slightly more, and I am sure the industry will not relax its efforts. It is satisfactory to note the progress that is being made, but there are limits to the improvement which is possible. In the United States, for example, where there is a high level of shift working, and consequently a much more favourable pattern of fuel use than ours, the load factor is about 60 per cent., and they do not expect any material improvement.

669
The load factor could be greatly improved if we could develop cheap and efficient means for storing the energy that could be generated at off-peak hours. There are, in fact, two schemes under construction that will achieve this effect. There is the pumped storage scheme at Ffestiniog in Wales and one to be promoted at Loch Awe in Scotland, where water will be pumped up to a high level when the demand for power is low, and allowed to run down, driving turbines, when the energy is needed. These two schemes will eventually provide us with some 700 megawatts of power at peak hours. But such schemes are possible only where the configuration of the country is suitable and consequently the scope for further development along these lines is limited. Many other methods of storage are possible in theory, but none is yet usable on a commercial scale. Research is going on, however, and I am satisfied, on the advice of my Scientific Advisory Council, that the research programme is adequate.
I should like to think that substantial improvements could be made in the methods of transmission and distribution, not only to save expense, but also to reduce the need for overhead lines in the countryside. While at present there are no practical alternatives, the manufacturers are striving all the time for improvements in the existing techniques, and are collaborating with the Electricity Boards. Wherever it is technically possible, the Boards go to considerable lengths to avoid interfering with amenities. They choose their routes with great care, and even go to the length of using helicopters and coastguard rocket apparatus to enable them to erect lines through wooded country without cutting trees unnecessarily. Your Lordships may be assured that the Boards have very much in mind the need to find ways and means of lessening the impact of their lines on amenities. Placing more electric lines underground would involve much greater expense, for the cost may be up to fifteen times as great as the cost of an overhead line and may also lead, with high voltage lines, to considerable technical difficulties. Some short lengths of high voltage underground cable are, however, in service.
I hope that I have said enough to show that the additions to the borrowing powers of the Boards are necessary, and
670
that the expenditure proposed by the Boards is broadly of a nature which Parliament should approve. I accordingly commend the Bill to your Lordships' House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.— (Lord Mills.)

NYASALAND AND NORTHERN RHODESIA
3.47 p.m.
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, if it would suit your Lordships' convenience, perhaps I might now answer the Question which the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, put to me earlier this afternoon. Since a statement was made in another place on Friday, February 27, the situation in Nyasaland has continued tense. The airstrip at Fort Hill was recovered with the aid of a detachment of Tanganyika Police and is now in use again for light aircraft. The presence of the reinforcements from other parts of the Federation had the effect of preventing major disturbances in the last few days; but the situation continued to be so dangerous, and there was such clear indication of the intention of the Congress to stir up further disturbances involving widespread violence and murder of Europeans, Asians, and moderate African leaders, that the Governor was compelled this morning to declare a state of emergency. Leading members of the Congress, including Dr. Hastings Banda, have been detained and removed out of the Protectorate to Southern Rhodesia, where they will be held as long as the Governor of Nyasaland considers it necessary. It would be clearly impracticable, in present circumstances, to detain them in Nyasaland. I am now awaiting a full report from the Governor, and my right honourable friend the Colonial Secretary will be giving further information in another place as soon as it is available; and we can arrange for similar information to be given here.
As to the second part of the noble Lord's Question, the problem to-day is not only to reassure African political opinion but rather to give reassurance to people of all races in Nyasaland, including the great majority of peaceful and law-abiding Africans whose lives and property have been threatened by the violence instigated by the Nyasaland African Congress. When order has been

671
restored, Her Majesty's Government will certainly resume, with the Governor, consideration of what constitutional reforms may be appropriate.
As regards the third part of the Question, people in Northern Rhodesia are disturbed about development in neighbouring territories; and some Africans have expressed concern over the activities of the Zambia Congress in Northern Rhodesia, lest they should lead to a course of events similar to what has happened in Nyasaland.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, arising out of that full reply by the noble Earl, may I ask Her Majesty's Government whether they would reconsider their decision and permit the noble Earl, Lord Perth, to go to Nyasaland immediately so as to bring his calming influence to bear on a tense situation? Secondly, may I ask the Government whether they will stand by their promise that Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia should continue under the special protection of Her Majesty to enjoy separate Governments so long as their respective peoples so desire?
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, I very much appreciate the anxiety of the noble Lord about having someone go as soon as possible to Nyasaland in relation to constitutional talks and generally. I can assure him that we are equally anxious to reassure the people of Nyasaland in every way possible, and when conditions settle down, if it should be decided that my going there would be of help, I shall be readily available from East Africa, where I am going to-morrow. On the second point the noble Lord raised, about what is known, I think, as the pledges in the preamble of the 1953 Constitution, I think I cannot do better than repeat what was said on this point in another place last week; that is, that Her Majesty's Government have never departed from their pledges given at the time the Federation was introduced.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, we are glad that the noble Earl has given us this information, but I am sure that the House as a whole will realise the serious nature of the statement which has been made. It is a state of affairs that we all hoped would
672
not happen, but which many people foretold would happen as a result of the passing of the Act of 1953. It is important at this stage, I know, that we should do nothing we can possibly help which would exacerbate feelings in Nyasaland at the present time, although no one can deny the strong African feeling that this seems to be the first step towards the kind of regime that is operating in South Africa. I think it would be a good thing if we could have an opportunity, perhaps later to-day, of talking about it. We have not a great deal of business, and if, at the time, the House will support me, perhaps on the Adjournment I may say a few more words about the matter.
THE EARL OF HOME: Does the noble Viscount mean on the Adjournment to-day?
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER of HILLSBOROUGH: Yes.
THE EARL OF HOME: I do not know whether we shall have any more information to-day. Perhaps the noble Viscount will consider between now and the Adjournment whether it might be more convenient at another time. I would only add this. The noble Viscount said something which may be a little misleading. He tied up this campaign of violence to the question of the Federal Constitution. That question may be one element. There is, however, as he will understand, a wave of violence that has been in recent months sweeping over many parts of Africa, and there are other influences as well.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl the Leader of the House whether he, too, would bear in mind the desirability of the noble Earl, Lord Perth, going to Nyasaland as soon as possible? It is not quite the normal case of a Minister going out to a disturbed situation. Here the very fact that the Minister is going out and is there will. I feel, have a most calming effect upon local opinion.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, the Government have this matter fully in mind. I have no doubt that we should want my noble friend to go, when the situation allows and the Governor thinks it possible.

ELECTRICITY (BORROWING POWERS) BILL
3.55 p.m.
Debate on Second Reading resumed.
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, we pass from a consideration of a grave situation in Central Africa to consider, by way, I hope, of counterpoise, the Bill which is before your Lordships' House, introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Mills. I am sure we are all grateful to the noble Lord for his clear exposition of the single purpose of this Bill, and more so for the informative and interesting, if brief, survey that he gave of this great expanding industry. One could have hoped that the Bill before your Lordships' House would be the Bill which was introduced into another place. Unhappily, it is a mutilation of that Bill. Under pressure, as it seems to me, of the hatchet-faced opponents of all national industries, the noble Lord, with the Secretary of State for Scotland, has retreated ignominiously from the terms of the original Bill and from the categorical statements made by the Paymaster General on its Second Reading in another place.
I hope I heard the noble Lord aright when I gathered him to say that he had decided that it was appropriate that Parliament should be consulted as regards the limited powers of borrowing in the year 1962, and not 1965, as was in the original Bill. It would be interesting for the House to know, and indeed for it to be known in a wider sphere, at what date the noble Lord came to that decision. Clearly, it must have been after the Bill was introduced in another place and received a Second Reading.
I propose initially to consider the original Bill. That Bill was intended to increase the borrowing powers of the Central Electricity Council and its subsidiary Boards, the North Scotland Hydro-Electric Board and the South Scotland Electricity Board, from respectively £1,400 million to £2,300 million, £200 million to £400 million and £75 million to £110 million. When the Bill was introduced in another place the Paymaster General, the voice, I suppose, of the noble Lord, the Minister, and of the Secretary of State, said that the amounts were necessary for the expanding activity of the industry and that the period of seven years was an appropriate period. The Paymaster General paid a deserved
674
tribute to the successful, efficient and economical conduct of the industry. He said that seven years was the shortest period, although we are now told that at some unspecified date the noble Lord, the Minister, came to the conclusion that three and a half years was appropriate and that at that time, or subsequent to that period, the Minister should consult Parliament by way of an Order.
Following the Second Reading, the opponents, not only of the electricity industry but of nationalised industries generally, got busy and the Bill was eviscerated, no doubt under the orders and under the authority of the noble Lord, the Minister, and his colleague the Secretary of State for Scotland. It is a wretched story, this surrender to these doctrinaire opponents of any nationalised industry. In this connection I hope my noble friends from Scotland will not charge me with any disrespect for Scotland if I do not particularise as regards the two Scottish undertakings which are dealt with in the Bill. My remarks as regards the Electricity Council will, generally speaking, mutatis mutandis apply to the two Scottish undertakings. The Paymaster General told another place, as indeed the noble Lord has said here, that the present borrowing limits were likely to be exceeded in or about 1960, and that it was anticipated that some £2,300 million would be spent, including what has already been spent, by March, 1965. That expenditure was essential (and nobody questioned it) in order to provide for the expanding demands of industry and of other consumers.
It is gratifying to know, and complimentary to the industry, that at the present time no less than 92 per cent. of the households of this country are wired for electricity which, in relation to what the situation was some twenty years ago, is a signal mark of progress. In order to assist the load factor, we need to stimulate consumption in those households, apart from which we want, and indeed should seek, to take more power into the kitchen—put more power behind the woman who has to do the domestic chores by providing her with and making it easy for her to acquire the various electrically-driven labour saving devices.
I gather it is expected that in the next seven years there will be an increase in

675
demand as regards industry of something of the order of two-thirds; that the demand by commerce will increase by some 50 per cent.; that domestic consumption is estimated to go up by two-thirds and consumption on the farm will be doubled. Nothing could be of greater help in arresting the movement from the countryside to the cities and the urban districts than the provision of all the facilities which electrical power and electric light make available to those living in the rural communities. Last week we were discussing conurbations. As was clearly indicated, one of the contributory factors of the movement from the countryside into the cities was the greater facilities available and the attractions. If industry is to expand in the way it should, then new and additional plant will be needed, and it is for that reason that the limits of borrowing are to be increased. Any money wisely spent in this industry is a good investment. Not only is it a good investment in terms of its immediate return, but also it makes a great and important contribution to the economy of the nation.
I gather that of the money to be borrowed some £1,470 million, including what has already been spent, will be in regard to and for the purposes of the generation of power. But as regards £660 million, it will be for distribution. The money necessary to finance hire purchase, I gather from what was said in another place, is not included within the borrowing powers now sought in this Bill; the industry will be required to go to the market for that money, which is regarded as working capital. I think there is something to be said for that. I understand that the amount to be borrowed, and the terms of borrowing, for that purpose are to be approved by the Government—that is to say, by the Minister. I sincerely hope that in his giving such approval the industry will not be required to pay an excessively high rate of interest, and will be enabled to compete with outside organisations in the provision of equipment on the hire purchase basis.
I say this—and I think the noble Lord will confirm the correctness of what I am about to say—because the industry has supplied power and light to rural districts at a loss (in many cases initially and, I think, in quite a number of cases
676
for some considerable time and, it may well be, will do so for an indefinite period) as a contribution to the social amenities of the countryside. If that be the case, it would be singularly unfair to the industry if it were placed at any disadvantage in reaping the reward from the sale of the maximum number of fittings and equipment to be driven by electricity.
So I come to the Second Reading of the Bill in another place. It received the cordial support of Her Majesty's Opposition, and the Second Reading was carried without a Division. It had been sponsored
in its original terms by the noble Lord and his colleague the Secretary of State. Yet when the Committee stage opened we found that there had been an ignominious surrender by the three Ministers—the noble Lord the Minister, the Secretary of State and the Paymaster General—before these opponents of nationalised industries. Instead of the original proposal of an increase from £1,400 million to £2,300 million, the Bill was amended to limit the sum to £1,800 million, with the proviso that anything in excess of that had to be by order of the Minister. In fact, it reduced not only the amount in the way I have indicated, but also the period from seven years to three and a half years. The Paymaster General forswore on February 17, when the Committee stage was taken in another place, all the statements which he had made of the necessity for the £2,300 million and that the period of seven years was the right period, instancing that the Government would have through its Ministers adequate and proper control. All those statements, including a quite proper and deserved tribute to the efficiency of the industry, were forsworn; and, acting no doubt under directions, the Paymaster General retreated from the position he formerly had occupied.
The so-called ground upon which this opposition to the proposals of the original Bill was based was the old one of public control and accountability, which of course has become the King Charles' head of those who are opposed to nationalised industries. Notwithstanding that the Paymaster General had stated on the Second Reading that there was adequate Parliamentary and Government control (he instanced the four stages at which the

677
Government and Parliament would be able to control the borrowings within the limits prescribed by this Bill—I will not delay the proceedings of your Lordships' House by reading what the Paymaster General said), the Bill was amended in the mariner which I have indicated. I should like to advance the notion that at the present time the nationalised industries of this country have not too little control but too much control; that many of those who are responsible for the conduct of these industries are bound, in coming to decisions, to be looking over their shoulders and trying to estimate and evaluate what might be said in one or other House of Parliament. After all, it is the case that most prices, most charges and most fares charged by the nationalised industries are subject in one way or another, to ministerial control, so that the bodies concerned are responsible to Parliament.
I well remember what happened in 1952, when the British Transport Commission, having been to the independent Tribunal established for the purpose, and having obtained authority to increase fares in London on certain transport facilities, and outside London on British Railways, the Government, through the Minister of Transport of that day, interfered and forbade the British Transport Commission to institute the proposed increases of fares. In the result, London Transport lost £1¼million of income for several years, and British Railways in the area outside London, what we call the London lines, lost an additional £660,000 a year; and that loss went on for quite a number of years. The real reason, in my view—end I say it as one who was there at the time—for that interference was the fact that local government elections were taking place at that time, including those for the London County Council.
Moreover, the price of coal has been settled by ministerial order for quite a long time; and coal has for several years, until quite recently, been sold at less than world prices. It is, I think, to be very much deplored that the desires and the views of the noble Lord, the Minister, and of his colleague, the Secretary of State for Scotland, as to the increase of borrowing powers and the period over which they should operate should have been opposed and should have been
678
nullified—that is the circumstance—by the unreasoning opposition of those people who never seem to miss an opportunity of sabotaging, hampering and harassing the conduct of the nationalised industries.
If I may, in conclusion, refer to another aspect of this public accountability, why is it that, when the Government are lending large sums of money to private enterprise those people do not insist upon the measure of public accountability and control which they do if the loan is to a nationalised industry? I recall all the facilities which were placed at the disposal of industry in this country between the wars, under the Trade Facilities Act and one other Act, the name of which, for the moment, I do not recall. There, Government credit was pledged; the Government gave guarantees for money raised; but there was no demand that there should be an express degree of public accountability or public responsibility or public control.
Then recently we have had another instance of that disregard of the need for public responsibility when money is being advanced to private enterprise. I would cite, in this connection, the case of Colville's. I have no criticism to make of Colville's. No doubt they are a progressive, go-ahead, honest, well-established, well-respected and indeed, important concern. But the Government have recently undertaken to lend them £50 million. Already the Government, through the Iron and Steel Agency, have £4 million worth of preference shares in Colville's, and £10 million worth of debentures, and it is now proposed, by a series of tranches, to lend them £50 million. So it will fall out that, of the £80 million share and loan capital of Colville's, the nation will own £64 million. Is that not a case where there should be some accountability to the nation and some control?
As I understand it, no provision is made in the agreement for any such control. According to the information given by the noble Lord to your Lordships' House, the agreement provides that, if necessary, the Government can have a debenture ranking after the existing debentures of which £6 million are held by the public. The chairman of Colville's has said—I do not dissent from it; I merely refer to it as a

679
fact—that, of course, that £50 million will rank behind the existing debentures, and the expenditure of this £50 million will increase the value of the security of those debentures. That is inevitably the case unless the money is completely wasted; and, as I say, I do not dissent from that statement. Yet nobody has come forward to suggest that there should be some measure of public accountability. There could have been, but for the policy followed by the Iron and Steel Agency at the instance of the Government, for it is a Government-created organisation—it is a creature of the Government. The Agency held the whole of the ordinary share capital, and with that ownership of the share capital went control. But the Agency, no doubt acting on the instructions of the Government, disposed of those ordinary shares and rests now with preference shares which confer no right of control, except when the preference shares are in default in the payments of dividend, and debentures which give them no power of control except there be default, when they have the right to appoint a receiver.
I wish very strongly, both for myself and for my noble friends on this side of your Lordships' House, to make the point that it is a great pity, and is unworthy of democratic government, that the Minister should have introduced a Bill with certain provisions, which no doubt he had considered with care and on which he had reached a decision—with prudence and wisdom, and should then, because of opposition from those who are not really, in my submission, concerned about this particular Bill, but are using it as an opportunity of opposing, hampering and harassing nationalised industry, have been so weak as to yield to them and alter the Bill contrary to his original intentions. However, there it is. The Bill, as emasculated, is now before your Lordships. It is necessary that the electricity authorities and the two Scottish authorities should have this enlarged borrowing power, and for those reasons, although we dislike most intensely what has happened, we shall not oppose the Second Reading of the Bill.
House adjourned during pleasure, and resumed by The LORD CHANCELLOR.
4.25 p.m.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, I feel that I owe your Lordships some explana-
680
tion for addressing the House a second time in so short a space; but I make no apology, and I offer an excuse which I trust your Lordships will accept. The excuse is that the subject now before the House, like that of last Tuesday, is one of which I have some experience and in which I feel that I can contribute to the proceedings. Later in my speech your Lordships will trace some thread of connection between what I said about railway electrification and some of the suggestions I have to make—indeed, one of the suggestions that I have to make about this Bill.
I feel that we can thank the noble Lord, Lord Mills, for the full and informative speech with which he expounded the reasons behind his Ministry in putting forward this authorisation, and we have all been interested in the views expressed by the noble Lord who has just spoken. But in saying that I have been interested, I should not like either the noble Lord opposite or any other noble Lord, to imagine that I was one who approved of nationalisation, or felt that the nationalising of the electricity industry was the best way of providing power to this country. Far from it. I well recall, with some sadness, the fact that ten years ago the follow-on rate in my house was something under a halfpenny, and that to-day it is a penny. There would have been, I feel absolutely confident, a better way of co-ordinating the efforts of private enterprise and of canalising it in the service of the nation. However, we have a nationalised electricity supply industry, and I think I can safely say that the Electricity Authority is working well. The fact that it is working well is a tribute to the direction thereof; and our energies should, I feel, be turned to seeing how we can make it work better.
But, my Lords, if omelette is on the menu, we must see to it that the chef (to whom I liken the chairman of the Electricity Authority) has the best equipment for his kitchen, the best eggs and the most tasty and nourishing ingredients. And have not the consumers at the same time the right to have every opportunity to encourage or to chide, if only by a message, as it were, through the maître d'hôtel? That would not be harrying or harassing, would it? In my view, far from it. Many noble Lords have more experience than I have in matters of this

681
sort, but I sense some uneasiness in Parliament, especially in another place, on this particular score—not of wanting to harass or harry, but of demanding, as the right of the consumer and, in the case of a nationalised industry, the providers of the wherewithal, to have some closer oversight than is provided in the Bill, and the power under the Bill, for supervision of what is going on. That is my view; and that being my view I welcome the proposal that not seven years but a much lesser time is to elapse before the Minister returns to Parliament for further powers. After all, these powers are only a ceiling, as I think the noble Lord said in introducing the Bill.
My Lords, I have a few suggestions to make and a question or two to ask. My first question is: has Parliament sufficient power under the Bill to encourage or to chide? Is the Minister satisfied that, in bringing forward the date, as he has done, to 1962, he is providing as much opportunity as he would like for laying before Parliament his day-to-thy proposals? On the other hand, Parliament may not require that. A letter in The Times today indicates that, at least in another place, estimates are perhaps rated lower in importance than more sensational and, comparatively, much less important matters. Nevertheless, I, for one, feel it prudent that Parliament should have as much opportunity as is possible and reasonable to watch over the expenditure, not only in terms of limiting but also in terms of encouraging the expenditure of these vast sums of money.
Accepting this to be, as it were, a "blanket" authorisation, I should like to inquire of the noble Lord the Minister whether his Ministry will see that the money is spent as generously as possible and as early as the available treasure and the physical resources at the command of his Ministry permit. If the result of doing so is that the authorisation now before us is fully employed before the minimum period the noble Lord has in mind, I suggest that the Minister need make no apology to Parliament for coming to ask for more.
On a more technical basis, this authorisation is measured in terms of an estimate of growth of load. The amount of money which Parliament is asked to provide is calculated against an estimated growth of load, and I ask myself: is this estimate
682
based on present tariff structures? I believe that the answer is, Yes, I say that, having turned to Power for the Future, which states at page 4, paragraph 8:
"Estimates of future requirements in each of these fields is based on the assumption that electricity prices will continue their present relationship to the general structure of prices."
Does the noble Lord not think that a bolder tariff policy would increase the rate of growth? If so, could not such a policy be adopted? What I am saying now is in keeping with what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Latham, to the effect that no money spent on electrical expansion at a time and in a country like this is money wasted. That may be restating in a rather general way what the noble Lord said, but I am in full agreement with him over that arid I am aware that tariff formulation is a very complex matter. Indeed, it is a science in itself; and the Electricity Authority's power to create tariffs is, in some respects, circumscribed by the Act itself. Along those lines it would be interesting if the noble Lord the Minister could indicate how it was that, within the Act—quite rightly I should say—the Electricity Authority were able to quote tariffs at a loss in order to develop rural electrification.
My thesis is this: if the growth of load to-day is the measure of the amount for which we are being asked, if it is considered prudent and wise to push on with expenditure on electrification, could it not be arranged that, by varying tariffs downwards, the growth of load could be so increased that expansion would be speedier than is visualised at the moment? The range of tariffs about which I have specific suggestions is the range of off-peak tariffs. It is the off-peak load which has prime effect upon the load factor, to which the noble Lord the Minister has referred. It is a very important part of the whole consideration of improving the load factor. That is improving but it is still too low, as the noble Lord has himself admitted.
I believe he has indicated that it could be estimated that by 1960 the adjusted load factor, over all, would be in the neighbourhood of 49 per cent., compared with 60 per cent. in the United States of America. My own view is that this load factor is too low. I believe that that can be accepted. One of the contributory reasons is that the tariffs, especially off-peak tariffs, are too high not only for

683
domestic power but for agriculture, particularly in terms of horticulture, and for industry. I turn to the report of the Herbert Committee where in paragraph 404 the following words appear:
"We consider that many boards are to be complimented on their progressive attitude towards the use of tariffs to attract all classes of consumer from peak to off-peak periods, but not all boards have considered that the differential they are able to offer justifies publication of special tariffs for off-peak use."
A little later in the paragraph it is stated:
"In our view there should be a greater zeal among boards to take this risk and to experiment where necessary with various forms of off-peak tariffs covering all consumers, industrial, commercial, farm and domestic."
Then in paragraph 408 it is stated:
"Despite the progress made in introducing off-peak tariffs we do not think that every individual area board is pushing as enthusiastically as it should the development of off-peak loads. Most boards still do not offer off-peak tariffs to the larger domestic consumer."
I believe that my own off-peak domestic tariff is nearly double what my ordinary follow-on rate was ten years ago; and even then the off-peak tariff for domestic space heating would have been too high. May I ask the noble Minister this question: why cannot all domestic users obtain thermal storage heaters? I understand that, so far, their use as a domestic amenity is prohibited.
In horticulture a prominent grower who is president of the Chamber of Commerce in Edinburgh told me only this week that the present off-peak tariff in his neighbourhood, which is in Midlothian, is too high for him even to consider changing some load from the ordinary tariff to the off-peak tariff—because the difference between the two is too small to warrant the heavy capital expenditure necessary to instal the equipment required by off-peak consumption. Yesterday I heard of a grower in the Clyde Valley who, as I understand, has just changed from coal to oil for the heating of his glass-houses which stand on ground beneath which are substantial coal measures. His reason for going to oil was that coal had priced itself out of the market and the tariff for electricity was not low enough to warrant his spending the necessary capital on putting it into his very substantial establishment.
Industrially I myself am concerned with two large wholesale warehouses in
684
Glasgow. These warehouses are now in a smokeless zone; and the heating equipment in one, which had to be renewed in any case, we have converted to oil. In this respect I feel that it is proper for me, as it were, to declare an interest, because we are now faced with the problem of what to do with the other one. As an electricity enthusiast, I have, of course, said "Electricity every time!" But the tariff for space heating for such loads simply does not make it an economic possibility to put it before a board, in face of the price which oil would cost. In this respect one must remember, first of all, that electricity is no monopoly; and the other point is this: a load lost to-day is a load lost for years. I am conscious of noble Lords' anxiety about the use of oil. Is it not fair to think that here is one way of competing with it? As the noble Lord the Minister said, in the expansion there are no further oil-burning power stations contemplated; and the authorities are contributing in this way to the use of indigenous fuel resources.
What about a special tariff which would attract church heating? I am not suggesting any special provision for church heating, but whereas I know that it is not possible to differentiate between premises in tariff formulation but only between loads, I am suggesting that here is a load right off peak—in fact right at the bottom of the load curve—which might well be fostered. I cannot believe that it is beyond the capacity of the experts to devise a tariff which will suit a load of this nature. There are over 50,000 churches in Great Britain and if half of these were electrified and only averaged 40 kilowatts per installation, there is a million kilowatts of load in the early hours of Saturday and during Sunday which would help very considerably to contribute at least towards the filling up of the "valley" at the bottom of the load curve. If All Saints' Church in Hurstmonceux had electrified its heating arrangements I feel we can safely say that the noble Viscount the Lord President of the Council and his family would not have had the alarming experience which they had some three weeks ago, when the congregation were affected by the fumes from an ancient coke stove.
On the subject of week-end off-peak tariffs, I would point out that there is another load which is worth bearing in

685
mind, if I may be so bold as to press a point which has already been mentioned in another place: a special week-end tariff which would attract pit-pumping in the coal industry. A really low tariff with restricted hours which would suit the supply authority might make it worth while for the milling authorities to justify considerable capital expenditure to increase the storage of water below ground which could be pumped out during off-peak hours. Could central tariffs for bulk supplies have an off-peak slant? This has just occurred to me, my Lords, and I am searching and fumbling in my mind, but I think that in the Herbert Committee's recommendations this is included: that bulk tariffs should also have an element of off-peak in them. The other factor which I should like to bring to your Lordships' attention, and with which the noble Lord the Minister I have no doubt will agree, is that this load factor problem is going to assume greater and greater importance as the generation of power by nuclear fission becomes more universal.
I have already mentioned heat storage equipment, which of course is one way of conserving energy derived from electricity. We know that the Electricity Authority are going ahead with pumped storage schemes, but I cannot resist a quiet Scottish dig at this pamphlet, because on page 16 in the second paragraph from the last it says:
"The first pump storage scheme in Britain is being constructed at Blaenau Ffestiniog in North Wales".
Perhaps there is some misprint. Perhaps for the word "first" the word "second" should have been read, or for the word "Britain" we should read "England and Wales"; for, of course, a pumped storage scheme has existed at the tweed-mill at Walkerburn on the River Tweed since 1922. It has worked satisfactorily for all these years and is still contributing very well to the economic rate which that mill has to count in for power in its production costs. That was done by private enterprise, and it might interest your Lordships to know that that particular installation was only the second in the world, the first having been in Sweden.
I am confident, as I have said—and I trust that I shall be agreed with—that a bold tariff policy should be adopted. Indeed, to hold tariffs at their present rates until load grows is not altogether
686
fair on existing consumers To my mind it is somewhat of an error similar to that of ploughing back into the industry too much profit. Now this is an operation which is criticised in the Herbert Report as penalising the existing consumer and making him pay for development which is going ultimately to benefit the consumer who comes later on. Hearing the noble Lord, Lord Mills, talking of intentions of ploughing back in the future—I believe he mentioned 46 per cent. from internal resources—my reaction at once was: is this not too high, in terms of the line adopted by the Herbert Committee that, as I said, it may not be prudent or fair to the existing consumer to plough back too high a percentage of earnings?
May I also appeal for a bold tariff policy for railway traction? Here again could not an off-peak element be brought into hulk tariff for railways? Admittedly, the railway traction load to-day is only a small percentage of the total load, but this will grow: we know it will grow. And, as I contended last week, railway electrification has a function over and above its purely railway value. It would mean work for a widely-spread range of electricity, and it would relieve pressure on road traffic. But what I am suggesting is that the Electricity Authority, by keeping the railway tariffs at rock-bottom, can make a contribution out of all proportion to the actual cost to the nation.
Such a proposal would also mean more work. I am thinking of the reference which was made by the noble Lord, the Minister, to expenditure on distribution, and the fact that more will have to be spent on that now, when the expenditure on generation seems to be in hand. I am thinking of pockets of unemployment, particularly these closed-pit areas, such as Douglas, in the neighbourhood of my home, which might suit the railway or the Electricity Authority very well as sites where steel could be fabricated and perhaps put aside, and stocks of gantries and similar repetitive steel equipment put together ready for electrification, whether it be of power distribution under the Electricity Authority or of railway electrification under the railway authority. We also know, of course, that to electrify a railway means extensive electricity distribution development.
I trust that I have not detained your Lordships too long with my few points.

687
If I may, I will summarise them. My first is whether the Government has indeed enough power to encourage or to chide the Electricity Authority until another authorisation comes round. If not, is it necessary or, in fact, is it desirable? My second point is: will the Minister see that the money is spent with diligence? My third is: could off-peak tariffs be revised downwards—not just a little, but boldly and quickly, primarily to improve load factor? My fourth point is: could the tariff for railway traction be cut to the lowest possible limit?
4.54 p.m.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, the purpose of this Bill, as was stated earlier, is to increase the authorised capital of the industry, and, if I understood the noble Lord, the Minister, aright, the investment proposals are for a seven-year period, with a break in 1962. In another place it was stated that £660 million was to be spent for distribution, and I understood the Minister to say that over £700 million would now be spent on it. Will that cut down the amount of £1,470 million that was said in another place to be available for generation? With regard to the amounts, I understand that £1,150 million will be borrowed in two stages. As has been stated during the course of this debate, the basis of this plan for expanding the industry must be the assessments that have been made of the demand over the next seven-year period. With the high capital cost of nuclear generation, which is still two and a half times greater than that of conventional generation, the need for a profitable plant investment is greater than ever.
With those very brief opening remarks, I should like to come to what I think is the crux of the matter, and that is the load factor problem. The estimates of the Electricity Council for the next seven years with regard
to the various categories of consumer were given in detail by the noble Lord, Lord Latham, earlier on. They were referred to as the industrial consumer, the domestic consumer, the farm consumer, and the commercial consumer, so I will not weary your Lordships with the figures. These, indeed, are large estimated increases, which are based, as has been stated by the Minister, on peak load demand at any time. At this point, I should like respectfully to
688
ask the noble Lord, the Minister, whether he does not fear that greatly increased generating capacity will tend to lower the load factor—proportionately, I mean. He has defined exactly what is the load factor, so I will not mention that.
It seems to me that the provision of such vastly increased generating capacity may not engender a corresponding improvement in the load factor, thus widening the gap between the total generating capacity, the peak demand at any period of time, and the actual demand over the year, and thereby defeating the object of the industry, which must be to make the fullest possible use of its plant and equipment. The problem of intensity of employment with regard to this plant and equipment is surely well realised by the electricity supply and distribution industries. I would therefore respectfully ask the noble Lord, the Minister, what incentives he has in mind with regard to this question of attracting peak load consumption.
The publication Power for the Future, which has been quoted during the course of this debate, states that trends in rising off-peak consumption have been stimulated by promotional restricted hour tariff rates and in other ways. Are these other ways mainly concerned with the question of pump storage to which the noble Lord, the Minister, referred? The Paymaster General stated in another place on January 20 last—and I should like to quote his precise words [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 598 (No. 39), col. 46]:
"… it would take a very big tariff variation to encourage industry to alter its habits as regards shift work, and so on, …"
This question of encouragement to use off-peak electricity is certainly a very important problem indeed. In terms of generating capacity and load factor, I should like to refer to some figures, going back to 1920, which I have extracted from the Power for the Future publication. In 1920, 2·1 million kilowatts was the total generating capacity figure, and the load factor was then 30 per cent.; in 1947–48 the generating capacity was 11·6 million kilowatts, with a 43 per cent. load factor; and in 1958 the total generating capacity was 24·3 million kilowatts and the load factor 46·8 per cent. In 1964–65 it is estimated that the total generating

689
capacity will be 34½ million kilowatts, and the noble Lord, the Minister, has stated that the load factor will then be 49·2 per cent. It would seem, therefore, that there has been a large increase in the generating capacity, but not a corresponding increase in the load factor. Greater incentives certainly appear to be required. A tariff one (and that is a point the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, mentioned) may be found on the lines of the works of Eric Shankleman of the Central Electricity Authority (as it was then, because this was in 1956), in the April, 1956, issue of Steel Review, He said:
"Today most consumers are charged on the number of units of electricity they consume. In the era of nuclear generation it may well be that their maximum demand on the supply system at a particular time of the year will largely, if not wholly, determine the size of their electricity bill."
What are the possibilities for the future, from the point of view of alternating current consumption which cannot be stored?—and I intend to come on to the question of direct current. I want to mention three categories of consumers—namely, industry, the domestic consumer, and the consumer from the traction point of view. An increased use of electricity has occurred, and is still occurring, in industry, mainly from the point of view of heat; and by that I mean electrical processes in industry for heating purposes. Possibly that could be intensified by a greater amount of shift work in this country and a greater degree of staggering of working hours.
In the home, no doubt a greater use can be found for the thermo-storage heaters to which the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, referred; and I have in mind under-floor heating. In that regard, I may say how pleased I was yesterday when I called in at my local electricity board office. They were most helpful and said straight away that should I be interested in this form of heating in my home they would immediately send round a service engineer to advise me on the matter; and they told me that he was well qualified because he had just returned from a course.
LORD FERRIER: My I inquire whether that under-floor heating offered by the district authority is an off-peak load, or is it only for heating on an ordinary tariff? Is there not a special tariff obtainable for under-floor heating as well as for storage?
LORD MERRIVALE: As I understand it, the Electricity Development Association suggested that this form of heating should remain switched on constantly; in fact, in a pamphlet they state that it should be used for a period of 210 days a year. What I gathered from the office of the electricity board was that this was really an off-peak load, which would be brought into operation only at night, with a preferential tariff—and the tariff given to me was 1d. a unit—with a time switch which would bring it on only during the off-peak period; and the heat would come up through the floor during the day by means of storage capacity. There are other forms of storage heat: there is the storing of water and storage heaters for offices and flats.
There is one category to which I would particularly refer, and that is in the realm of traction. According to this publication, Power for the Future, more electricity for street traction was used in 1920 than in 1958; in fact, that category is the only consumer which has not shown a steady increase throughout the years. In the realm of rail traction it is interesting to note that the British Transport Commission state that when their rail electrification plan is in full operation the mean load factor will be 53 per cent., while within certain areas of the scheme the load factor will reach the high figure of 70 per cent.
Coming now to the question of direct current, which can be stored, I would particularly commend the efforts of the British Transport Commission in so far as they are using battery-driven vehicles. That, I think, is an important point, for these batteries can be charged during a period of minimum demand. Incentives could possibly be found for the commercial user to use to a greater degree these silent-running battery vehicles. I live not far from Peter Jones's, and the other day I happened to see an attractively designed, modern and quiet battery-driven vehicle. The German postal authorities operate over 1,000 of these battery-driven delivery vans, and in Switzerland over 400 are used for a similar purpose. Much, however, still remains to be done on this question of battery design in the direction of lowering weight and reduction in volume. I have in mind here its application particularly with regard to battery-operated rail cars, which are so satisfactory and extensively

691
used in Germany. While not wishing to weary your Lordships too much on this question of electricity—I was not certain whether this was a suitable debate to raise this point or whether it should be reserved for a debate on transport—I thought it was important to bring to your Lordships' attention the favourable extent to which electricity can be used in railway operation.
Finally, I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to what I consider to be the excellent work undertaken by the British Electrical Development Association, with the proviso that to me it seemed that at their stands at trade fairs there was a regrettable lack of information available on electricity for traction purposes. Information and literature was available for the industrial and commercial consumer, and it was of a most interesting nature, but on this question of electricity for traction, the only information that I was able to get was from seeing an electric fork-lift truck. No printed matter was available. This is no criticism of the staff of the British Electrical Development Association, for I have always found them most courteous, keen and obliging. This specific lack of information on matters of the use of electricity for traction may be due solely to a question of policy, and I would leave it at that. To end, I should like to say that surely any application to which this clean, odourless, fumeless and practical form of power can be put deserves considered investigation, effective development and every promotional effort.
5.13 p.m.
LORD MILLS: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Latham, for giving me the opportunity of removing, I hope, a misconception in his own mind, and certainly a view that was held by honourable Members of his Party in another place in regard to the Amendments in Committee on this Bill in another place. He has given me a novel conception of the value of debate. I thought debate was for the purpose of listening to arguments and, if necessary, altering one's mind as a result of those arguments. I myself in your Lordships' House have on more than one occasion agreed on Second Reading to consider a matter, and have in fact amended the proposal to take account of the wisdom
692
of noble Lords opposite. That is precisely what happened in another place. The noble Lord shakes his head, but I happen to know, because I myself—
LORD LATHAM: That may not be an advantage.
LORD MILLS: —proposed the Amendments, since I was satisfied that it was not right that we should run the risk of going through the next Parliament without an opportunity of debating the matter. Therefore the suggestion which came from me was not due to any pressure by anybody, but was a solution to the difficulty which I saw in reading the debates, and a solution which I discussed from a practical angle with the Electricity Council itself. So I hope the noble Lord will amend his view on that matter.
The noble Lord also took the opportunity of referring to the case of Colville's in this connection, although it really has nothing to do with it.
LORD LATHAM: I said that I used it as an example only.
LORD MILLS: The case of Colville's, as the noble Lord pointed out, is a proposal to lend money to a company where the equity is in private hands. The noble Lord can be assured that every proper safeguard and every care will be taken to see that the money is properly used. I think the noble Lord may have forgotten the existence of the Iron and Steel Board, which was set up to watch the capital expenditure of companies to see that it is wise and in the national interest.
The noble Lord then referred to the question of hire purchase, and here I can agree with his view. There should be, and is in fact, no restriction as to terms which may be offered by the electricity Boards. They realise, and the Government realise, the importance of being able to get as large a consumption as they can of the electricity they are selling; and in fact the terms upon which they borrow money are quite advantageous. There is only one thing I should say, and I hope the noble Lord will not think this is wrong. I was able to secure the agreement of the electricity Boards that they would not compete in hire purchase terms either with the gas industry, which is also publicly owned, or with private firms which are serving the public, in their distribution of appliances.
LORD LATHAM: Would the noble Lord pardon me a moment on that question of hire purchase? What exactly does he mean "not compete with private firms"? Does he mean that the electricity Boards are forbidden to undercut arid must charge the most onerous charges within the field of private enterprise?
LORD MILLS: That is not the case at all. The point is that their terms for hire purchase should be seen to be fair, reasonable and businesslike. The Boards are quite satisfied with the terms.
LORD LATHAM: That is to say, they are permitted a fair run in the field of competition?
LORD MILLS: That is quite correct. The noble Lord was also of the view that their borrowings for hire purchase purposes were not covered by this authorisation. That is not the case. Their borrowings for hire purchase, like their working capital, are all included and covered by the authorisation for which we are asking your Lordships' House.
I was very impressed with the emphasis made by the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, and the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, on the tariff policies of the Boards. I think that everyone realises the importance, or rather the effect, of tariffs on the consumption of electricity, and the Generating Board have now given a valuable lead with their new bulk supply tariff which comes into force on April 1 this year. Under this new tariff the running rate, or the unit rate, has been much reduced; and Area Boards are now planning to adapt their tariffs so as to encourage still greater off-peak use, which the new bulk supply tariff enables them to do. Several Boards have, in fact, already announced their intention in this respect.
The noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, raised several individual matters which I will see are brought to the notice of those concerned. The individual Scottish cases which he mentioned will be brought to the notice of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. The noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, inquired whether I was satisfied that there is as much opportunity as I should like for Parliament to be consulted. I believe that I can answer that question in the affirmative. There are the Annual Reports of the various
694
Boards; a White Paper is published annually on the capital expenditure. All these give Parliament opportunities of debating the industries for which I am responsible.
The noble Lord also asked whether the estimate of the growth of load is based on present tariffs. I did in the course of my remarks say that we had not yet taken into account the alteration in the bulk supply tariff and the consequent alterations of tariffs by the Area Boards. We have not yet taken these matters into account because one would have to wait and see what would be their effect. Believe me, my Lords, this question of tariffs is kept closely in mind by every Board in the country, because their surest way of becoming more efficient is to deal with the off-peak situation; and anything they can do to bring that about I am sure will be done.
I found your Lordships very exhilarating, and I am sure that all connected with the electricity supply industry will read what has been said this afternoon with great interest, and I hope with much benefit, too. I am sure that if they want suggestions they have only to have a debate started in this House to get them. We have had some suggestions this afternoon, about a low off-peak rate for churches, storage heaters and glasshouses. As I say, I will not attempt to deal with them all now, but I will certainly commend to the electricity authorities what has been said here to-day.
Then the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, raised the question of ploughing back profits; and he reminded us of what had been said on this subject. I agree that it would be wrong to penalise present users by ploughing back too high a percentage of the profits. I do not think that is the case. I have examined the position very carefully, and in present circumstances I think what is being done is just about right.
LORD LATHAM: I agree with the noble Lord. As a matter of fact, the element in the internal financing which arises from depreciation is not ploughing back at all. It is the mere provision for the replacement of assets that are being used up.
LORD MILLS: I thank the noble Lord. I agree that there must be ploughed back

695
sufficient profits to cover replacements and a proper proportion of the expansion which is envisaged.
LORD LATHAM: And increased cost of replacements.
LORD MILLS: And increased cost of replacements too. The noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, also asked whether I would see that what money could be spent was spent efficiently and urgently. Here, I think the reply is an obvious one: that in so far as the amount of capital expenditure requires my approval it is my duty to see that the amounts are adequate yet not too large.
The noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, talked about railway traction. That is a very important matter, and I should like to say this about it. The supplies to the railways are given direct by the Generating Board, and it is up to the British Transport Commission to make their case with the Generating Board and to secure the tariff which best suits their purposes, provided that the Generating Board agree that it is also a reasonable one for them. But it is expressly provided in Section 28 (5) of the Act of 1957 that the terms and conditions on which electricity is supplied to railway undertakings must not result in a financial loss to the Board. So the very question of a subsidy is, of course, precluded.
The noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, also asked whether I considered that the greatly increased generating capacity would tend to reduce the load factor. I do not think that follows at all. It depends, on the one hand, on consumption, and, on the other, on the reserves which it is necessary to carry and which do not count against the load factor. Both Lord Latham and Lord Merrivale mentioned the question of thermal storage heaters. I do not think it is a fact that thermal storage heaters may not be used domestically, but they attract purchase tax. In that respect such representations as I can make I have made. I think that I have dealt broadly with the questions which have been put to me. I have found the debate a most interesting one, and I think the electricity authorities, too, will benefit from it.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

TRANSPORT (BORROWING POWERS) BILL
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

BUILDING (SCOTLAND) BILL
5.32 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (LORD FORBES): My Lords, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill let me begin by assuring your Lordships that while some of the detail contained in the Bill may appear complex, the main purpose of the Bill is not only simple but also extremely sensible. The general object of the Bill is to bring the existing machinery for the regulation of building in Scotland into an up-to-date form. This is an object which surely commands the support of everyone who may be concerned with the erection of buildings both large and small—that is to say, at one time or another practically everyone.
It may be of interest if I give a brief description of the circumstances that have led up to the introduction of this Bill. Its origin is in the Report by the Building Legislation Committee which was set up in 1954 under the chairmanship of Lord Guest. The Bill itself follows very closely the recommendations of that Committee. This in itself is surely a high testimony of the excellent work that Lord Guest and his fellow members put into their task. I need hardly remind your Lordships that the setting up of the Guest Committee was in itself recognition of the need for a thorough review of the state of the law of building in Scotland.
There can be few who would deny that the law regarding building at the present time is unsatisfactory. Indeed the existing requirements, with which a person who wants to build has to comply, have been described as archaic, confusing and restrictive, and I think they well deserve that description. To some extent the present code is embodied in legislation like the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1892, and the Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1897, both enacted before the beginning of the century. To a greater extent it derives from building by-laws

697
based, in some places, but by no means all, on a model put forward by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.
These by-laws are moderately satisfactory. They suffer however from two main defects: first, they cannot easily be brought up to date, and in consequence fail to take into account the most modern methods of construction and choice of materials; and, secondly, there is a difference between burgh and landward areas. Then again, apart from the defects in the building code itself, the existing law relating to the handling of applications for permission to build leaves a great deal to be desired. In particular, although in many special circumstances a good case can be made out for allowing a variation of, the code, facilities for relaxation are almost non-existent. Also the applicant who feels himself aggrieved by what he believes to be an unjust decision has really little or no right of appeal.
This Bill is designed to make a fresh start and to cure, or make it possible to cure, all these defects. One of the principal innovations in the Bill is in Clause 3 whore the Secretary of State is given power to make regulations in respect of building. These regulations are to be called the building standards regulations. These regulations will take the place of the existing building code which, as I have already pointed out, is partly statutory and partly takes the form of by-laws. The regulations
will be drawn up by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State with the help of an Advisory Committee. The draft regulations themselves will be given a wide circulation so that everyone will be entitled to comment on them and demand a public inquiry if they wish. I cannot stress this point too strongly.
Perhaps at this stage I should assure your Lordships that there is no question of taking away from local authorities any real power, because the present building by-laws based on the model devised by the Secretary of State in consultation with other Departments and interested bodies have regularly been accepted by the local authorities with either the most minor or with no amendments at all. Now, in contrast to this, the regulations which it is proposed to make under this Bill will be subject to a procedure of full consultation under Clause 3 of the Bill,
698
under which incidentally local authorities would have, if anything, more real opportunity to influence them than they have had with by-laws in the past.
Some of your Lordships may also feel that it is wrong to take away from local authorities the power of making local by-laws because such by-laws could take account of the particular conditions in the area. In practice, however, the variations between different authorities' by-laws have not reflected different local conditions but rather local authorities' individual tastes and preferences. The main reason for varying standards of construction in different parts of Scotland is, of course, climate, and here I should like to say that the building code, although uniform for all areas, will be so framed as to take account of different climatic conditions where these are relevant to the building structure. For instance, the regulations might say that structures should withstand the wind loading to which they will be exposed. That means, for example, that the roof of a building on the summit of Ben Nevis will have to be stronger than the roof of a house in a sheltered spot.
Having dealt with the building standards regulations to be made under Clause 3, perhaps I might now deal with the most important of the remaining provisions. Clause 1 sets up buildings authorities to administer these regulations. These buildings authorities will, in burghs,
be formed by the existing dean of guild court, while in landward areas, they will be formed by the local authority out of their own membership. The rules and procedures which the Bill lays down for these buildings authorities have been designed, on the one hand, to promote speed and efficiency of business, and, on the other, to ensure that openness, fairness and impartiality should be observed—in fact the principles which the Franks Committee laid down as essential for bodies dealing with public business.
The main task of these buildings authorities will be to administer the building standards regulations which will apply throughout the whole country. The advantages of standards covering all Scotland are many. To mention but a few, there will be the benefit conferred on the suppliers of building materials and components, as well as on the designers of buildings themselves, by the avoidance of

699
arbitrary differences in different parts of the country. In addition, architects and engineers will know in advance exactly what standards they have to comply with. The mere fact that one set of standards covers the country does not in any way mean rigidity, nor does it mean that in future our buildings will all look alike. There will be, of course, circumstances in which it will be appropriate for the requirements of the building code to be relaxed; and this is provided for under Clause 4.
While these building standards regulations will relate to new buildings or to buildings whose use is being changed, there is, in addition, a special arrangement under Clause 10 by which a local authority will have the power to require an existing building to be brought into conformity with one or more of the building standards, provided that they consider that the improvement is not only desirable but also reasonably practicable—and this aspect includes the question of cost. Here let me point out that this is no new power, for it already exists in connection with certain aspects of housing under the Housing Act. We do not expect that this power will be used often, but there are bound to be circumstances when it could be most valuable.
In addition to the facilities under Clause 4 for the granting of relaxations in appropriate cases, there is also, in Clause 15, provision for the hearing of appeals by the appropriate sheriff against decisions by buildings authorities. This will ensure that the building code will not bear too hardly or inappropriately in any particular case. In short, the rights provided by these two clauses, together with various other safeguards provided by the Bill, have been devised to ensure that in every case justice will not only be done but will also be seen to be done.
Having painted a general picture of this Bill, perhaps I may end by saying that this Bill has been designed to fulfil two main purposes: first, to increase efficiency, and, secondly, to remove unnecessary restrictions whenever possible. The general acceptance which its principles have received is surely evidence that it will be generally welcomed. My Lords, this Bill undoubtedly has a backing of good will among all the interests concerned, and I can therefore recommend it to your Lordships with con-
700
fidence. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Forbes.)
5.46 p.m.
LORD GREENHILL: My Lords, having read what was said in another place on the Second Reading of this Bill, and having now heard the noble Lord expound it here, I am bound to say that he has made of it as good a job as that made by the right honourable gentleman the Minister in another place. It is true that this Bill divides itself into two parts, the first dealing with a national code for buildings, and the other with the machinery through which this national code will be put into operation.
In regard to the national code which will now replace the local codes of authorities throughout Scotland, one cannot repress a feeling of regret at the effect in the case of Glasgow, for example, for which there was promoted and finally brought in an Act—the Glasgow Streets, Sewers and Buildings Consolidation Order Confirmation Act of 1936—a very complicated and, incidentally, very expensive promotion, with 255 clauses and three Schedules. That has all to be scrapped, presumably on the grounds that although that was done only in 1937 a good deal of it is already out of date and obsolete. As evidence of that one is reminded of the Model Building By-laws issued by the Department of Health in Scotland, printed in 1954 and reprinted in 1955, which say:
"The model building by-laws for burghs issued by the Department of Health in 1937"—
which of course coincides with the date of the Glasgow Act—
"have become out of date as a result of advances in building methods and technical knowledge. This model has been drawn up with the advice of a technical working party. The main objectives are to allow greater freedom in the use of new materials and methods; to secure economy and the best possible use of materials; but at the same time to set safe and certain standards.
"To achieve this it has been necessary to draft model by-laws very different in form from the previous ones."
So you have already to-day a Bill which says that the by-laws are obsolete, and that in view of the introduction of new materials, new systems of structure, new systems of design and different ideas of cost, it is necesesary to have a code applying to the whole of the country which

701
local authorities will now be compelled to adopt.
It is true, I think, as the noble Lord has said, that a rigid system of regulations will not be laid down, because there will be two safeguards: first, the powers of relaxation where these are thought to be necessary; and, secondly, the power of appeal for the discontented applicant. Also, of course, there is the overriding safeguard that no regulation is to be put into operation without consultation with an advisory committee, presumably of experts. So there is this kind of protection. It does not follow that there will be no room for modification or improvement, but the picture as we see it to-day, before we know what the regulations will be, appears to be reasonable and one to which I think noble Lords on this side of the House will see no reason to object.
When, however, the noble Lord refers to the regulations which the Secretary of State will be empowered to draw up, there is, I think, some room for questioning whether the proposed method of procedure is the best one. For example, will either House of Parliament have the opportunity of considering in some detail what these regulations entail? Will Parliament be able to criticise or amend these regulations, and will it be able to say, before they become operative, whether they should be improved or modified in any way? Secondly, there are the doubts of the Corporations of Edinburgh and Glasgow which have been expressed in a letter to me through their Parliamentary Agents—and replicas of this letter, I understand, have been received by other noble Lords in your Lordships' House. They are very much concerned about the method whereby these regulations will abolish local authority regulations—whether, in fact, the Government are not going about it in the wrong way. If we abolish the whole of the Local Acts, including powers which have no relationship whatever to the contents of this Bill, does it not seem to be the wrong way of going about it? They say that it is quite wrong that Local Act provisions which have nothing whatever to do with what is in the Bill or the building code should, first of all, be repealed by the Bill and then, before the commencement of the Act, be reinstated by order of the Secretary of State. I think perhaps the noble Lord might deal with that point when
702
replying, because there is, I gather, a good deal of apprehension in the minds of both of these Corporations as to what is the best procedure.
That being, in a sense, my general approval of that part of the Bill dealing with the building code, perhaps I may now say a word about the machinery. Here perhaps I ought to declare a personal interest, and it is this. I happen to be a member of the Merchants House, and in that way one of the guild brethren. I also happen to be a member of the Trades House, and thus find myself a craft member because of my membership of an incorporation. If it should be thought that here is a conflict of interest, I should like to make it clear that in the deans of guild I have known, and among the many deacon conveners I have known, I have never come across one who has not been a man of eminent capacity, although, as noble Lords will know, there may be some objection to their membership of a corporation on the ground that they are not democratically there as representatives of the electorate.
As the Guest Report makes quite clear, the different kinds of deans of guild courts up and down the country, and the different forms whereby questions of this kind are considered, are largely related to historical events and not to any kind of principle underlying the creation of these bodies. When the Guest Report indicates what the historical origin of these various bodies is, I have the feeling that perhaps the Committee do not go back in history far enough; because if one reads, for example, a history of Glasgow (particularly, if I may say so, Volume II of the late George Ayrton) one would find there that the merchants and craftsmen were not always in the friendliest relationship, as they are to-day. The merchants were regarded with some jealousy because they became immensely wealthy and influential; the craftsmen, however, beat them later on, because what they did not possess in wealth they possessed in numbers. As a result, they were able to stand out against the other body, and only much later—very much later—did they come together and form a friendly unity in the kind of duties they are fulfilling to-day.
But it must be admitted that neither the guilds nor the craftsmen are performing these duties because they have special qualifications for the job they undertake.

703
They are now, as noble Lords are well aware, mainly benevolent, philanthropic societies which do an immense amount of good work, not only in helping members who happen to be in poor financial circumstances, but in many other ways—for example, by encouraging educational projects. But I think it would be a real stretch of imagination to pretend that they possess some kind of inherent qualification for the consideration of questions of this kind. I would therefore ask the noble Lord to say whether the time has not come when the composition of these bodies, dealing with these immensely important and immensely complicated and technical questions, ought to be reconsidered. I am not suggesting that all the members of a dean of guild court and all the members of a building authority should be elected representatives on local authorities. I have not said that—indeed, if I may say so, I have been long enough a Member of your Lordships' House sometimes to think that the prerogative of wisdom and virtue does not lie wholly with elected members. But I would ask the noble Lord to consider whether or not there should not be some modification of the composition of these bodies which would embrace, if you like, a selected number, but certainly an elected number, of members in these different authorities or these dean of guild courts. Although, as I say, we reserve to ourselves the right to put forward Amendments in Committee, I hope that such thoughts as I have thrown out to-day will be sympathetically considered by the noble Lord the Minister.
6.0 p.m.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Lord, the Minister, if, on a future occasion, he could do anything about the very short notice we have had of this Motion. We in Scotland heard nothing about it, and had to come down at the last moment in order to make our comments. I am afraid that, speaking for myself, they are therefore very sketchy. I have sympathy with the Bill, but I have also some misgivings; and, so far as I could ascertain in the very short space of time available to me, my misgivings are shared by quite a number of notable people in Scotland. May I make it clear at once that I probably have a vested interest.
704
I have been putting up buildings in civil engineering since 1929, and I am also a democratically-elected member of my county council, although, admittedly, I have been returned unopposed twice since then. Nevertheless, I consider that the model building by-laws of the Department of Health are quite the best thing I have ever come across during the period I have been working, and I do not know of any case of difficulty in the landward areas under the existing system. However, the successful application really depends on the "deemed-to-satisfy" clauses which are in these building by-laws, and also on the discretion which is allowed to the county councils who administer them.
Before coming South I sought the views, so far as I could get them, of the Association of County Councils, as their outlook covers a far greater area than just one council—and I must say that their views give me considerable misgivings. So far as I know, they are at least still on the file and have not been withdrawn; and if your Lordships will permit me, I will read a few clauses of a letter about them which I received from the county clerk. They are quite short, and are as follows:
"As you will know, the precursor of this Bill was the Report of the Committee on Building Legislation in Scotland (Cmd. 269). A sub-committee of the Health and Welfare Committee of the Association of County Councils in Scotland reported on this Report to that Committee on 20th February, 1958. The Sub-Committee agreed to recommend that the following observations be forwarded to the Department of Health for Scotland:

(a) The Association disagrees strongly with the proposals for building control bodies in landward areas with full power to exercise control independently of county councils and the exercise of their functions in the manner of a court. The function of the building control body for the landward area will simply be to decide whether or not a particular application complies with the national regulations. It cannot exercise any discretion—relaxation of requirements falls to the Secretary of State. It is considered, therefore, that the application of dean-of-guild procedure to extensive landward areas would be unnecessarily cumbersome, time-wasting and perhaps misleading to applicants and co-terminous proprietors. It is strongly felt by the Association that the present administrative arrangement in counties for dealing with applications under the building by-laws has worked efficiently and can be readily applied to any new system of building control which may be introduced without imposing the ponderous machinery indicated in the Building Committee's Report.

705

(b) Subject always to the acceptance of the Association's views at (a) above, the Association feels that there would be advantages in the building provisions scattered through various Statutes and by-laws being replaced by a new Building Act and regulations made under enabling powers conferred by the Act.

(c) The Association has confined its consideration of the Building Committee's Report to what appears at this stage to be the two main points involved, but it, of course, reserves its right to consider at a future stage other points involved in the Report."

I received this letter just before came down, and as far as I know it has not been withdrawn; I do not know for certain, but the Minister will probably be able to toll me. That is why I have certain misgivings. It may seem curious that the Association of County Councils condemned, I think one can say, the landward proposals of the Guest Committee, and I read the Guest Committee Report to find out whether I could get a clue of why that may be. The first thing is the terms of reference of the Committee. These, again, are very brief, but I think give a clue. The terms of reference, if I may read them, are:
"To examine the existing law for the general regulation of building in Scotland so far as it relates to the control of building standards by the Secretary of State and by local authorities; to consider the extent of the jurisdiction exercised by the dean of guild courts as regards building standards; and to recommend what changes may be necessary to secure a control of building standards which would operate as uniformly as possible in counties and burghs, and be flexible enough to take account of the development of new techniques and materials."
There is no mention whatever of the ease and efficiency of administration, and there is no mention of whether it is really necessary to have this ponderous machinery applied to the landward areas. Not having had time to go into the thing properly, I must hazard a guess, and I would hazard the guess that well over 80 per cent. of all building in Scotland is not a matter of landward areas at all; it is a matter of dean of guild courts, and burghs, and various other things.
The next point is that, at the back of the Report, there is a summary of evidence. There are thirteen questions, but there is not a single one relating to a landward area problem; and that might be the clue to my anxiety. It is always very difficult for a layman to interpret a Bill and to know what it really means. Not being trained in the law, I find it extremely difficult, and probably frequently talk a great deal of rubbish for
706
that reason. But if, when he replies, the Minister could tell me that Part I, Clause 1 (4) (b) applies only to the dean of guild courts, and that the new machinery, when produced, will not apply to the landward areas, I shall be quite happy; because, so far as I can see, that particular phrase makes it illegal to replace a slate or mend a gutter. I am sure that that is not so, but it reads like that to me.
The only other point is that Clause 7, which is the interpretation clause, classifies a wire fence, a stile, a wall, and a gate, as a building on a farm. Surely to goodness a farmer, before he does anything at all to anything like that, will not have to go and get permission! They can be excluded by regulation, I know, but we do not know that they are going to be excluded by regulation, and that is my anxiety. The tone of this thing is: "Look! we do not like your face; we are going to cut your throat; you will be all right after the operation, but do not ask us anything now; just take our word for it now that the wound will heal up perfectly, and no one will worry". That is a most unsatisfactory way of doing business, I think, and I would ask the noble Lord the Minister whether he could at some time or other—probably not when he replies—give us a little more assurance that no greater degree of control will be imposed on farming, estate and forestry building work than exists at present; because where one is complying with by-laws it is perfectly adequate, in my opinion and in my experience—which is such as I have stated.
But I would point out that an increased cost is going to be imposed on everybody applying to do any kind of building work. A silo scheme, for instance, will have to be approved not only by the Department of Agriculture, but also (I may be wrong about this, and if so I shall be corrected) by this proposed building authority. That is going to impose burdens and delays. Again, the various housing improvement schemes will have to be approved by three or four bodies instead of one; and I am anxious about that. Then the Farm Improvements Scheme, which is again building work, would not be able to be touched without complying with this requirement, and also contacting the other Department. That does not seem to me to be right. I may have interpreted it wrongly, and,

707
if so, I hope the noble Lord will tell me properly where I get off.
6.10 p.m.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, when I first picked up this Bill I was appalled at its length and it seemed to me to be a complicated measure, but when I had had time to study it I came to the conclusion that in the main it did two things, and I feel that my view in that respect has been confirmed by the Minister in making his opening speech to-day. It sets up building authorities, and I do not think it matters much by what name these authorities are called. I should regret greatly if our dean of guild courts, with their long traditions and the great service they have rendered over the years, should be done away with, but I think it is for the benefit of our large local authorities, who to my mind have far too many things to do at present, to be relieved of some functions which might in certain circumstances be passed over to them.
Then the Bill empowers the Secretary of State to make regulations governing building standards, and also other regulations for the protection of the public while buildings are in the course of construction or in the course of demolition. I understand from the Bill that these will be known as building operations regulations, and it will be the duty of the building authorities in the counties and burghs to see that these two sets of regulations are complied with. As for the remainder of the Bill, it appears to me to contain matters which are incidental to these two main provisions.
I would say at once that I warmly welcome the Bill. At the present time, as my noble friend has explained, each authority has its own building by-laws, many of them in the light of modern developments and building techniques being completely out of date. Nevertheless, they are strictly enforced by those who are responsible for doing it, and it does not appear any measure of flexibility is allowed. Indeed, on one occasion I was extremely pained and distressed when an official who was responsible placed his hand on his copy of the by-laws and informed me that it was his Bible, from which he would not and could not in any circumstances depart, even although he was prepared to admit that in places
708
these by-laws made no sense at all. When I asked that gentleman if he would be good enough to tell me the date of his authority's by-laws, he told me, after looking at his copy, that it was somewhere in the latter days of the last century. I am not blaming the officials—it is their duty to see that the by-laws laid down by their authority are complied with—but surely it is ridiculous that to-day we should be working to by-laws laid down so many years ago; and it is equally ridiculous that architects and all others concerned with the building industry should have to study the by-laws that are current in the county or burgh where their operations are to take place before they can even get ahead with their plans or their actual building operations.
The multiplicity of by-laws and the chaos which ensues as the result was forcibly brought to my notice a few years ago when I had some connection with the Department of Health for Scotland. Together with the officials of the Department I was being shown round the workshops of one of our largest, most efficient and up-to-date building organisations. That particular firm were specialising in prefabrication of much of the interior of the houses they were building; and they were building them in many different parts of Scotland. In the interests of efficiency and economy they were naturally standardising the various parts; they were building them within their factory and then sending them in completed sections by special transport to the various sites. That had all been carefully explained to me when I came across a number of boxes of different shapes and sizes. I asked what they were, and I was told that they were cisterns. I was naturally induced to ask why, if they believed in standardisation, these cisterns were not all of the same size and shape. I was then told that it was necessary for them to work to the specifications laid down in the by-laws of the various authorities in whose areas they were working; and at that date they were working to no fewer than some seventeen or eighteen different sets of by-laws.
That situation seems to me to be intolerable, and I was very glad, therefore, when the Secretary of State subsequently set up the Committee or Working Party to which reference has already been made

709
by the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, and my noble friend Lord Stonehaven, a committee of experts and local authority and Departmental officials, to produce a modern model set of building by-laws. When that Committee's work was completed, these model by-laws were issued to all the local authorities with a request that they might see fit to adopt them. That was, under the existing law, as I understand it, a matter which was solely within their own discretion. I imagine that some of the authorities adopted them, while others did not, and we were accordingly left with different building codes in different parts of Scotland. That, to my mind, is nonsensical and illogical, and I can only conclude that at least one of the reasons for the setting up of the Guest Committee and one of the purposes of this Bill is to remedy it and provide a uniform code of building standards to cover the whole country.
As I have said, I welcome the Bill. I believe it will remove doubt and, in spite of what some noble Lords have said, will speed up procedure, lead to greater efficiency and economy and improve building standards in many parts of our country. For I have no doubt that these regulations will be prepared in consultation with experts conversant with the most up-to-date ideas and the most modern practice and that the Building Standards Advisory Committee to be set up under Clause 11 will so advise the Secretary of State as to ensure that these by-laws are kept up to date and will demand the modern developments in materials and techniques. It is for these reasons that I warmly support this Bill, and I would commend it to your Lordships, who I trust will see fit to give it a speedy passage to the Statute Book.
6.19 p.m.
LORD KINNAIRD: My Lords, I should like to say a few words on this Bill and generally to give it a welcome. I am sure, as my noble friend Lord Strathclyde has said, that in many ways it will help. I speak on it only from the point of view of a farmer. I think it is particularly desirable in regard to dwelling houses, both rural and urban. But when you consider agricultural and farm building, the noble Lord, Lord Forbes, knows well that, in regard to the general control of building work on farms, it is not considered satisfactory by many in
710
Scotland to leave the matters to be dealt with by regulation.
I agree with all the noble Viscount, Lord Stonehaven, said about regulations. We should like to get agricultural buildings excluded now. That is the view held by those who advise us in Scotland as being more desirable, but I understand it has been refused by the Secretary of State. At the present time much work on farms and on estates is done without a warrant, and presumably it will now require one. I wish to emphasise the question of efficiency, cost and the important matter of delays. In my experience in farming, delays are all-important. As your Lordships know, the seasons do not wait for you, and the harvest does not wait for you. If you get tied up with regulations, warrants and plans, a few days is going to make a great difference to success. Under existing regulations, except in a few special circumstances neither planning permission nor by-law approval is required for alterations to existing buildings or the construction of new farm buildings, excluding houses and cottages.
The controls incorporated in the Bill will inevitably cause delays in the completion of proposed farm alterations. These delays are, as I have said, undesirable, and I think the control envisaged by the Bill is not essential in the case of farm buildings to the same extent as in the case of building where the health and environment of the general population would be affected. Often farm buildings are erected by farm labour and construction is done piecemeal. If a warrant is required for submission to the building authority, it is obvious that plans will have to be submitted. You require warrant and plans, and it would cause unnecessary complications. For instance, a farmer may want to put up some quite simple construction. There are thousands of small farmers who have not the means of producing plans, and it will be an immense inconvenience to them if they have to get a warrant for every small alteration.
I am told that it will not delay things when it goes to the county council under Clause 7 of the Bill. But I do not accept the fact that if you must have warrants and plans it is not going to cause more delays. I think it is bound to. I therefore express a hope that before the Committee stage the Minister will exempt estate and

711
farm buildings, other than dwelling houses, from the provisions of this Bill.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, before the noble Lord rises to reply, I wonder whether I might ask the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, and other members of the Front Bench opposite, not to carry on continuously their private conversations while other noble Lords are addressing the House? It is most disturbing to those of us who wish to pay attention to what noble Lords are saying.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
6.25 p.m.
LORD FORBES: My Lords, we have had a very useful debate on this Bill, and a number of interesting points have been made. Before turning to these points, I should like briefly to mention two matters. The first is that I think your Lordships will appreciate that this is largely a machinery Bill, in the sense that it does not so much carry out immediate reforms as enable reforms to be carried out. A great deal of work will have to be done after the Bill has been passed before any of the regulations which it envisages can be published in draft, and further time would elapse to allow for discussion—and perhaps amendment—of the draft regulations before they come into force.
LORD GREENHILL: My Lords, would the noble Lord permit me to interrupt to ask this question? Whom does he envisage as the authorities who are to be consulted? That consultation is necessary, one agrees. Are they to be, for example, local authority representatives or associations, or are they to be a number of different individuals who may be interested?
LORD FORBES: It is any individual who may be interested in the regulations.
LORD GREENHILL: Including local authorities?
LORD FORBES: Including local authorities. It is impossible to prophesy with any degree of accuracy how long this will take, but it would be unrealistic to expect it to take less than two years. I mention this to set at rest any concern that may be felt in your Lordships' House, or outside, that there will be too little
712
opportunity for consideration or consultation, especially where local needs are to be met.
The other point to which I wish to draw your Lordships' attention is that there is no ground whatever in this Bill for apprehension that the making of building standards regulations will lead to regimentation or drab uniformity. It is perhaps easy to imagine that the creation of a nation-wide code for building might tend to produce this uniformity where it is not wanted as well as where it is wanted. I believe that there is no cause for apprehension whatsoever in this respect. The regulations which it is proposed to make are likely to avoid, so far as possible, the imposition of uniform specific requirements. The requirements will be expressed largely in terms of function or standards of performance. Thus, for example, they might prescribe that the foundations must be strong enough to carry the load put upon them, but subject to that can be constructed in whatever way the designer thinks fit.
I emphasise that because it is a point that the Guest Committee themselves had very much in mind. Indeed, they went so far as to criticise existing building requirements as old-fashioned, on the ground that they tended to introduce a frame of mind detrimental both to progress and amenity, since there is the tendency for stereotyped solutions to be offered or insisted upon. It is, of course, necessary that the law should be clear and precise in order that it can be justly enforced. There is every intention of drafting the building standards regulations in such a way that the greatest possible freedom—that is, greater than in the past—is left for individual and original conceptions of design and planning of buildings.
I come to some of the points raised by noble Lords who have spoken. It has been suggested by several noble Lords that the Bill will mean delay in obtaining warrants for buildings on farms and estates, but I do not expect that this will be so. As I explained in my opening speech, the Bill gives the building owner who is the applicant for a building warrant a right to be heard by the buildings authority, if he so wishes, and the right to the adjacent proprietors to make representations. It also provides rights of appeal against decisions of the buildings authority.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: Would the noble Lord allow me to ask him a question, to make the matter a little clearer than he has done? The situation is that at present a man requires no building warrant. The situation will be that he will have to apply for a building warrant; he will have to wait until the county council, or whatever the authority is, meets. But they are busy people; and he may have to wait a month before the next meeting. Surely that means at least six weeks' delay, compared to the position to-day; and my remarks are solely about farm buildings and estate buildings.
LORD FORBES: That applies entirely to the existing by-laws. Some of these by-laws are observed rigidly, and plans and applications are put in; others are not observed so rigidly. Where they are properly observed, there will be no difference with the proposed procedure for obtaining authority. This is all part of the principle that proceedings bearing on the rights of the individual should be conducted with fairness, openness and impartiality.
The noble Viscount, Lord Stonehaven, read a part of a letter from one of the county clerks, but I am sure he will appreciate that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has been in close consultation throughout the whole of the framing of this Bill with the representatives of local authority associations such as this. The noble Viscount, I think, reproached me on the ground that the administrative arrangements for the application of the building code for landward areas of counties are not appropriate, and that indeed the whole proposal to bring the counties into the same system as the burghs is contrary to the Government's principles. I cannot agree with this. It seems to me a sound principle that, where a nation-wide standard is appropriate, it should be the rule; and where it is not appropriate, it should be avoided. With regard to the delay that has been alleged, if there is any further delay I would say to your Lordships that the time will be well spent, as it will occur only when an owner is exercising his right to appeal, or in the case of an adjacent proprietor also exercising his rights.
The noble Viscount also suggested that the Bill might lead to increased building costs so far as farms are concerned.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: May I make myself clear? I did not mean building costs. I meant the costs of the application to erect the building, not the cost of the building itself. That should be of very good standard anyway. It is the application, the preparing of drawings and all that side of it, that will meet with the extra cost. Moreover, I believe that a fee is to be charged.
LORD FORBES: There again, I can give the noble Viscount this assurance: that there should be no more costs in the preparing of these plans than there is at present, because plans should be submitted in satisfaction of the by-laws as they are now.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: I am not quite sure. My impression was that they do not apply to non-residential farm buildings. I think I am right in saying that.
LORD KINNAIRD: My information was the same: no warrants are required at present.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: Or submission of plans.
LORD FORBES: I will look into that question, if I may, and let the noble Viscount know. The noble Viscount also asked me whether I could give an assurance that subsection (4) of Clause 1 is solely concerned with dean of guild courts. That assurance I can give. I can go further and say that the building standards regulations have nothing whatsoever to do with maintenance; and, furthermore, there will be no question of obtaining a warrant to carry out any maintenance.
I can well appreciate the noble Viscount's desire to see more exemptions in this Bill. Against that, we have to weigh up the need for a very flexible and up-to-date code, and I should like to remind the noble Viscount that once the provisions are in the Bill they cannot be altered without an Act of Parliament, and that the buildings standards regulations will therefore be far more flexible in this respect. The noble Viscount has had so many misgivings that perhaps the best hope I can offer him is that perhaps one day he might find himself as a member of the Building Standards Advisory Committee, and that would certainly give him a very good chance to express all his doubts.

715
The noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, was very complimentary to me in saying that he welcomed the Bill, by and large. He had some misgivings about the dean of guild court, whether it was a democratic body and suitable for dealing with the regulations as a buildings authority. The Glasgow Dean of Guild Court is, of course, a complete exception—there are no elected members there, as the noble Lord quite rightly pointed out. In addition to that, there are other dean of guild courts such as those in Edinburgh, Paisley, Perth and Rutherglen which contain a certain number of non-elected members. I think the noble Lord will agree with me that if there is to be any alteration to the dean of guild courts—I am not saying that there will be any alteration—this Bill is not the vehicle for carrying out such alteration.
LORD GREENHILL: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord again? I am aware that the constitution or composition of the dean of guild court conies under the Local Government Act, 1947. At the same time, I think the Secretary of State in another place said that he had tried to get this matter adjusted in some way by consulting with the parties interested—presumably, the dean of guilds. the deacon convener and perhaps a local authority representative, but that he had not succeeded in getting agreement, the implication being that he himself thought that there was room here for some kind of modification of the existing position.
LORD FORBES: My Lords, it is true that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State did go into this matter with the interested parties, and he came to the conclusion that at present there was not sufficient agreement between the parties; and he decided to leave this matter meantime.
The noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, also made some observations on Local Act provisions. The Bill as it stands provides in Clause 28 for the repeal of Local Act provisions that are overtaken by the Bill and the new building code. But it also allows the Secretary of State to make orders keeping in being particular Local Act provisions—that is, saving the chief provisions from repeal. The intention is, after the passage of the Bill, to engage in detailed discussion with local authorities concerned so as to establish which local
716
provisions can properly be saved in this way. I can give the noble Lord this assurance; that the necessary orders saving local Acts will be made
by the Secretary of State before the day appointed for the main provisions of the Bill to come into operation. We feel that it is much more straightforward to effect a general repeal and then make particular savings than to do the reverse. It is much more sensible, surely, that the local authorities, with detailed knowledge of their own local Acts, should argue the case with the Secretary of State for the retention of their particular Acts. In practice, it should work out that all local Act provisions will be examined in detail by the Department as well as by the local authority concerned. Thereafter, joint discussions will take place to determine which provisions should be saved and which should not be saved. I can assure the noble Lord that there will be ample time for this to take place before the appointed day. However, I have no doubt that the noble Lord may wish to return to this on the Committee stage.
LORD GREENHILL: Yes.
LORD FORBES: My Lords, I was asked for an assurance that no greater degree of control will be imposed on farm buildings and on estate building work in general than already exists. This, quite definitely, is something that will have to be threshed out when the regulations are made. I hope that your Lordships will agree with me that we ought not to start writing things of this nature into a Bill at this time. With this Bill we in Scotland are, I am quite certain, taking a great step forward. I feel that it is perhaps because of some of our archaic building laws, like the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1892, which says that it is illegal to build a house with a ceiling lower than 9 feet 6 inches, that some people prefer the warmth and comfort of modern piggeries, with their low ceilings, to the existing cold rooms in stately homes with their high and lofty ceilings. Finally, I would say that I am certain that, with the passing of this Bill, Scotland, instead of being one of the most backward nations in which to build, will take her place in the forefront of the Western world where new techniques can be tried out.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

ROUND OAK STEEL WORKS (LEVEL CROSSINGS) BILL [H.L.]
Committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.
LEE VALLEY WATER BILL [H.L.]
Committed to a Select Committee.
POST OFFICE WORKS BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

ADJOURNMENT: UNREST IN NYASALAND
6.46 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do now adjourn. To have a debate on the adjournment in this House is very rare, as we all know, but the circumstances that have arisen in Nyasaland have, in our view, made such a debate necessary, first, because of the grave situation which has arisen there, and secondly, because the noble Earl, Lord Perth, the Minister of State for Colonial Affairs, is leaving for East Africa tomorrow and we thought it was most important that we should be able to express our views in his presence, and also hear from him the views that he would like to put before us.
Originally, the noble Earl intended after his visit to East Africa to visit Central Africa, and in the course of his visit there would, of necessity, have entered the territory of Nyasaland and would have met the various political and other leaders. Just lately, I think in the last week or so, Her Majesty's Government have called upon the noble Earl to change his plans in this respect; and although he is going to East Africa it is now proposed that he should not go to Central Africa, or at any rate not go to Nyasaland. We feel that this is an unfortunate decision, and the reasons for our view I propose shortly to explain to your Lordships.
Most territories in the Colonial Empire in the last decade and more have struggled to be free of the Colonial Office. Their great ambition has been to stand on their own feet and have nothing more to do with the Colonial Office. I say this
718
with no feeling of disrespect for the Colonial Office. These territories felt that while they were within the scope, so to speak, of Colonial Office activities they were no longer standing on their own feet. But that is not the case with Nyasaland. Nyasaland is a country which has for long fervently desired to retain its links with the United Kingdom, to remain under the protection of Her Majesty and to have the benefit of the control and the assistance which can be given by the Colonial Office. They objected very strongly indeed to removal from the control of the Colonial Office and to being taken into the ambit of the Central African Federation or, as it is now known, the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland.
For some years past it has been felt that an economic link between the three territories of Northern Rhodesia, Southern Rhodesia and Nyasaland would he of advantage because, to some extent, their economic life is bound up the one with the other. Nyasaland supplies a large amount of labour for the copper mines in Northern Rhodesia, the coal mines in Southern Rhodesia—in fact all the way down to the Rand, to Johannesburg, they supply labour. The other territories supply them with the various goods and services that they need. So there has long been a case for some sort of economic link between the three territories; there were strong reasons for it. But the Nyasalanders, although admitting there were some economic reasons, have never agreed to any sort of link with the other territories which would amount to a political federation. They have said that they ceded their country to the Queen and wish to remain under the protection of the Queen. The Queen to whom they first referred is, of course, Queen Victoria. They do not wish to have any close association, at any rate of a political nature, with the other two territories.
In 1953 we had a series of debates in your Lordships' House on this question of Nyasaland and the other two territories, culminating eventually in a Bill which became the Act of Parliament governing the situation. In the course of a very long and thorough debate on the question in April, 1953, many of us were much struck with the views, expressed in correspondence, of the Bishop of Nyasaland which were repeated in this House

719
by the then Lord Bishop of Chichester. In the course of correspondence which was repeated here the Bishop of Nyasaland said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 181, col. 470]:
"'It is a complete misapprehension to suppose that the opposition is confined to a politically-minded minority. As missionaries we are surprised at the knowledge of the issues involved in federation shown by ordinary Africans. Their opposition is not to details of the scheme, but to the whole principle, and it is for this reason that they refuse to discuss details.'"
Speaking for the Opposition, in winding up, I said on that occasion [col. 512]:
"In conclusion I beg the Government to pause while there is yet time, and not to blunder on with this plan irrespective of African wishes. And I say to the Government: Pause until you can take Africans with you. If you cannot do that, drop the plan.' It would involve no loss of prestige—indeed, the Government would gain prestige. To go the other way means disaster: disaster for the Africans and disaster for us."
There can be no doubt but that we gave a pretty explicit warning to Her Majesty's Government in this House—and of course our colleagues in another place did the same thing there—of what would happen if the plan, which was eventually put into an Act of Parliament in the same year, was proceeded with. What has happened? Since this Federation Act went on the Statute Book, whereas before there were hardly any active politicians, at any rate grouped in any Congress or political Parties, political nationalism has since grown apace. In Southern Rhodesia, Congress is a very powerful organisation. The Southern Rhodesia Government have banned it and 200 or so of the leaders of the Congress have been detained. In Northern Rhodesia there are two Congresses, and they, also, are giving anxiety, as the noble Earl, Lord Perth, said in his report today.
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord, as it is important for the record? I referred to only one of the two Congresses—that of Zambia. I gave no indication that the other Congress was giving any anxiety.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I accept that clarification; but one of the Congresses is causing anxiety there. And in Nyasaland, as the noble Earl told the House to-day in reply to my Question, the leading members of Congress, including Doctor Banda, have been detained and
720
removed out of the Protectorate to Southern Rhodesia where they will be held so long as the Government of Nyasaland consider it necessary. Therefore it really cannot be said that this Act has had anything but the unfortunate results that we predicted for it. I am very sorry that our predictions have come true, for I must confess that I do not feel any pleasure in pointing out that we did warn Her Majesty's Government.
I do not point this out as wishing to say, in any sense, "I told you so". The only reason why I draw attention to what happened in 1953 is to discount the suggestion now made in the Press and elsewhere that this feeling about federation is the work of a few agitators; that the Africans in Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia do not have this feeling at all, and that it is simply and solely the work of a few agitators. I believe that it is quite clear from the debate in 1953 that the bulk of the population—and of course one can never get everyone to feel the same about anything—were against federation with Southern Rhodesia and Northern Rhodesia.
For all these reasons we felt it was most important for the Minister of State to go to Nyasaland, as he intended, and we would beg him to do so at the earliest moment that he possibly can, because we feel that in the peculiar circumstances of Nyasaland the visit of the Queen's Minister will have an enormous and, I feel sure, salutary effect. I reiterate that this is not the ordinary kind of trouble where we get a Colony or Protectorate trying to get away from the Colonial Office. Here they want to remain within the scope of the Colonial Office, and in those circumstances it is essential for the Minister to go there because they will all feel: "The Minister has arrived. He is interested in our welfare and Parliament is interested, too, and we can go to the Minister and put our troubles and problems to him."
This afternoon I asked another Question as to the pledge that was given. Your Lordships will remember that a very important pledge was introduced into the federation Acts. There was an absolute and precise promise that Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia should continue under the protection of Her Majesty to enjoy separate government so long as their respective peoples so desired. That is a very important pledge. So

721
far as the Africans are concerned it is an essential pledge, and I was very pleased that in his reply to my supplementary question on that matter the noble Earl, Lord Perth, as I understood him, although he did not actually say "Yes"—but Ministers very rarely say "Yes" to any question—reiterated that that promise still held good. He said that all our pledges hold good. I do not mind so much about the "all", but does this one hold good? I feel that we should have to-night from the noble Earl, the Minister, a categorical assurance that that promise, which is so important, still holds good; and we should be very pleased if he could give that assurance.
There are one or two further matters to which I should like briefly to refer. We are all distressed to see in agency messages to-night that there has been shooting in Nyasaland and that seventeen Africans have been killed. I understand that the Tanganyika police, who are the direct responsibility of the Secretary of State for the Colonies, opened fire. It is always distressing when our fellow citizens, whoever they may be, are killed, and we should like to know whether the Minister of State has any further details on this occurrence.
The second point that I should like to put to him concerns the deportation of Dr. Banda. He is, after all, the leading member of the Congress, and apparently he and all other leading members of the Congress—an unspecified number—have been arrested, detained and removed from Nyasaland to, of all places, Southern Rhodesia. Why on earth anybody should ever consider in these circumstances, and in the kind of feeling there must be in Nyasaland at this moment, removing leaders of the African Congress to Southern Rhodesia I cannot imagine. I should have thought that it was about the worst possible place to which they could be sent, even if it was necessary. I do not know, and we cannot know, what was the necessity for their removal. We have no evidence, one way or the other.
But assuming for my purposes for the moment that it was necessary to take these people away, it was, I believe, a blunder of the worst order to take them to Southern Rhodesia, first of all because of the feeling that there is in Nyasaland with respect to Southern Rhodesia; and,
722
secondly, because it has never before, so far as I am aware, happened that when there have been deportations of this kind the people concerned have been taken away from the responsibility and control of the Secretary of State for the Colonies. You can go back as far as you like. In the Boer War the military leaders were taken to St. Helena; in the last war the Burmese Prime Minister was taken to Kenya; the Jewish terrorists also were taken to Kenya; recently Archbishop Makarios was sent to the Seychelles. In no single case, so far as I am aware, have deportations of this kind ever been to a country not under the control of the Secretary of State and for which he has no responsibility—and, indeed, the British Government have no responsibility, for that matter. We should like an explanation of this, as it appears to us, extraordinary act.
In conclusion, we to-night obviously cannot propose any long-term conclusion, but we urge the Government to do everything in their power to restore the confidence of the Nyasaland people in Her Majesty's Government and in the express and implicit pledge for the future of the African peoples which they made when federation was imposed. We are quite sure that there can be no real solution to the problems of Nyasaland, or to those of Northern Rhodesia, which has not the whole-hearted support of the African people in those territories.
Moved, That the House do now adjourn.—[Lord Ogmore]
7.2 p.m.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, I rise for a moment to support the views which have been expressed by the noble Lord who spoke for the Opposition. I feel extremely worried about the situation in Nyasaland, because at the present time we are giving the impression, whether intentionally or not (of this I am quite certain), that we are not—to quote the words of the noble Lord, that Parliament is not—interested at the moment in the welfare of the people of Nyasaland. That seemed to be the key sentence of his speech.
When debates were going on in another place about federation I felt that the economic arguments in favour were totally convincing. I was never convinced of the political arguments. I thought, and still think, that some kind of confederation which would give all the territories

723
the economic benefits of close association, but in fact would amount to political separation, is probably the ultimate solution to this problem. All I am absolutely certain of is that Nyasaland will never accept, in the long run, government from Salisbury and if Her Majesty's Government proceed in that course then I think we are in for another mistake which is quite unnecessary. I begin to ask myself: Shall we never learn our lesson?
As the noble Lord pointed out, Nyasaland wants to continue under our protection. It is not everybody who wants to do that, but Nyasaland does. That is why I cannot help feeling that, although there have been various decisions, the most unfortunate decision of all is that the Minister of State is not to visit Nyasaland at this critical moment, when leaders of the Nyasaland Africans have been deported to, of all places. Southern Rhodesia, which I agree is absolutely crazy. It gives the impression of a total abnegation of responsibility on the part of Her Majesty's Government.
I wish to make a very strong appeal that Her Majesty's Government should reconsider their decision and accept their responsibility, and that the noble Earl, Lord Perth, should go without delay to Nyasaland and see for himself the situation, and so give the impression that we in Parliament in this country are deeply interested in the future welfare of Nyasaland. Because at the moment one has a vague feeling that we are shirking our responsibilities—and we have direct responsibilities to the Africans of Nyasaland, which is, after all, a Protectorate of this country. I will repeat one thing, if I may, before I sit down—because there is not much to be said about this subject: that if any member of Her Majesty's Government thinks we can get out of this situation by shuffling off and turning over Nyasaland to Sir Roy Welensky, he had better think again.
7.6 p.m.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, I do not think it is possible to debate the whole question of the wisdom of the Federation in a brief debate on the Adjournment, but I think it would be a pity if we did not try to see, even in this short debate, what is really the immediate issue, as I understand it, before us and before the Government
724
this evening. I am not going into the question of whether the interest of Nyasaland, the undoubted enormous economic interest of Nyasaland, justified puting Nyasaland into the Federation. There were arguments both ways.
When it is said, rather conveniently, by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, "Well, of course, we all thought that there ought to be some economic link," I would point out that that is not the question. By "some economic link" one means some trading arrangement rather like the Free Trade Area in Europe. It is said that Nyasaland sends labour into these places and ought to have some services in return. But it is not a question of a mutual trade arrangement. The advantage which Nyasaland gets out of the Federation is that she receives an enormous revenue for her social services out of the two main territories in the Federation, Northern and Southern Rhodesia. Of course, those revenues could not possibly be forthcoming for the benefit of Nyasaland unless Nyasaland was a part of the Federation. That, I think, puts the matter on a fairer basis, and I think that the noble Lord would agree. I do not say that that means we ought never to reconsider whether it is wise to have Nyasaland in the Federation. Again, I think we should be very unwise to argue that in a brief debate to-night.
The Government of this country are the trustees for these people, and it is our duty to discharge that trust to the best of our ability and in their best interests. There can be no question of any pledges which have been given and which are enshrined in the Orders in Council under the Federation Act, being abrogated. That, I am sure, is common ground to all Parties, and I do not believe that that would be sought. I should like to say this in justice: I do not think it would be sought by any except a very small minority of people in any of the territories concerned. But surely what we are concerned with to-night is the fact that there is in Nyasaland a very serious situation.
It is not Sir Roy Welensky, or the Government of the Federation, as I understand it (I shall be corrected if I am wrong), but the Governor of Nyasaland, who is the Colonial Office official there, entirely responsible to the Colonial Office, who has taken, on his own responsibility, the decision that he must declare

725
a special emergency in Nyasaland. That is his decision. It is not a decision, as I understand it, of the Federal Government at all. In so far as troops are necessary, Federal troops or Federal police are sent into Nyasaland. So far as I understand it, they would be sent in at the request of the Colonial Office Governor in Nyasaland in support of the civil power, just as if reinforcements were sent into some parts of this country in support of the civil power, it would be at the request of the local authority responsible, no doubt with the approval of the Home Secretary.
Now, that being entirely his responsibility, and there being a very serious situation, which we all very greatly regret—there has apparently been a good deal of bloodshed—I do not think for one moment that we should blame the Governor for declaring an emergency, Very often it is wise to declare an emergency in good time. Very often it prevents bloodshed; and some of the most humane and successful administrators of the past were those who took action before the situation got out of hand. As I understand it, it is the Governor who has proscribed and arrested these persons. Dr. Banda and others, and certainly I would trust the man on the spot. The Governor would be sympathetic to the Nyasaland point of view, and he would not have arrested those people and sent them out of the country if he had not believed that they were responsible for inciting to disorder and bloodshed. The tragedy of situations like this, when they arise, my Lords, is surely this. Whilst it is easy to agitate, and easy to make speeches, unfortunately it so often happens that the people who suffer, who riot and are shot down, and who are then suppressed, are not the people who made the speeches. Those people, very often, either get removed into safety or, equally often, when things get hot, make for safety.
I hope that nothing will be said in this House to-night to suggest that, when a grave situation of that kind arises, it is not the duty of the Governor on the spot, and the Government, to discharge the first of the functions and duties of Government; that is the maintenance of law and order. In any case, I feel that somebody should raise a voice and say that if, in a difficult situation, the Governor thinks
726
that such steps are necessary, then the Governor ought to be supported. If at any moment it is thought by the Governor—who, I am sure, will take the fullest consultation with the Colonial Secretary—that it is wise for the Minister of State to visit this country, I have not the least doubt he will say so; and have not the least doubt that in that event the Minister of State will go there. My Lords, I have said as much as I have, having regard to the views which have been expressed, because I think it is right that we should try to-night to see things in a little fairer proportion and avoid corning to final judgments.
7.14 p.m.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, I want to make a few brief comments about the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, and the speech of the noble Lord behind me, Lord Boothby. This adjournment debate is no time to talk at length on this subject. There may possibly be a more general debate later on in this Session or the next—I rather hope so myself; there is so much to discuss in connection with the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland. But I want to put my finger on one or two facts, because I cannot agree with all the remarks that have been made.
The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, said quite definitely that Nyasaland wants to remain under the Colonial Office. Well, that was true at the time of the Federal Constitution in 1953. They would have preferred, generally speaking, I think, to remain under the Colonial Office at that time. But it is no longer true, and let us not be mistaken about that—and especially since Dr. Hastings Banda went to Nyasaland. What they are asking for is self-government and independence—not under the Colonial Office at all. Even two years ago, when I was there and was having lunch with some of the African members of the Legislative Council—they are all members of the National Congress—they made it quite clear to me that they want to be another Ghana. There is no question of their wanting at this stage of their development to remain under the Colonial Office, and I think that that idea should be corrected now.
The second thing is in regard to the other Congresses mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore. He referred to the Southern Rhodesia African National

727
Congress as being very strong. It is nothing of the sort: it is extremely weak. Up to last year it did not exist. Years ago there was a branch at Bulawayo, and another at Salisbury, but they collapsed for lack of support and lack of the ability to criticise the Government of Mr. Garfield Todd; and they died a natural death.
LORD OGMORE: May I ask the noble Lord—and I am grateful to him for sitting down—why, if it is so weak, has the Government banned it, and why has it arrested and detained 200 of its leaders? It does not seem to be a very weak organisation.
LORD HASTINGS: I am just coming to that point. It was revived last year, based on the Bulawayo branch, and Mr. Nyandoro became President. It has made considerable progress in the last few months, largely as a result of liaison with Dr. Banda in Nyasaland; and the Southern Rhodesian Government, far from being "panic-struck" (which is an epithet which has been attached to them in, I think, another place), has taken the very wise precaution of not underestimating the damage that 200 fanatical organisers can perpetrate in an otherwise peaceful economy. It has happened elsewhere, and they simply are not prepared to take the risk. Southern Rhodesians are not in the least the sort of people who would get panic-stricken. I can think of few peoples who have a more complete faith in their future destiny, a more complete lack of fear of the way in which they will achieve it, and a more complete certainty as to the way in which they are achieving their destiny, whether it be political, economic, or anything else. They are not a people who get into a panic at all: they know exactly what they are doing. Sir Edgar Whitehead, who took the decision to arrest these people, is, in the opinion of Mr. Garfield Todd himself (who needs no introduction to your Lordships), a liberal person, and there is no question of his having taken an action from panic motives or reactionary motives.
Coming now to Northern Rhodesia, I would point out that there are two Congresses there: there is the original one under Harry Nkumbula, and the one which split off from that, the Zambia
728
one, under Kenneth Kaunde. He was previously Nkumbula's secretary, but they quarrelled. Far from speaking in favour of the strength of the Congresses in Northern Rhodesia, it on the other hand points to their essential weakness. Following upon that, I would merely mention the opinion of Sir John Moffat—who, after all, was responsible for the Moffat resolutions when he was in the Legislative Council of Northern Rhodesia, and who subsequently became chairman of the African Affairs Board. He has now resigned from that and has formed the new African Party with Mr. Garfield Todd. Sir John Moffat was one of the outstanding Liberals in the country and was also one of those most closely in touch with the African Federation. It is his opinion that 90 per cent. of the Africans—and I am not at all sure one could not say 99 per cent. but I have not got the exact quotation with me; the debate has taken place at short notice—are perfectly willing to co-operate with the Europeans, so long as they are treated well and can be sure of a gradual and steady advance politically as well as economically; it is only the small minority of the nationalists and political fanatics who are stirring up these people to demand more than they would be perfectly satisfied with. That is the opinion of Sir John Moffat.
LORD OGMORE: Is not Sir John Moffat also saying that in fact they are perfectly content with that state of affairs so long as Northern Rhodesia is under the Colonial Office?
LORD HASTINGS: I am afraid I cannot reply to that specific point immediately, but it was in a debate on racial relations within the Federation as a whole about a year ago, or rather less, that he made that statement, and I think it is worth recalling to your Lordships.
I rather take up arms, so to speak, with the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, because I do not think it is at all true to say that the Nyasas think Parliament is not interested in Nyasaland. I do not see where he gets that point of view. After all, Nyasaland has always been promised a review of its Constitution by 1959. I do not know where the idea came from that it was going to occur before that; it was not my impression when I was there two years ago.
LORD BOOTHBY: Perhaps I may interrupt to explain that what I was trying to say was that the implication which might be drawn from the decision that the Minister of State should not go there was that Parliament was losing interest in Nyasaland. I do not say that it has happened; I do not want it to happen.
LORD HASTINGS: I appreciate that explanation, but at the same time the Nyasas knew perfectly well that discussions have been going on now for many months between the Colonial Government and all races and all Parties in Nyasaland as to the sort of Constitution that might be worked out; and the visit of the Minister was, in fact, to finalise those discussions and try to come to some final conclusion. Therefore, I do not think there is any excuse for their saying that Parliament was not taking an interest in Nyasaland. There may be good reason why my noble friend the Minister should not be deflected from going, and why these discussions should continue, now that law and order apparently has been restored—or I trust is about to be restored. But I am sure that there is no impression in Nyasaland that there is a lack of interest at this end.
Again, I do not know why the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, spoke in those terms of Southern Rhodesia—and the same note rather crept into the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore. I think the first thing to get clear is that Nyasaland has no right to blame Southern Rhodesia for what has happened in Nyasaland since federation; and it is just as well to be clear also that Southern Rhodesia did not, in fact, want Nyasaland originally to come into the Federation—Lord Malvern has said that publicly. It is probably in the records of the discussions that went on before federation, but he certainly has stated that publicly since in the Federal Assembly in Salisbury. So do not, in the first place, blame Southern Rhodesia for dragging Nyasaland in; and please do not blame Southern. Rhodesia for everything that goes wrong in Nyasaland, because what has happened in Southern Rhodesia has had little influence on developments in Nyasaland: it has been used as a scapegoat by the rabid nationalists in Nyasaland only to enable them to make these speeches and to frighten people
730
about what will happen to them if the wicked Southern Rhodesians ever get control.
Pledges have been given frequently by Her Majesty's Government, and I cannot think there can be any doubt that the territorial Governments are going to remain territorial and are not going to be handed over to an independent Dominion until a majority of the inhabitants wish it. I think those pledges were given, and they have been given again to-day, and I do not see any reason why they should be doubted. I wanted to make these few remarks only to try to get one or two facts quite accurate, and also to decry any attempt to put the blame anywhere where it is not deserved. We have to deal with the problem in Nyasaland as we find it, and not look outside to Southern Rhodesia, or in any way blame Sir Roy Welensky—and again the noble Lord behind me, I regret to say, with regard to Sir Roy Welensky, spoke as if he were a sort of man-eating ogre.
LORD BOOTHBY: No, no!
LORD HASTINGS: That was my impression, at any rate. I hope that no attempt will be made to fasten that sort of label on either him or the Southern Rhodesians. I would merely say that I am sure the right action has been taken to avoid bloodshed before the situation gets out of hand. We have not acted in other places soon enough, and we have seen the results. I think it is wise both of the Southern Rhodesians and of the Colonial Government in Nyasaland to put a foot down firmly before it is too late. I do not despair unduly of the situation, so long as Her Majesty's Government handle it firmly and fairly and produce a new Constitution for Nyasaland, on reasonably liberal lines, in the near future.
7.28 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, will forgive me if I do not follow him in his line of thought this evening. I rise particularly to ask a number of questions of Her Majesty's Government in regard to the events of the past few days in Nyasaland. But before doing that, I should like to refer to the speech that has been made by the noble Earl, Lord Swinton. He made a plea that no speech this evening should create greater difficulty in Nyasaland. I am sure we shall all agree with

731
that view, and I do not think the noble Earl would in any way be critical of the action of my noble friend Lord Ogmore in moving the Adjournment of the House this evening.
The noble Earl, Lord Swinton, has, I believe, a particular interest in the events now taking place in Southern Rhodesia, Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia. It fell to the noble Earl, when he was Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, on April 1, 1953, to wind-up a debate on a Motion moved by my noble friend Lord Noel-Buxton. In his speech then I think he made a definite pledge on behalf of the Government. He said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 181, col. 487]:
"To-day in Central Africa we have the opportunity that comes, if we are lucky, once in a lifetime. We should be faithless to our trust if we did not seize that opportunity. We should stand condemned in history, condemned in our own consciences and condemned in no long time by those for whom we hold the trust. We will not play them false. Let us go forward resolutely and confidently, discharge our trust and establish the partnership, the harmony."
My Lords, have we established trust? Have we established harmony? The events of the last few days show clearly that the high hopes of the noble Earl and the Government have failed.
The question I wish to ask the Government this evening is whether the situation in Nyasaland on Sunday and Monday was such that it was necessary to declare a state of emergency. It is true that the Government of Southern Rhodesia had felt it necessary to declare such a state of emergency in their own territory, but I believe it was on Monday that the Governor of Nyasaland was reported at a Press conference to have stated that in his opinion the circumstances did not warrant a state of emergency.
I do not propose discussing the question of Mr. Stonehouse this evening, but it is relevant in that, in the view of the Government of Rhodesia, Mr. Stonehouse was potentially a troublemaker, and that his visit to Nyasaland might create grave threats to life and property. On March 2 Sir Robert Armitage, the Governor of Nyasaland, said that he would be prepared to give all facilities to Mr. Stone-house. He said that the Rhodesian Federal Government's declaration that Mr. Stonehouse was a prohibited immigrant had nothing to do with him, and
732
he had not been consulted. The Governor was then asked whether, if Mr. Stone-house arrived in Nyasaland the next day, he would hand him over to the authorities. "Well, wait and see," he replied. He said that he had received a copy of Mr. Stonehouse's itinerary. and had written him offering him his assistance. That was on March 2. So far as Southern Rhodesia was concerned, Mr. Stonehouse was a troublemaker; yet here we find practically an invitation by the Governor of Nyasaland to Mr. Stonehouse: "Come to Nyasaland, and I will give you all possible facilities." If a state of emergency was being considered in Nyasaland on that day, it seems extremely strange to me that the Governor should have made such a statement.
The question I must ask Her Majesty's Government is this: What changed the Governor's attitude towards an emergency? Was it through pressure from Southern Rhodesia? Was it pressure direct? If it was, did the Governor consult Her Majesty's Government, and did Her Majesty's Government give approval? Or did the Governor receive instructions from the Colonial Office? If he did, was it through pressure or because an appeal was made by the Government in Southern Rhodesia? These are very important questions. The whole situation changed in only a matter of hours and I think we are entitled to know why on Sunday the Governor did not believe that a state of emergency was necessary, and then, within twenty-four hours, felt it necessary to declare an emergency.
LORD HASTINGS: If I may interrupt the noble Lord, do I follow from his argument that he is trying to tie up the state of emergency with the visit of Mr. Stonehouse? I do not see that the two things are necessarily connected. From the point of view of the Governor, in his particular situation, there was no reason why, because there was to be a state of emergency in Nyasaland, Mr. Stonehouse should not be admitted.
LORD SHEPHERD: I am sorry that the noble Lord did not follow me. I was trying to show that, in the view of the Governor of Nyasaland on Monday—that is, yesterday—he was prepared to accept the so-called troublemaker. If he was prepared to do that, the situation could not have been so serious that a state of emergency was necessary. That is why I

733
have brought in Mr. Stonehouse. I do not want to discuss his problem, but I want to use it as evidence about the situation prevailing in Nyasaland on Sunday and Monday, and ask why the situation has changed.
I wish to support my noble friend Lord Ogmore in his remarks on the case of Dr. Banda and his colleagues. I cannot understand the mentality of some people who have agreed to deporting these African representatives to Southern Rhodesia. Was it done after consultation with Her Majesty's Government? Did they approve?
LORD OGMORE: It must have been.
LORD SHEPHERD: My noble friend says, "It must have been". But I do not know. I therefore ask Her Majesty's Government, in view of the fact that Dr. Banda and his colleagues are British-protected subjects, that they be removed from the custody of Southern Rhodesia and brought back under British protection. I should think that in the interests of peace in Nyasaland the quicker that is done the better. I will close by making an appeal to the noble Earl, Lord Perth, to try to show to the African people that, if they do not wish to remain in the Central African Federation. Her Majesty's Government will remove them and bring them back under the protection of the Colonial Office.
7.38 p.m.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, at this stage and at this short notice it is obviously out of the question to discuss the whole subject of the Federation. We spent many Parliamentary hours on that matter five or six years ago. We are discussing the ominous shadow of violence beginning in the Protectorate of Nyasaland, and the first thing I should like to ask the Government is this. In the statement which was made this afternoon it is said that there were such clear indications of the intention of Congress to stir up further disturbances involving widespread violence and murder of Europeans, Asians and moderate African leaders, that the Governor was compelled this morning to declare a state of emergency. My noble friend Lord Shepherd has pointed out some of the strange features of this decision which was come to this morning. I should like to ask the Government what evidence there was that the Congress were planning widespread violence and murder of Europeans,
734
Asians and moderate African leaders. Did any clear evidence of that reach the authorities, or is it merely surmise on the part of the Government—merely corroborative detail intended to supply artistic verisimilitude to an otherwise bald statement? When statements like that are made by the Government, we must assume that there is substance behind them, and we should like confirmation that there is actual evidence that those were the intentions of the Congress leaders.
So far as actual violence is concerned, I suggest that we should keep a sense of proportion. There were riots. There was at the little lakeshore town of Karonga an attempt to release prisoners, interference with the little airstrip there, and further north on the border at Fort Hill there were fairly large-scale rioting crowds that prevented the use of the aerodrome; and there were further riots in other parts. But riots have often occurred in colonial territories before now and they have not all led to the declaration of a state of emergency. That suggests that the situation has been bedevilled all along by the deep distrust felt by all the Africans of Nyasaland of anything coming from Salisbury. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, that rule from Salisbury by Southern Rhodesians will never be accepted willingly by the majority of the people of Nyasaland.
With regard to this question of who is responsible for riots, we are almost invariably told that riots or popular feeling are the work of outside influences, agitators, extremists and so on, who lead the poor gullible people. I think some of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, rather contradicted that idea. He said that the people of Nyasaland knew all about the constitutional talks that had been going on between the Governor in Zomba and the Colonial Office. If the people of Nyasaland are as politically alive and acutely conscious as that, I cannot see that they are going to be led away against their will and better judgment by outside agitators. This is an old story that is always brought in to explain popular agitation; that it is the people who are led away by agitators. There is even a suggestion now that the agitators get their inspiration from somewhere right outside the Federation.

735
I do not think it is necessary to go to those lengths to explain the deep feeling that exists and I know existed three or four years ago when federation was imminent. The most moderate Africans felt profoundly distrustful of their future if they were to be under the rule of the Southern Rhodesians. Nyasaland had for a long time been in racial matters almost a model Colony. There were inter-racial associations; things went on there that could never happen in Southern Rhodesia. There were football and hockey matches between white and black teams. There were black civil servants well above the ordinary clerical grade. There were men in responsible positions in the Post Office and on the railways. There was, in fact, a rice growers co-operative (which I visited) on a very large scale in the Karonga neighbourhood, which was staffed entirely by Africans, with a few Asians. Nyasaland was well advanced and race relations were extremely good. What they saw and what they knew of the Rhodesian attitude to race relations was the cause of this bitter opposition that they felt to the idea of federation. As for economic advantages, it is surely well enough known by now that the spirit of nationalism takes no account of economic advantages. We may think it foolish, but if people think they are not going to be treated as equal citizens with white people they will starve and they will not regard comfort and economic prosperity as a substitute.
So we come back to the responsibility Her Majesty's Government bear for this situation. I believe the long delay in giving Nyasaland constitutional advance has been one of the factors in keeping the underlying hostility to federation alive. Nyasaland has lagged a long way behind Northern Rhodesia in its political structure. That is all the more reason why we believe that the visit of the noble Earl, Lord Perth, far from being cancelled owing to these events, should most certainly have been carried through, and we still believe that that is the best thing that Her Majesty's Government could do to ease the situation and to do what we all in the short run want, which is to prevent further violence.
7.45 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I do not want to wait and take an unfair advantage
736
after the Government have made a statement, and I said this afternoon, in suggesting talking on the adjournment, that I would say a few words myself. I am most grateful to my noble friend, Lord Ogmore, for the manner in which he opened this discussion this evening, and I think the whole debate has been conducted upon quite reasonable and logical lines, in view of the state of emergency. I do not think the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, would wish to take exception to what I have said in that respect. Nevertheless I want to say this: that when I had the advantage, through the courtesy of the noble Earl, of seeing and reading the statement a few minutes before it was made in your Lordships' House, I was at once seized of the seriousness of the situation. I could not help but wonder, as my noble friends have been wondering to-night, exactly how this sudden state of emergency had been declared. The first five or six sentences of the statement indicated how much the position really had been taken in hand. Then all of a sudden, immediately after that, comes this statement that a state of emergency had been declared and that leading members of the Congress, including Dr. Banda, had been detained and removed out of the Protectorate to Southern Rhodesia.
I do not want to speak at any length, but first of all I would say that I am very glad that the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, intervened in the debate. He knows a great deal about the constitutional issues involved. I did not take part in the debates myself, but when the Opposition were taking their proper part in Parliamentary debate on the 1953 Act, the noble Earl repeatedly had to deal with points which he felt needed a reply by way of assurance, and over and over again pledges were given. I am not in any way casting any reflection on the noble Earl.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: I said I was sure we all stood by those pledges.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I just want to call them to the minds of the existing Ministers, because they are vastly important. In column 552 of the OFFICIAL REPORT for July 13, 1953 [Vol. 183], the noble Earl said:
"We are all pledged to maintain the Protectorate status of Nyasaland and of such parts of the Rhodesias as are under protection; and we are also committed to seeing

737
that these Governments remain responsible for the political advancement of these territories. That is common ground between us. The only question—and we need not get hot under the collar about it—is, what is the best way of doing it."
If I may take another extract, the noble Earl said (columns 554 and 555)
"Believe me, there is no doubt, here or in Africa, among those who have read and who understand this scheme, what the intentions of Her Majesty's Government are, what are the powers under federation, what are the limitations under federation. There is not the faintest question of the Federal Government or the Federal Assembly impinging upon the Protectorate status or attempting to deal with any question of amalgamation."
I think that the noble Earl would agree that I have picked out the right pledges that had to be given at that time, and were given.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: Yes; and, if I may say so, they were always accepted throughout the negotiations with Northern and Southern Rhodesia and Nyasaland during the conferences. These were not pledges which were extracted from the Government during the debate; they were a vital and an integral part of the whole Federation structure.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I agree. I am much obliged. On this point the noble Earl and myself seem to be in complete agreement. What I ant anxious about is how it is that the position in Nyasaland has so severely changed the minds of the people there. I listened with great interest to the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, because Whenever he addresses the House he speaks with knowledge and a widespread experience, which is not only mental but geographical—he travels and he knows the places. But I am bound to say that the impression left upon our Bench when he had finished speaking and giving us the benefit of his experiences, was to prove to us that the change had taken place since 1953, and may well have been due to the fear that had developed in the minds of the people, which was the one thing that the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, was anxious to avoid happening by giving the pledges that he gave willingly on behalf of the whole Government at that time. All that the speech of the noble Lord amounted to was that it is only since 1953 that things have gone wrong.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, I think that the noble Viscount is right in saying that fears have increased. I only pleaded with the House not to blame Southern Rhodesia for the increase of those fears. The mere fact of fearing future federation would be sufficient to increase these fears if they were not damped right at the start. But there have also been outside influences which have become markedly on the increase in the last year, stemming from Dr. Hastings Banda's arrival, the Accra Conference and the general unrest in Africa as a whole. All those things have conspired to make any agitation in Nyasaland that much more effective and more easy for the agitators.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Well, I point to the fact that these things did not appear before the 1953 legislation was passed, and that a good many other things have occurred in the Rhodesias and Nyasaland since then.
If one just follows the reports of the different Parties, their statements and speeches from Southern Rhodesia, as well as from Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland, one knows how the divisions have arisen. And behind the fears of Nyasaland lie this thought: that if in 1960 (which is the year which I think the noble Earl ought to have mentioned, rather than 1959) they are pushed into a position in which they lose the real protection they have enjoyed throughout the years since their chiefs sought British protection, then they will be far worse off than they are now. Of course, I admit that in this moving world, scientifically and mentally, it is certain that there will be populations who will keep on struggling for independence. I am quite sure of that. I am not leaving out that factor at all; nor that there may be agitations and conferences, meetings and things of that kind used to promote that feeling. But when one listens to the people who have been there, not so much from the Government point of view, but from a social and even from an educational point of view, and to their summarising of the views of the people in Nyasaland, then one is left convinced of the fact that the fear I speak of is there—the fear that they will lose the one great advantage of British protection and British help towards preparing them for and, finally, granting them their own

739
political freedom, as they have seen happening in other places.
The noble Lord said something about other cases that have gone before: that when troubles have arisen we have been too late in acting. It seemed to me, in the circumstances in which he was speaking, that he meant that we did not take military action early enough. Nobody wants to prevent, or to speak against, the proper steps being taken to have civil order in the State, because if you are without protection such as enforced civil law for the general population, then you are in a much more difficult and dangerous situation in that community. But let us, as members of a British Parliament, admit in our minds that in practically every case which must have been in the mind of the noble Lord in the past we have had to shake hands even with murder, before, finally, coming to the situation of granting constitutional freedom and development such as we might have done long before without all the troubles arising.
It seems to me, therefore, that when my noble friend Lord Ogmore opened this debate to-night he had in mind what we all feel so much on this side of the House—and I am sure the feeling must be shared, as the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, indicated, by many on the other side of the House. What we need, of course, is to get law and order restored out there in the quickest way we can, and certainly to regain the confidence of the majority of the Africans that the pledges made by the British Government will be carried out, so that they can look forward to developments, with sound, reasonable Constitutions, each one of those Constitutions for a different country that still has to be dealt with in the African area, which will enable them to expand and evolve into something really worthwhile. They must have a hope and a faith which will carry them on.
That is why, at the present time, with these doubts in the minds of the people of Nyasaland, we think it is a pity that' the Minister of State is not there. I feel sure that it will be said that we are advised that in the present state of lack of law and order it is not the right thing to go on. Well, that may be so—I do not know. I must hear what the Government have to say about it. But I feel sure that my noble friend Lord Ogmore
740
was right in saying that if the noble Earl the Minister of State were now sent out to the spot he could do a great deal of good, especially if he carried with him the right message from the British Government to bring confidence back to the people there.
On the other matter which I raised in my Private Notice Question to-day, on which I do not want to expound at any length this evening, I would say only that that Question comes as the result of Mr. Stonehouse, the Member of Parliament for the Wednesbury Division in this country, being. I understand, forcibly deported from Northern Rhodesia. I am not going to argue the merits or demerits of anything in which Mr. Stonehouse may have been engaged out there: so far as I know, he was on what is generally described as a fact-finding mission. But I am bound to say that, however this has been done, and whatever the circumstances, it is not the best augury for the future development of the Commonwealth, which we all love so much. When racial troubles arise here, we in this country at least have common sense when people of extreme views immediately advocate that we should deport. If a Member of the British House of Commons can be deported, apparently without evidence and without a trial of any description, one is bound to ask what is to be the future demand in this or any other of the Commonwealth countries in regard to the action that shall be taken when the head of some particular Government happens to disagree with us.
I believe that that is a very serious state of affairs, and that is why I suggested this afternoon that it is certainly not calculated to expand the belief and confidence of the African people in the British method of Parliamentary government and practice; and I earnestly hope that something can be done by Her Majesty's Government to find out the facts, now that it has gone so far. I know Mr. Stonehouse. He is a Co-operator and a member of my Co-operative Party. He is not an ignoramus. He is quite an educated person. He may have been wrong or he may have been right in something that he has done; but, this step having been taken, I believe that we ought to know what are the facts.
In conclusion I would say this: if we can help at any time to promote or aid

741
whatever Government is in power to restore confidence to the African people we shall be only too glad to do so. We ought always to remember, in all our different stages of discussion and thought, that they are entitled just like anybody else to every condition set out in the Declaration of Human Rights; and we ought to make sure that in all we are doing, saying and negotiating we stand on that principle.
8.3 p.m.
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, I believe we all welcome the debate, although it has come at very short notice. I certainly do so because it will give me an opportunity to remove one or two misconceptions or clear up one or two points which certainly at this moment do not appear at all clear. I have been wondering how best I could help the House in this debate. Perhaps I might first go back a little in history and show that what has culminated in the state of emergency is no sudden happening but is rather the end—an unhappy end—of a long and premeditated campaign.
Over the last months, if not longer, there have been constant cases of members of the Congress Party deliberately flouting authority. They have been doing that up and down Nyasaland to such a degree that a number of the simple African people have begun to wonder who, in fact, is in authority in Nyasaland—whether it is the Congress or the Government. Those members of Congress have been flouting authority, not just over such flatters as paying taxes, which might be serious enough, but in other ways, such as refusing to follow the regulations in regard to soil erosion or other matters which are clearly for their benefit. They have said that they will not do so because the leaders and advisers of the Congress have told them not to bother; that soon Congress will be in charge and that they need worry no more. That has happened despite the fact that many of these arrangements have been obviously for their own benefit. A great number of chiefs and Africans in different parts of Nyasaland were very worried about this state of affairs. They may or may not have had sympathy for certain of the things for which Congress stood, but it was quite clear that they were not behind this flouting of authority and the disorders which were going on up and down the country. It was becom-
742
ing very important that they should see that while the Governor ruled he was the ruler.
Having given that as a general background, I will come quickly to what has happened over the last three weeks. I am afraid that I have not had time to get the detailed story. Now the hour is late and much of it will be in your Lordships' minds because we have seen a great deal reported in the Press; so let me go to February 20. On that day there were fairly serious riots in one or two places, particularly in the Northern Province where crowds were trying to rescue prisoners from a gaol. It was on that day that the aerodrome at Fort Hill was occupied by crowds and put out of use. On that day the Governor decided that he wanted help from outside, and he asked for police and troops from Northern Rhodesia. Also on that day the Chief Secretary, Mr. Footman, saw Dr. Banda and said to him: "You know that we are proposing to have constitutional talks very shortly and that Lord Perth is coming out for that purpose. Clearly, if these disturbances go on, constitutional talks cannot be held in an atmosphere of that kind, so will you please restrain your followers and leave the situation such that the talks can continue?"
For a day or two things were a little quieter and there was some hope that perhaps all was going to be well; but then the troubles started again very seriously. They began with bad incidents on February 22 and others on February 24. Here I must say to the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, that I have a sense of proportion about these incidents. They were very serious. They were often the cause of loss of life and many injuries as well. I have here details of a case which took place at Chigmaru where a crowd wanted to rescue two prisoners. They refused to disperse. Four shots were fired and one person was killed and two others wounded. Things of that kind had been going on in greater or lesser degree in many parts, and the situation was very serious.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, the noble Earl has said that there was often loss of life, but I do not recollect that that appeared in the Press. Can he say what the casualties amounted to during that week?
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, I, cannot give the exact figures of the casualties during that week, but if I am wrong and there was not a great number of people killed there were at any rate some killed and a good many injured. The situation was one in which law and order was in jeopardy. At that moment it was becoming very clear that we were losing control. After all, I think one must realise that when the Fort Hill aerodrome was out of action it was out of action because we could not get there and put it right again, and that was a state of affairs which lasted for about a week. Again, about the 27th or 28th the Governor felt he must have further help, and he asked for the Royal Rhodesian Regiment from Southern Rhodesia and also for some contingents from the British South African police, and these were all forthcoming. I think we owe a particular, debt of gratitude to Southern Rhodesia for their readiness to help the Governor and provide these forces for the restoration of law and order at such a time. People somehow seem to think Southern Rhodesians have run all this affair. I assure your Lordships that they have not. It is the Governor who is responsible.
We reached a stage at that moment when it was quite clear that things were continuing very, very tense. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, quoted something out of a paper about how the Governor said on Sunday that things were all right; there was no need to have any emergency regulations. All I can say is, "Do not believe all you read in the papers." We took the trouble to ask the Governor by cable what in fact he did say in that respect, and I think it might be useful if I quote his reply. He said:
"I can tell you at once"—
and these are his opening remarks to the Press—
"that we intend to re-create conditions of law and order so that the life of the country can go on as usual in peaceful circumstances. We also intend to arrest those people who have committed offences and created disorders. Exactly what we are going to do I naturally cannot reveal to you, and I would not expect you to press me on this.
"I refused to answer"—
he goes on—
"any other questions on future actions, and was not really pressed to do so."
That is the Governor's own report of his conversations of Sunday. So I think we
744
should all agree that very often in such circumstances the Press should not be believed. I would only ask the noble Lord and others who have seen that to compare what was said in one or two papers with the report in the Manchester Guardian, which is often very factual on such matters.
The situation was extremely serious, and while I am not going—I am sure that the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, would not expect me to go—into detail about the intimations we had of real threats and violence that lay ahead, I am sure he will accept that the Governor, weighing all of this up, came to a conclusion, and he came to it not after Sunday but after a long period of time, with the full knowledge and approval of the Government, whom he consulted. But in the last analysis, even then, we always leave it to the man on the spot to take the decision. I should not like it to be thought that we did not do so in this case. I would merely say that we knew about it and we had complete confidence that in doing it when he did he was absolutely right.
A question which has arisen again and again to-night and which I should like to clear up is why many of these detainees have been sent to Southern Rhodesia. First let me say that that was the Governor's decision. I am quite clear why he took that decision. He took that decision because in his own territory the situation was so grave and we had already seen two or three cases of what happened when there were prisoners in Nyasaland. There were riots and loss of life, and clearly at a moment like this to have the prisoners in Nyasaland might well lead to further disturbance; and so they were sent to Southern Rhodesia. I think it is very important to make clear that although they are sent to Southern Rhodesia, the Governor, who is responsible for law and order in his territory in Nyasaland, will also decide when these prisoners, these detainees, should be released or what should happen to them. They are not—I repeat, not—taken away from his control.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, may I raise just a small point? Is it not true that under the Constitution it is the Federal Government that have power to

745
govern the movements between the various States? Is there no fear that that power might be evoked to prevent Dr. Banda and his colleagues from returning to Nyasaland when the situation has quietened?
THE EARL OF PERTH: No, I have no such fear. I think we should realise that in all of this matter the three territories have co-operated very closely and most valuably, each one to help the other who is in a difficulty.
There have been several requests that Her Majesty's Government should say something more on the pledges in relation to the 1953 Act. I do not believe that there is really much more that I can add to what I said earlier to-day. I would emphasise just once more that we accept the Act in its entirety—not just one bit or the other, but we accept the Act in its entirety. A certain number of noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Boothby, spoke about the constitutional future, whether Nyasaland should still be in the Federation and so forth. I think with the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, that it is not really appropriate to-night to talk on this subject. What we are talking about or have been discussing is the question of the emergency and all that flows from it.
Lastly, many noble Lords have asked that a Queen's Minister should soon go to Nyasaland. I would say this: that clearly the timing of when he goes must in some degree, or perhaps in every degree, depend on what the Governor himself thinks is the appropriate time. He knows our anxiety. He also is anxious that somebody should go out as soon as possible. But there are times for every-
746
thing, and if one went too soon while these troubles are going on it might do a great deal more harm than good. I can only say that even if there is not the question of having any constitutional talks, I am sure that the Government will consider most earnestly when somebody can go out, and I know that the noble Earl my Leader who will be here when I am already in East Africa will bear the debates and the representations of various noble Lords on this point.
I would finish by joining with the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, in emphasising the importance of law and order and the need above all else to get that re-established. If we can get that re-established, then I entirely agree with him again that the next and most important thing is to regain the confidence of the Africans. Although I should not like it to be thought that there are not already a lot of Africans who have confidence in us, there are others who are worried, or may be worried; and clearly we have a job to try to regain their confidence as soon as we can. The noble Viscount referred to Mr. Stonehouse. I know that the noble Earl my Leader will, as soon as he has any further information, bear in mind the anxieties of the noble Viscount and will keep him closely informed. So, my Lords, there we are. This state of emergency is something none of us likes, but the decision was not a sudden decision taken overnight. It was the only way to crush what was, as we saw it, a deliberate plot, running over a period of time, to flout law and order, and to have resort to any means to that end—and that is something which I know none of us will tolerate.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and House adjourned accordingly at twenty minutes past eight o'clock.