Lords Sitting of 7 December 1961

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of St. Albans

MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN
3.5 p.m.
THE EARL OF SCARBROUGH: My Lords, I have the honour to present to your Lordships a message from Her Majesty The Queen, signed by her own hand:
"I have received your Address praying that the Summertime (1962) Order, 1961, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament. I will comply with your request."

HER MAJESTY'S RETURN FROM WEST AFRICAN TOUR
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, it is my duty to move in the terms of the Motion on the Paper that an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, assuring Her Majesty of the loyal and affectionate welcome of this House to Her Majesty, on the occasion of Her return from Her tour of West Africa with His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh.
My Lords, the Queen is home: home, safe and well, from a strenuous tour in which she has once more won the hearts and affections of all the peoples she has visited—this time, Ghana, where she paid her visit, deferred two years ago before the birth of Prince Andrew; Sierra Leone, now newly independent; Liberia, foreign but friendly soil; Gambia, still, and still proud to be, a territory under the British flag. My Lords, Prince Philip has gone on to Tanganyika, and in congratulating Her Majesty on a successful tour, I know your Lordships would expect me to extend those congratulations to him, and to wish him all success and a safe return.
160
The last time this Motion was moved —in 1956, I think—my noble friend Lord Home said:
"Her Majesty's radiant vitality converts every occasion into a festival of joy."
Her Majesty always does this. But each time, the extent of her success warms our hearts anew. My Lords, this should be seen as a personal triumph for Her Majesty and Prince Philip. But after all the anxieties which were expressed before Her Majesty went away, I think there is something less formal that I would wish to say to-day. The success of the tour shows us in a peculiar degree how much respect we owe to Her Majesty's sense of duty and occasion. Occasionally something happens which makes us feel quite poignantly how much the Queen means to us both personally and as the wearer of the Crown under whose majesty we dwell in peace together. For this reason I do not myself regret that the tour, which has now concluded so happily, was the occasion of anxious thought before it began. I was one of those who never doubted the duty of Her Majesty's servants to advise her to undertake the task she has so brilliantly performed. But the fact that on this occasion the question was asked, and had to be answered, made us realise all the more clearly two facts which perhaps we take too much for granted.
The first is that the Crown is not merely an appanage of the United Kingdom. Her Majesty is Queen and Head of the Commonwealth, very much a Queen, and none the less so because by tradition she takes the advice of Her Ministers. Therefore, they, in advising her, must remember what they owe to her as Queen and as trustees not only for our people here but for all who look to her for inspiration and leadership. The second is that in tendering advice and in taking responsibility, as they do, Ministers must never fail to pay their personal tribute to Her Majesty's own sense of what becomes herself and is appropriate to her royal dignity and honour. My Lords whatever we may have felt, she never doubted, and it is as well that people should know and admire the extent of her own unflinching wisdom and sagacity.
My Lords, Her Majesty is with us again. For myself and for all your Lordships I think I may say with renewed

161
loyalty and service, God save The Queen! I beg to move.
Moved, That an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, assuring Her Majesty of the loyal and affectionate welcome of this House to Her Majesty, on the occasion of Her return from Her tour of West Africa with His Royal Highness, the Duke of Edinburgh.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I can assure the noble and learned Viscount who moved this Motion, and the House, of the complete and enthusiastic support for it from this side of the House. We recognise that Her Majesty has had a most strenuous tour and one which, in the circumstances, might have deterred many people. The noble and learned Viscount has referred to the different countries the Queen has visited; and the fact that she has paid all those visits within such a short time has, of course, added very much to the strenuousness of the tour. We are delighted that it has been, as we know, a great success. It has brought Her Majesty close to the hearts and the minds of the people of the different countries, and when they talk about Great Britain and the mother country, I think the fact of Her Majesty's visit and of their having seen her at first hand and at close quarters will bring this country much nearer to them than it has been as an abstraction.
The noble and learned Viscount said that he never had any doubts as to the desirability of this visit. Some doubts were expressed. I can tell him that certainly my noble friends and I never had any doubts as to the desirability of it. We admire the Queen for having undertaken it with all the doubts that had been expressed, but we ourselves felt that it was the right thing and we are very glad that she undertook it. We should like to congratulate her on her safe return and to express our very great thankfulness both for this and for the success of the visit.
3.13 p.m
LORD REA: My Lords, I rise from these Benches to support very wholeheartedly on behalf of my colleagues and myself this humble Address of loyal and affectionate welcome. In the last century, in which a number of your Lordships were doubtless horn, it would, I suggest, have been unsuitable, if not unthinkable, to present to the Monarch of that day an Address which described
162
our sentiments not only as "loyal" but as "affectionate". Such an expression, I suggest, would doubtless have been considered derogatory to the majesty of the Monarchy, and as savouring of disrespect and even of levity. But to-day the inclusion of the word affectionate "is indicative of the even greater regard and value in which we hold our Sovereign, and the recent absence of Her Majesty from this country has, I believe, brought two particular sentiments to the fore in the minds and hearts of all her people here at home.
The first is our deep admiration of her unselfish devotion to her Royal duties and her highminded, personal courage and readiness to face the very arduous and responsible status of an ambassador of good will—an ambassador, indeed, of her own Monarchy and own personality, but also an ambassador of all of us, her subjects and her Parliament in her Kingdom here.
The second sentiment is, I suggest, that when Her Majesty is not here among us we feel a real state of suspense and a lack of completeness until she safely returns home to our affectionate and loyal keeping. We welcome with great warmth the return of Her Majesty and of His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh to these shores, and I am sure that I express the feelings of us all in hoping that she may now enjoy a happy period of restful relaxation and felicity at this Christmas season, reunited with her family and so secure in the admiration and affection of her subjects throughout the land.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF YORK: My Lords, it is for me a happy thing that my first speech in this House—if a few sentences can be called a speech —should be made in connection with the return of Her gracious Majesty and His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh from their tour abroad. I have spent the last three weeks or so in India—indeed, I was there last night at 10 o'clock. There, the tour of Her Majesty has been followed with closest interest and admiration. What is true of India is true of the whole British Commonwealth of nations. Throughout the world the quiet equanimity, the dignity and the faithfulness to duty of these Royal ambassadors have called for praise on all hands. I am more than proud to be

163
able to take my share in joining in this expression of gratitude and welcome home to Her Majesty, and of good wishes for success in Tanganyika and a safe return to His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, may a back bencher be allowed in one sentence to add a tribute of our admiration, our gratitude and our loving loyalty?
On Question. Motion agreed to nemine dissentience: the said Address to be presented to Her Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

INSULTS TO NIGERIAN HIGH COMMISSION MEMBER
3.18 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether their attention has been drawn to the daubing on two occasions of the motor car of Mr. Andrew A. Melie, a member of the Nigerian High Commission in London, with offensive words and what action they are taking in the matter.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (EARL BATHURST): My Lords, the Nigerian High Commissioner has called attention to this regrettable incident, which Her Majesty's Government deeply deplore. I am sure that it does not reflect feeling in this country. Unfortunately, despite special efforts, the police have not so far been able to discover who was responsible. My right honourable friend is assured by the Commissioner of Police that everything possible is being done to trace the culprit and to prevent a repetition.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, while thanking the noble Earl for that satisfactory Answer, may I ask him whether he will request his noble friend the Duke of Devonshire to make it known to the Government and people of Nigeria that the people of this country as a whole,
164
with very few exceptions, deeply deplore incidents of this nature?
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, I am sure my noble friend will have noted what the noble Lord has said.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, might I ask Her Majesty's Government whether the proper course in a case like this would not be for Her Majesty's Government to replace the sullied vehicle and charge the expense to the Ministry of Education?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, is it not a fact that this is not the first occasion on which incidents of this type have arisen? Is it not a fact that certain persons from Africa have been assaulted in the streets and when the culprits have appeared in court they have been fined, as in one case I can remember, a matter of £2. Would the noble Earl not agree that where these cases arise a higher fine should be imposed?
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, I think that is a very different case from what the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, has asked in his Question, but no doubt those responsible will observe what the noble Lord has said.

CLAIMS ON EGYPTIAN COMPENSATION FUND
3.20 p.m.
LORD KILLEARN: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government—

(a) how much of the £36,175,607 stated as the amount assessed by the Foreign Compensation Commission on 1,260 claims up to October 31. 1961, was for—

(i) claims received for "Egyptianised" property under Annex E of the Financial Agreement;

(ii) claims received for loss or damage on "Sequestrated" property;

165

(b) how much of the total of £7,970,071 paid out by the Commission as interim payments up to the same date was for—

(i) claims for "Egyptianised" property;

(ii) claims for losses on "Sequestrated" property.]

THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF DUNDEE): My Lords, the figures quoted by my noble friend are correct up till October 31, but I have now obtained more recent figures and, with my noble friend's permission, shall use them in my reply. Up to November 30 the Foreign Compensation Commission had assessed 1,310 claims for a total amount of £40,594,007. Of these claims 533 totalling £38,980,138 were in respect of Egyptianised property, and 777 totalling £1,613,869 were in respect of loss or damage to sequestrated property which has been returned to its owners. Up to the same date the Commission had paid out £8,426,690 of which £7,832,786 was in respect of Egyptianised property and the remaining £593,904 in respect of sequestration losses.
LORD KILLEARN: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Earl for this very helpful and full reply.

IMPORTATION OF IRISH BUTTER
LORD KILBRACKEN: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in the light of the White Paper issued by the Irish Government on November 28 last, they will remove the prohibitive duty on imports of butter from the Republic, and enter into new discussions with the Irish Government to determine an equitable quota for the six months ending March 31, 1962, substantially in excess of the figure previously proposed.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE): My Lords, the only answer I can give to the noble Earl
166
is, No. Perhaps I might take this opportunity of giving the background to the situation. Her Majesty's Government, having examined an application made by the New Zealand Government, found, under the terms of the Customs Duties (Dumping and Subsidies) Act, 1957, that the New Zealand dairy industry was threatened with material injury from dumped and subsidised butter imports into the United Kingdom and decided that action was necessary. Voluntary restraint by countries supplying clumped or subsidised butter appeared the most appropriate solution. The Governments of these countries were approached by Her Majesty's Government. The Government of the Irish Republic alone felt unable to limit shipments during the six months ending March 31, 1962, to the amount which we proposed to them in accordance with a programme impartially drawn up by the Executive Secretary of the G.A.T.T. Other countries which accepted the programme did so conditionally upon anti-dumping duties being imposed on butter from any country which did not. With regret, we therefore had to impose an anti-dumping duty on butter from the Republic of Ireland.
Having regard to the Irish White Paper to which the noble Lord referred, I think I should tell your Lordships that Her Majesty's Government consider the figure of 4,000 tons, to which the Government of the Irish Republic were asked to limit shipments, to be fair and reasonable. It is certainly less than the Republic sent in the corresponding period of 1960–61. But it is more than the average of imports from the Republic during the corresponding period of four previous years, which was under 3,300 tons. The programme took account of past butter exports, among other relevant factors, but it did not take account of imports in 1960-61, since it was those imports at that time which were largely responsible for the subsequent depressed condition of the British butter market. The programme of restraint now in operation provides a breathing space during which the search for a longer-term solution to the problem of surplus butter supplies on the British market can be continued by all the Governments concerned, including that of the Irish Republic.
LORD KILBRACKEN: My Lords, while thanking the noble Duke for his

167
very full reply, may I put two supplementaries to him arising out of it? So far as the New Zealand allegations on dumping are concerned, can it be denied that the New Zealand Government themselves are guilty of exactly the same practice when New Zealand butter has been selling on the British market for as little as 206s. a hundredweight and is fetching very little more at the present time? Is this not a question of the pot calling the kettle black? Is the noble Duke not also aware that in the ten years preceding the war Irish exports averaged 20,000 metric tons a year, and that in the 1948 trade agreement with the United Kingdom. the United Kingdom agreed—and I quote:
"to import butter from Ireland at the annual pre-war rate of 20,000 tons, or more if available, as soon as the possibility of export arises"?
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, in reply to the noble Lord's first question, while I would agree that an analysis of who is and who is not dumping is a matter of great intricacy, the British Government are satisfied that the New Zealand butter exports are not being dumped in the United Kingdom. As regards the second question, it is really a matter of how far you put back your point of reference, and I think the noble Lord must accept that to consider the four previous years is as far back as is reasonable for us to go in assessing what current exports should be fixed at.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that some of us would be very reluctant not to see that there was fair treatment of New Zealand, which is a highly loyal part of the British Commonwealth? We also want to be friends with the Irish Republic, but, after all, they have taken themselves outside the United Kingdom and outside the Commonwealth and they can hardly expect to be treated on a basis of equality with a Dominion like New Zealand. [Interruption.]
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, is the noble Duke aware that, irrespective of whether butter imports come from the Commonwealth or Ireland, it is so difficult to establish a case of dumping that everyone in this House, I should have thought, would support the Government
168
firmly in the kind of action they have taken to show we will not tolerate dumping in this country?
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, may I ask the noble Duke whether he could give us an assurance that Her Majesty's Government have in mind and in hand the question of exploring the possibilities of a long-term scheme for the regulation of butter supplies, from all the butter producing countries, through the London market to the whole world, because this is the only long-term solution of the problem?
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, I am happy to give the noble Lord an assurance that such considerations are being actively pursued at the moment.
LORD KILBRACKEN: My Lords, may I inform the noble Duke that I myself have very close family ties with New Zealand and am very sympathetic about the New Zealand position? But if their butter is being sold wholesale in this country at under 2s. a pound, and it takes two and a half gallons of milk to make a pound of butter, may I ask him whether this is not clear evidence, when it is transported half way round the world, that it is being sold at approximately one-third the cost of production? Is this not dumping?
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, I can only reply that, as I said before, on close analysis and examination from the legal point of view it is our view that butter from New Zealand is not being dumped in this country. I cannot say more.

NEW BUILDING MATERIALS AND PROCESSES
LORD BOSSOM: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether there exists in England any official body or agency that collects for the benefit of the nation, and for the British construction industry in particular, all the latest information in the world concerning inventions, new materials, processes of construction, or forms of building organisation, which have proved successful

169
elsewhere and which enable buildings to be constructed quicker, better and cheaper than is customary in England, and, if such an agency does exist, from whom this collected information can be obtained.]
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, the Building Research Station of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research follows closely developments overseas, particularly those that seem promising for adoption in this country. Significant information is published either as a special report or in the technical press.
LORD BOSSOM: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that Answer, may I ask whether he is not aware that the cost of building influences the cost of everything we have to export; and as there is more information of advantage to us than we are using, would it not he worthwhile looking into this to see whether something could be done?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I should be very grateful for any information my noble friend desires to supply to me or to the Department for which I am responsible.
LORD BOSSOM: My Lords, while again thanking my noble friend for that compliment in thinking that I have all that information, I would assure him I have not got it but I do know where it can be obtained, and I shall be glad to let him have that information. I think we are losing an opportunity in not taking advantage of the information that exists in the world.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, could we be told the system of liaison between the Building Research Station and local authorities, so that when they do have new methods of construction people are allowed to build in them and do not have plans turned down for this particular reason?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I think I should need to have particulars of the case my noble friend has in mind before I could comment on it usefully. The Building Research Station is always anxious to have the closest possible relationships
170
with builders, both in private industry and in the local authorities, and, of course, with great building Departments of State, like the Ministry of Works and Ministry of Education.
LORD BOSSOM: My Lords, may I inquire if my noble friend has information as to whether either of those bodies to which he referred are advocating modular construction? Modular construction is adopted in Canada and the United States and they are getting very considerable advantage from it.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, the question of modular construction has been the subject of a great deal of intensive work by the Building Research Station. The Building Research Station is, in addition, a member of the international group studying this problem, and discussions are in progress with the British Standards Institution on the British procedure.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, is not a brick a module and a very satisfactory module too?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I am not sure that this is what my noble friend meant.
LORD BOSSOM: My Lords, may I ask whether my noble friend is aware that there is a Modular Society in this country, of which I happen to he the President, which has demonstrated quite successfully that there are savings to be made, and these two bodies to which he has referred do not advocate it?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I am aware of the Modular Society and the distinguished position held in it by my noble friend. I am also aware that he has the misfortune to differ from some other experts on a subject on which he himself is a most distinguished expert.

THE SITUATION IN KATANGA
3.35 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I beg to ask Her Majesty's Government the Question of which I have given Private Notice:
Whether they have any further statement to make about the situation in Katanga and whether they have received any information about the safety of United Kingdom citizens.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF HOME): My Lords, since my statement yesterday, Her Majesty's Consul at Elisabethville has reported that sporadic fighting is still taking place there. United Nations forces have not yet obtained full control of the road between their Headquarters and the airfield. In view of bombing attacks by Katangan aircraft on Elisabethville airfield the United Nations have taken action to neutralise Katangan aircraft on Kolwezi and Jadotville airfields.
Her Majesty's Consul has reported that no British subjects had up to 7.0 a.m. local time to-day been injured, although there had been some very near misses. Some Europeans seeking to leave Katanga and enter Northern Rhodesia had been turned back at road blocks. It is not clear whether any British subjects were involved.
Mr. Tshombe has left Paris for the Katanga. Before he did so a message was conveyed to him through Her Majesty's Embassy at Paris from Sir Roy Welensky. This message, which had the full support of Her Majesty's Government, urged Mr. Tshombe to return to the Katanga to take control of his Government, since the continuation of the fighting could only do irreparable harm to the chance of reconciliation between him and the Central Government.
Senior members of the United Nations Secretariat have assured the United Kingdom representative in New York that the present operations are strictly confined to securing freedom of movement and security of their personnel in and around Elisabethville. They have nothing to do with the carrying out of the Security Council's resolutions of February or November.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I am very much obliged for that statement. Could the noble Earl tell us whether this is really in the form of a police action or whether it is anything more? For instance, what sort of numbers of United Nations forces are involved in this struggle, and does the noble Earl see a speedy end to it or is it likely to go on for some time?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, my great anxiety, which I pointed out to
172
the United Nations in September and have never ceased to point out since, is that this operation might develop into a campaign in which the United Nations would be involved for years, and that therefore the proper function to which the United Nations forces should be limited was that of keeping rival tribes and factions apart, and preserving law and order. But this is a matter, as I understand it, where United Nations forces are in danger from the Katangan gendarmerie and therefore they must defend themselves and keep the lines of their communications open. The scale of the operations is quite small; there would not be more than 100 or 200 involved.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, may I ask the Foreign Secretary whether the report that appeared in the Press this morning, that the United Nations civil authorities have given way to the military authorities and the military authorities are now in control, is correct?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I have made inquiries in New York on that point; but I consider it is absolutely essential that the authorities in New York should keep control. although, of course, for the purposes of some local action they must devolve authority of a military nature.
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether the circumstances are not such as to call for special action by the United Nations to bring the different political leaders together with a view to getting a political settlement? I think most noble Lords will agree with the noble Earl that this continued military operation is merely making the situation worse. It seems to me that there is a parallel to what has taken place in Laos. The United Nations should take action and get them all together in some agreed spot instead of allowing them to talk about meeting in one place or to say they will not meet in another place. The thing is to get them together under the ægis of the United Nations and try to get a political settlement.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I find myself in absolutely full agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Henderson,

173
and his objective. The difficulty is that both these gentlemen have refused to meet, and refused everybody. We have all tried, and tried again. There is no reason why the United Nations should not go on trying. I think it is essential they should meet. One is afraid for his life and the other is standing on his dignity. But these two difficulties ought to be able to be overcome.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether he does not think that one reason why Mr. Tshombe is not prepared to meet Mr. Adoula is because of the activities of what has become known as the "Katangan lobby", which consists of influential men who have financial interests in Africa?
THE EARL OF SWINTON: Nonsense.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: Who spoke?
THE EARL OF SWINTON: I spoke.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, has the time not arrived (because there is great misunderstanding in many countries over this matter) when the noble Earl should denounce the Katangan lobby and uphold the United Nations without any reservation whatsoever? Apart altogether from the financial interests of these evil men who are using power in this way in Africa, the very existence of the United Nations is at stake. That is why all of us want the noble Earl now, at this moment, to declare his allegiance to the United Nations without equivocation.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I am against all lobbies who lobby on behalf of one party in the Congo or another, whether the lobby includes some of my friends or whether the lobby includes the noble Lady—I make no distinction. What we want to see is a united Congo, and, as I have time and again said, a federal or confederal solution seems to be the best for that country. Still, the question is a practical one as to how to get two men who differ so strongly to come together in order to work out a constitutional settlement in a country in which there is chaos.
174
When the noble Lady says that the future of the United Nations is at stake, I would agree with her. If the United Nations gets deeply involved in a war extending over the years, or is tempted itself to become a colonial power, that is the end of the United Nations. Therefore I am with her in that. But I want to ensure that the United Nations performs a policing operation and an operation of pacification, and does not get involved in an extended war.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, would the noble Earl agree that the great difficulty in a matter of this kind is in deciding the amount of force needed for pacification and the additional force which could be described as aggression? In such circumstances, would he not agree in regard to men of the United Nations who are disinterestedly and dangerously doing their duty and who, being on the spot, ought to know best in difficult questions of this kind, that it would be better always to give them the benefit of the doubt and to give them our full support?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, no one could possibly say that we have not given the United Nations the fullest possible support. We have paid out millions of money and are still paying—there is a bill to be paid of £60 million before January 1 of next year. We are willing to pay our share, and we are willing to go on paying. When the noble Lord says that you must always take the advice of the person on the spot, I cannot necessarily agree. We know a great deal about Africa—we have been there for many hundreds of years—and when you are dealing with Africans you want patience, and more patience, and patience again. I do not want to see a situation in which the Secretariat of the United Nations, for want of patience, indulges in warlike activities and takes force beyond the point of policing. I agree with the noble Lord that it is difficult for the Secretariat and difficult for the people in command on the spot. They have our sympathy and they have our support. But I shall have to make it clear when and if we feel that the force is being carried to a point where it will lead the United Nations into an endless war and the Congo into chaos.
LORD RATHCAVAN: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether this

175
is purely a policing action? Is there any truth in the report in the Press this morning that United Nations bombers were used to bomb the airport and also communications? Presumably they were American bombers.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, the United Nations obtains the weapons that it needs for police action from any and every country which is a member. From the information I have, I think the United Nations troops in Elisabethville were being attacked by aeroplanes which had taken off from certain airfields. The Secretariat in the United Nations, it seems, felt it necessary to give authority that the aeroplanes which were being used for the purpose of attacking the United Nations troops should be put out of action, and they took action to that effect. I think that comes within what I said previously—namely, the protection of lives of United Nations soldiers which may have been in danger.

THE CHRISTMAS RECESS
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I should like to inform the House that it is hoped to adjourn for the Christmas Recess after business on Wednesday, December 20, and to reassemble on Tuesday, January 23.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE ADMINISTRATION BILL [H.L.]
3.46 p.m.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Clause 8 [Remuneration of recorders, chairmen of county sessions and their deputies and assistants]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR)THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR) moved in subsection (1) after "county" to insert:
"or to any person temporarily acting as such a chairman or deputy chairman".
The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, I think it would be for the convenience of the House if your Lordships allowed me to take this Amendment with Amendments Nos. 4, 5, 6, the first part of Amendment No. 8, Amendment No. 9 and Amendment No. 12. All these Amendments are designed to extend the provisions of Clause 8 to cover
176
the fixing of the remuneration of acting chairmen and deputy chairmen of quarter sessions. Since the Lord Chancellor will in future determine the rates of remuneration of such short-term appointments as those of deputy and assistant recorders where borough quarter sessions are concerned, it seems appropriate for him to control the rates for acting appointments at county quarter sessions. Most of the Amendments deal with the consequential Amendments in the relevant Acts of Parliament. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 29, after ("county") insert the said words.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the purpose of this subsection is to make clear that Clause 8 does not apply to the remuneration of the recorders of Liverpool and Manchester, and also to the remuneration of the recorder of the City of London. These are provided for by statutory and other processes and therefore it is unnecessary to have them in the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
("This section does not apply to the remuneration of the recorder of Liverpool or of Manchester while a judge of the Crown Court of Liverpool and the Crown Court at Manchester or to the remuneration of the recorder of the City of London.")— (The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 10 [Extension of jurisdiction of quarter sessions and magistrates' courts]:
3.49 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this is an Amendment which is consequential on paragraph 7 of the Third Schedule to the Bill, which has raised the limit within which magistrates have jurisdiction over certain forgery offences from £20 to £100. I explained this point on Second Reading, and in accordance with a recommendation of the Streatfeild Committee this limit is so raised. There is a parallel limitation on the jurisdiction of quarter sessions, and it is desirable that this limit should be raised pari passu with that on magistrates' jurisdiction. The Amendment does this. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 15, at end insert—
("() In the First Schedule to the Criminal Justice Act, 1925 (which specifies certain offences which a court of quarter sessions has jurisdiction to try) in paragraph 6 (offences under the Forgery Act, 1913) for the words 'twenty pounds', in both places where they occur, there shall be substituted the words 'one hundred pounds'.").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Fourth Schedule [Enactments Amended]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 13, at end insert—
("The Quarter Sessions (London) Act, 1896
In section two, for the words from 'the sum' to the end of the section there shall be substituted the words such remuneration as may be determined under section eight of the Criminal Justice Administration Act, 1961'.").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this Amendment also is consequential on Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 18, at end insert—
("The Lancashire Quarter Sessions Act, 1928
In section nine, for the words from 'such fee' to the end of the section there shall be substituted the words 'such remuneration as may be determined under section eight of the Criminal Justice Administration Act, 1961'.").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this Amendment also is consequential on Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 29, at end insert—
("The Middlesex County Council Act, 1944
In subsection (3) of section three hundred and ninety-five, for the words from 'by way of' to the end of the subsection there shall be substituted the words 'such remuneration as may be determined under section eight of the Criminal Justice Administration Act, 1961'.").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, Amendment No. 7, the second half of No. 8, and Nos. 10 and 14 on the
178
Marshalled List similarly bring the remunerations of the chairman and deputy chairmen of Lancashire Quarter Sessions within the scope of Clause 8. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 33, at end insert—
("The Cheshire and Lancashire County Councils (Runcorn—Widnes Bridge, etc.) Act, 1947
In subsection (1) of section eighty-one, for the words from 'such salary' to the end of the subsection there shall be substituted the words 'such remuneration as may be determined under section eight of the Criminal Justice Administration Act, 1961'.").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, as I informed your Lordships, the first part of this Amendment is consequential on Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 37, at end insert—
("The Hertfordshire County Council Act. 1960
In section forty-nine, in subsection (2), for the words 'from such fee' to the end of the subsection there shall be substituted the words 'such remuneration as may be determined under section eight of the Criminal Justice Administration Act, 1961'; and in subsection (4), for the words 'All fees' there shall be substituted the words 'Any remuneration'.
The Lancashire Quarter Sessions Act, 1961
In subsection (1) of section five, for the words from 'approved' to the end of the subsection there shall be substituted the words 'determined under section eight of the Criminal Justice Administration Act, 1961'.").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Fifth Schedule [Enactments Repealed]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, leave out lines 27 to 29.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, as I informed your Lordships, this Amendment is consequential on Amendment No. 7. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, leave out line 39.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, Section 396 of the Middlesex County Council Act, 1944, dealt specifically with the pension rights of a gentleman, now dead, who was chairman of Middlesex Sessions in 1944. As both he and his wife are dead, the provision is suspended. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 40, at end insert—

("7 & 8 Geo. 6. c. xxi.

The Middlesex County Council Act, 1944.

Section three hundred and ninety six.")

—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 47, at end insert—

("2 & 3 Eliz. 2. c. xxiv.

The London County Council (General Powers) Act, 1954

Section fifteen.")

—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD: My Lords, this Amendment deals with a subsection of the Hertfordshire County, Council Act, 1960. The subsection deals with membership of the Appeals Committee of the county quarter sessions. It is therefore repealed in consequence of the provisions of Clause 4, subsection (5), of the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 15 line 17, at end insert—

("8 & 9 Eliz. 2. c. xlix.

The Hertford shire County Council Act, 1960

In section forty-nine, subsection (1)."

—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, as your Lordships will be glad to see, this is the last Amendment, and it is consequential on Amendment No. 7. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 26, at end insert—

("9 & 10 Eliz. 2. c. xiv.

The Lancashire Quarter Sessions Act, 1961.

In section seven, in subsection (2), paragraph (d).")

—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I know that I am out of order in raising this point,
180
but on the Committee stage there were a number of Amendments and the noble and learned Viscount gave certain assurances that certain matters which were raised in Committee would be considered by him, and on the strength of those assurances Amendments were withdrawn. I refer particularly to an Amendment by myself and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goddard. The noble and learned Viscount has been good enough to write to me, and I presume that he has also written to Lord Goddard. But I would ask him whether he would be kind enough on the Third Reading to make a short statement, similar to the statements he has made in writing to myself and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goddard. If he will do so it will save a good deal of time on that occasion and there will be no need to make lengthy speeches on the subject. I think that it is right that the House should know what is the result of the deliberations of the noble and learned Viscount on these various Amendments.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, if I may say so with respect, I think that the noble Lord has made a very fair point. As he was good enough to say, I wrote to him. I also wrote to my noble and learned friend Lord Goddard, and in that case the letter ran to four foolscap pages. I received a most courteous letter from my noble and learned friend Lord Goddard this morning. However, I shall endeavour to summarise this matter and place it before the House on the Third Reading.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

ADMINISTRATIVE INQUIRIES AND CITIZENS' COMPLAINTS
3.58 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they can report any progress in the formulation of a code of procedure for administrative inquiries as promised upon the introduction on April 1, 1958, of legislation setting up the Council on Tribunals; again in the Government statements on December 1, 1960, during the debate upon the proposal for the ironstone workings in North Oxfordshire, and again during the debate upon the Second Annual Report of the Council on July 12 last' whether the question for

181
costs for the successful objectors has been referred to the Council as was promised, and whether other related matters have received consideration; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, since I placed this Motion upon the Order Paper on November 1 last, two events of some moment have taken place. The first is that the Report of the Council on Tribunals upon the reference I made to them in July last in respect of the procedure adopted at the North Oxfordshire ironstone inquiry at Banbury in 1960 has been published. The second matter of moment is that the long-awaited code of procedure, which the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, at the time when the Tribunals and Inquiries Act, 1958, was before your Lordships' House as a Bill, promised would be produced, at long last has made its long and tortuous journey to the Council on Tribunals.
I know that the noble and learned Viscount, with whom since the days of the Franks Committee Report I have had many a friendly battle over this very thorny question of administrative law, will not begrudge me a modicum of satisfaction in the fact that the conclusions to which the Council on Tribunals have come as a result of their lengthy consideration of the particulars of the procedure adopted at the Banbury inquiry bear out what I have maintained from the first: that there was a prima facie case for those proceedings to be the subject of consideration by the Council on Tribunals.
The conclusions to which the Council have come are very short but they are very important, and I will read them to your Lordships. They are these:
"The précis of evidence and inspector's report both indicate that the applicant's case was bad and had little chance of success. The fact, however, remains that the opponents clearly felt that they were up against a sinister endeavour to force through planning applications involving eventually the compulsory acquisition of and irreparable damage to over 4,000 acres of land in Oxfordshire. This case therefore underlines the importance of an adequate code of procedure for planning inquiries of this nature.
"As indicated above, a number of important points arise out of the Council's examination of the procedure at the Banbury inquiry. First, whether in certain cases it would be better to make greater use of independent inspectors. Secondly, the extent to which special rules
182
should be formulated for 'called in' inquiries. Lastly, the whole question of costs in connection with planning applications and appeals. The Council intend to give further consideration to each of these questions."
Now, My Lords, I want to ask the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack certain questions. Let me say here that I feel that, in asking him the number of questions which I hope he will permit me to put, I am not at all certain that I am addressing the right person; perhaps I should address some of my questions to the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, who is the Chairman of the Council on Tribunals and who I am delighted to see is in his place in your Lordships' House this afternoon. I will even forgive him for not replying to me, but perhaps he will do so at some time in the future, by action if not, perhaps, by word.
The first question I should like to ask the noble and learned Viscount—because this does come strictly within his province—is: In the light of what the Council has said, will he now review the whole of this vexed question of appointing independent inspectors to preside over these inquiries? The Council underline this point in the first paragraph of their Report. If your Lordships have a copy of it—and copies have been available in the Printed Paper Office for the last two or three days—you will see that at the top of page 2 they say:
"The Council do, however, feel that where the Government has a specific financial interest in an application of this kind there are special arguments in favour of appointing an independent inspector, as has indeed been done in certain other cases recently."
I will not go over the arguments, which have been repeated ad nauseam in your Lordships' House ever since the days of the debate upon the Franks Committee Report, as to the merits of independent inspectors to sit and conduct these very important inquiries. As the Council quite rightly say, the Banbury ironstone inquiry involved the livelihoods of people on 40 farms; it involved 4,000 acres of the best agricultural land in North Oxfordshire; and it involved the expenditure by the ratepayers of Oxfordshire and some publicly-spirited individuals of £5,000 in submitting their objection to those applications. So I ask the noble Viscount, briefly, whether he will now take into consideration what the Council

183
have said, and whether, in special cases—I do not ask in all cases, but in very special cases—where it is quite paramount to have an independent and legally trained mind, he will consider what the Council have to say.
I find it strange and puzzling logic in this Report of the Council on Tribunals that, after apparently finding little cause for complaint about the procedure adopted, the Council should say this, first:
"This case therefore underlines the importance of an adequate code of procedure for planning inquiries of this nature."
Their second observation is that the whole of their survey of this case raises, I think their expression is, a number of important points. It says:
"… a number of important points arise",
such as,
"… the extent to which special rules should he formulated for `called in' inquiries".
I do not think it is necessary for me to go into the technicalities of what is a "called-in" inquiry. Roughly, it is when the Ministry of Housing and Local Government take over the functions of the planning authority.
Now I ask: will this new code of procedure which is now under consideration by the Council take care of these two vital points?—because they are vital. The Council on Tribunals themselves seem not to have been able to fight their way through the dilemma of whether a statutory inquiry should be conducted upon the lines of a court of law or whether it should be conducted as an inquiry for the purpose of ascertaining the whole of the facts of the case, so that a report on these facts can be prepared and submitted to the Minister who has to make a decision. But this inquiry is not a court of law. A case is not argued and a verdict given, the inspector who sits has no authority to arrive at a decision. His great authority is that he can make a recommendation.
Paragraph B of this Report illustrates the tribunal's difficulty. Quite obviously it has not considered this case in the light of new procedure, but only in the light of old procedure. Paragraph B says this:
"The question, therefore, in a 'called in' inquiry under section 15 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, is simply one of
184
how much information the applicant is willing to supply before the inquiry and what risks he is willing to run of failing in his application for lack of supporting evidence. The Council consider that this is a complete answer to this complaint".
With great respect, I demur. If the applicant is a Government Department, or if the applicant is an applicant who makes the application under the protection of a Government Department, then he runs no risk at all, because he knows that after the inquiry has been closed he can go through the back ministerial door to the Minister, which is precisely what happened in the chalk-pit case. That was the whole of the contention of the chalk-pit case: that, after the inspector had closed the inquiry and had passed his report to the Minister, the Minister of Agriculture went behind it all and gave fresh evidence to the Minister of Housing and Local Government. So he does not run any risk.
In the next paragraph the Council quote the Lord Chancellor's point in the reply he made to me when I first raised this question in December last, and say:
"The Council agree with the Lord Chancellor on this point and consider that failure by an applicant to produce any particular evidence may show the weakness of his case, but does not reveal any weakness in the inquiry procedure".
With great respect, I demur again. It shows a lamentable weakness in the inquiry procedure, because it does not matter what case the applicant puts up—in a moment I will quote the Council upon the value of the case which was put up in North Oxford—he knows very well that he can go and give fresh evidence to the Minister, as was actually done in the chalk-pit case, and was offered to be done by counsel for the applicants—
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, would the noble Lord allow me to interrupt? I am almost certain that he is under a very serious misapprehension. The Minister of Agriculture was not the applicant in the chalk-pit case. The applicant in the chalk-pit case was the owner of the chalk pits, who wanted to work them; and the Minister of Agriculture was not the applicant at all. The matter in dispute was whether the Minister of Housing and Local Government ought to have consulted (a) his own experts, and (b) the experts of the Ministry of Agriculture before coming to

185
his conclusion. I do not want the impression to go out from the noble Lord, as I am sure he does not, that the Minister of Agriculture was the applicant.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount. I thought I said "a Government Department or an applicant who had the sponsorship of a Government Department".
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I do not think, on any fair construction, that it could be said that the applicant in that case had the sponsorship of the Minister of Agriculture. All that happened was that the representative of the Minister of Agriculture, if my memory is right, had said that the lime which was produced in the chalk pits would be suitable for the lime subsidy scheme. The Ministry of Agriculture were not sponsoring or supporting the application.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I will, of course, bow to the noble and learned Viscount, but my understanding has always been that the sponsor behind the applicant in the chalk-pit case was a Government Department. But the noble and learned Viscount will agree with me, will he not, that the Government Department behind the applicant in the Banbury case was the Iron and Steel Board? Because the applicant in the Banbury case was Richard Thomas & Baldwins, a nationalised concern, and it was their counsel who volunteered to go behind the back of the inspector after the inquiry had finished and supply him with the data, the information and the figures that he quite bluntly and clearly refused, when he opened his case, to put before the inquiry.
The great issue about which I want to ask the noble and learned Viscount is, whether this new code of procedure is going to be taken care of, because in another paragraph, the Council pray in aid what the noble and learned Lord Chancellor said. This is what the Council said:
"The Lord Chancellor made it amply clear in reply"—
that was in reply to my argument that counsel for the applicants had offered to go round to the back door—if I may
186
use that expression—and give other evidence—
"that the Minister would certainly not consider new evidence in private".
Perhaps in another context I could say that we have now arrived at the $64,000 Question: What is new evidence? It is argued quite strongly by a large section of the law—it was argued by the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, and by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin—that the Minister could not distinguish between what was new evidence, and what the noble and learned Chancellor maintained, with equal sincerity and equal force, was nothing like new evidence: it was an evaluation of old evidence. I would ask whether that has been reconciled in this new procedure.
I would tell the noble and learned Viscount that the same thing is going on to-day. There may not have been inquiries of the importance of the Banbury case, but there have been inquiries where, after the inspector has closed the inquiry and issued his report to the Minister of Housing and Local Government, another Ministry has come in and altered the whole thing. The case I have in mind is the town map inquiry of Bicester in Oxfordshire. The inquiry was closed, the planning authority's proposals were never challenged, but when it was all over the planning authority then heard from the Ministry that, at the instigation of the Ministry of Agriculture, they had altered the plan.
I would ask whether this knotty problem of what is new evidence and of the evaluation of evidence already given has been resolved, because we shall never get any sense into this procedure until it has been resolved. The Franks Committee admitted this, though, if I may use the expression, they were a little woolly on the subject. The noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, and his Council have to resolve it somehow. It may be difficult, but it is not for the Council on Tribunals, which has been popularly called "the watch-dog of the common citizen", to burke the difficulties.
I would ask the noble and learned Viscount: is this code of procedure going to be published? I do not blame either the noble and learned Viscount or his Department for the delay that has occurred. I remember, when we discussed the Report of the Council on

187
Tribunals, the noble and learned Viscount admitted the delay and suggested that we should turn the delay into good. I can tell the noble and learned Viscount that there has to be an awful lot of good, because there has been an awful lot of delay. Now the matter is with the Council on Tribunals. I understand that the opinions of every possible body that can have any possible view upon this code of procedure have been taken—all except one, and that is, Parliament's. Is it the Government's intention, as I have pressed all along, to publish this code of procedure, which is going to be a charter defending the rights of the common citizen, so that Parliament can debate it and suggest alterations? Surely Parliament is not going to be the only body interested that is going to be ignored. Surely this vital code is not going to be produced before Parliament as a statutory instrument which is subject only to a Negative Resolution, to be passed or rejected but never amended.
There is a precedent, although perhaps the noble and learned Viscount may not think it a very good one. I say this with respect. It happened before the noble and learned Viscount arrived in your Lordships' House. I remember that this self-same argument came up when the Transport Bill was before your Lordships' House in 1953. On March 26 of that year, we had a long argument about whether certain proposals which the Government intended to make for the reorganisation of the railways by statutory instrument should be presented in a White Paper, so that your Lordships' House and the House of Commons could have an opportunity of debating them before the matter was a fait accompli. On that occasion, the noble Earl, Lord Swinton—Viscount Swinton, as he then was—was the Government spokesman. He said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 181, col. 314];
"After full consideration, the Government think it would be right to adopt the suggestion which was made by the noble and learned Earl, the Leader of the Opposition"—
the late Lord Jowitt—
"that the Minister should produce a White Paper, which would contain all the details of the scheme, and that the draft Order should not be tabled at that stage. There would then be a debate in both Houses on the White Paper. The Minister, having considered all that was said in the debates on the White
188
Paper, would table his draft Order and ask both Houses to give the necessary Affirmative Resolution."
I am going to ask the noble and learned Viscount whether he will adopt a somewhat similar procedure with this code of procedure for the conduct of statutory inquiries. I also want to ask whether the Council on Tribunals will frankly and fearlessly publish their views about them. I would ask the Council to remember that they are not an annexe of a Government Department; they are a body charged with seeing that the procedures of these tribunals make sense of the overriding principles of openness, fairness and impartiality laid down by the Franks Committee and accepted by the Government.
I want to deal with one other point—namely, the question of costs. I am sorry that in their Banbury Report the Council have not made a rather stronger statement. They say in their conclusion:
"The précis of evidence and the inspector's report both indicate that the applicants' case was bad and had little chance of success."
I suppose it would not be an exaggeration to interpret that as meaning that it was a rotten case and really should not have been brought. Costs were asked for; the inspector made no recommendation; the Minister made no award; and the ratepayers of Oxfordshire had to foot the bill of £5,000. Is that right?
I know it is a difficult problem, but I say, with great respect to the members of the Council on Tribunals, that they are there to deal with difficult problems. They have had twelve months to consider it. The noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor gave fair warning to his noble friend Lord Tenby, in the debate upon the Report of the Council on Tribunals, that he was going to ask them to consider this subject, although I remember that he put in the proviso, "when they had time". If they take as long about everything as they have taken about this Report they will not have very much time left. And all the time justice is being withheld from the citizen.
My final point, on the Council itself, is this. I must confess that at the time of the chalk-pit case the Council on Tribunals did for once play the part

189
of a watchdog; they made a vicious bark. But since then they have made none at all. I have the uneasy feeling that we may suffer from having a watchdog which has no stomach for its task. That, I think, would be the greatest tragedy of all. But you can understand the feeling there is of support for the Question with which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, will follow me. There is a feeling that by constitution, personnel make-up or inclination, the Council on Tribunals cannot exercise that external vigilance that the protection of the interests of the common citizens demands; neither have they the militancy that must characterise any department that looks after the interests of the citizen against this great tide of bureaucracy.
I sincerely hope that Parliament will be able to take a hand and will have the opportunity of taking into consideration any comments which the Council on Tribunals will publicly make: because they must not be afraid of publicity. They did a tremendous amount of good for one glorious hour at the time of the chalk-pit case, and there will be many opportunities to have other glorious hours.
I know that I feel strongly on this matter, but I know, also, that the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor feels precisely the same. I am certain that he is as apprehensive as I am that we shall have to alter in some way the procedure of the Council. I think we shall have to enlarge it; it is not large enough. I do not think you can ask such a small body of very busy men to give the necessary time to the thorough consideration of all the things they have to do if the rights of the citizen are going to have proper attention. I beg to move for Papers.
4.34 p.m.
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN had given notice of his intention to ask Her Majesty's Government whether their attention has been drawn to a Report (known as the Whyatt Report) published recently by the British section of the International Commission of Jurists on Ombudsmanship for Britain; and whether they will give early and serious consideration to the many complaints again officialdom which the Whyatt Report deals with. The noble
190
Lord said: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, for having brought up this question this afternoon. He has constituted himself as the unofficial watchdog not only over the administration of this country, but even over the Council on Tribunals as well. This is a subject which is not everybody's "cup of tea", and we are indeed grateful that there is somebody who is prepared to watch over all these matters and come to us from time to time and initiate discussions.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, also, because he has thereby enabled me to attach my own Unstarred Question to his Motion and so get a better debate for it than would otherwise have been the case. The noble Lord's Motion is in the form of a series of questions, to which he has given the answers. Having asked what is the present position about the rules of procedure, and so on, he has told us what the present position is; and we now know that the Council on Tribunals are considering it and presumably in due course will comment on it.
I should like to make three comments on what the noble Lord has said. First, I would associate myself with his request that eventually the new codes of procedure should come before Parliament in some form or other and be discussed before they become operative. I should have thought that that is only right and, indeed, inevitable. These codes of procedure are useless unless they are known to the public and obviously they ought to be discussed.
The noble Lord referred to the inspectorate, and he thought that in exceptional cases (I do not know what he meant by "exceptional"; and if he meant the kind of case that he had in mind, I should not agree with him) there ought to be an independent inspector. I suppose I have had as much to do with inquiries, both official and professional, as anybody in this House, and I am bound to say that over the whole of my experience I cannot remember any occasion when there has been complaint about the conduct of an inspector or the way in which one has carried out his duties, or that one has been in any way prejudiced or biased. Indeed, I think that inspectors are a model in the carrying out of these inquiries.
I would say that, so far as it is possible, they are independent by the nature of their appointment. The Lord Chancellor is represented at their appointment, and has a say. While they are usually officially on the staff of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, I can say without fear of contradiction that there is no question of any direction or interference by the Ministry with the way in which inspectors conduct their business. They fix the dates and so on, but otherwise they do not interfere in any way. I should not like it to go out from this House that there is any occasion when the normal inspectorate cannot do their job effectively.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, the noble Lord will forgive me for interrupting. I hope I have not conveyed to him that I make the slightest complaint about the inspectors. The inspectors have to carry out the procedure which is laid down. I am full of complaint about the procedure, but not about the inspectors.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I was not commenting on that. I was commenting on the suggestion that there ought to be independent inspectors, and pointing out that, in my view, there is little case for so-called independent inspectors. The real question—and this is what the noble Lord is getting at—is this: who makes the decision? It does not matter in the least who conducts the inquiry, so long as it is fairly conducted; the important thing is who makes the decision, and how it is made.
The odd thing is that the noble Lord is complaining about the conduct of an inquiry where he got a favourable decision. I was at one time critical of an inquiry, where again I had no complaint about the way in which it was conducted but where I thought the decision was irregular. I thought in the chalk-pit case, of which we have heard a good deal, that the Minister was wrong in afterwards hearing evidence or obtaining information—call it what you will; I do not want to he technical about it—without giving the parties concerned an opportunity of commenting or cross-examining on that evidence or information.
LORD SALTER: My Lords, the noble Lord asked what is the kind of exceptional cases in which it would be
192
desirable not to have an inspector drawn from the Government Service, either an actual official or one who has recently been an official. Might I suggest that where there is great intrinsic importance in the case and great public interest, and where an important part of the past history has been an involvement of a Government Department in the action proposed, there is a prima facie case for the appointment of somebody who is not as closely connected with the Government service as is an inspector appointed from the Civil Service. Might I, for example, refer the noble Lord to the case of the Oxford roads and the comments made during the course of the debate earlier this year as illustrating what I think is sometimes a strong prima facie case for the appointment of a different kind of chairman of the inquiry?
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I must confess that I frankly do not understand that. If the inquiry is properly conducted by a person of independent mind—not independent in the sense that he is not paid by the local authority or the Government, but a person who applies himself objectively to the facts that are brought out at the inquiry and who makes an honest recommendation—it seems to me to matter very little whether you bring in a person from outside to conduct such an inquiry, who may not have the experience of conducting inquiries, or whether you have an inspector from your own Department. Surely, the important thing is: who makes the decision? If by an "independent inquiry" the noble Lord means that the decision is to be made by such a person, then, of course, he is going a very long way and depriving Ministers of the responsibility of settling matters with which they are directly concerned.
LORD SALTER: My Lords, may I explain that I did not mean that? I meant what would be appropriate in such a case as the Oxford roads. If the noble Lord will refresh his memory of the debate which took place on that question, and in particular, perhaps, of the contribution made by the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, I think he will see what I have in mind: that in that case, having regard to the past history of it, it would have been appropriate that there should be somebody from outside

193
and of a different kind to hold the inquiry.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, my memory is not as fresh about this inquiry as the noble Lord's, but my impression was that the inspector was not the normal inspector, but somebody who was brought in from outside, and that one of the complaints about him was that he was not familiar with the whole business. If my recollection is right, it might have been better to have the normal inspector carrying out the inquiry. But whatever it is, surely if the Minister responsible has to give the decision, all we are concerned about is that the inquiry is properly conducted. I would concede that there might be public reasons for the noble Lord's contention—for instance, where the actual conduct of a Minister or his Department is being impugned, or where there are accusations of bad faith, as was so in the Crichel Down case. I can well see that there it would not sound right to the general public that the inspector should be an official of the Minister's own Department, although even in that case I should say that I would trust the inspector. But you have not only got to do justice, you have got to appear to do justice, and in a case of that kind it might well be that it would be better to have an outside inspector.
The other point in which the noble Lord was interested was the question of costs. As he said, that is, of course, a very difficult question. But I hope nothing will be done to deter members of the public from pursuing their rights as they understand them; they should not be deterred by the fear of having to pay heavy costs. Indeed, it seems to me that if we are going to conduct our inquiries in that way and costs are to follow the event, we are going to tend to make them more and more formal and depart more and more from the general idea of these inquiries, which is to introduce into them a good deal of informality and make it easy for people to conduct their own case if they so desire. But I would not rule out the possibility that, in an exceptional case, costs might be awarded, and in fact that is now possible under existing legislation, and I have known cases where costs have been awarded.
194
Now I wish to say a word about my own Question. We have been discussing cases where there is a tribunal which can deal with complaints of subjects, or disputes between subjects and authority or between the various subjects themselves. But there is, over a large part of the field of public administration, no formal procedure for objecting or deciding upon objections on the part of an aggrieved party. Of course, anybody who has a grievance can complain to his Member of Parliament. If he is fortunate enough, he may get a letter into the Press, or he may have some other means of publicising his grievance. But there is over a very wide field indeed no formal procedure for getting these grievances considered.
The Franks Committee were set up, and rather curiously, this particular question was not included in their terms of reference. It was curious because, in fact, the Franks Committee were set up following the disclosures of bias and unfairness on the part of officials which were disclosed in the Crichel Down case and which, at that time, made that case a by-word. But the Crichel Down case was one of those cases where there was no remedy to the aggrieved party, and it was only by the pressure which aggrieved persons were able to exercise, as people of some influence and wealth, that they were able to secure an ad hoc inquiry. That ad hoc inquiry resulted in the disclosures that there had been bias, bad administration and unfairness on the part of the officials of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
One result of that was that the Franks Committee were set up. Nevertheless, under their terms of reference they were deliberately excluded from making any recommendations on the question of getting a remedy for this sort of thing. It was to investigate this wide gap, where no formal remedy to the individual is available, that a committee of private persons decided to conduct an inquiry. This Committee, which is known as Justice, is the United Kingdom section of the International Commission of Jurists. Early in 1960, with the help of private funds generously made available to them by a Mr. and Mrs. Neville Blond and the Isaac Wolson Foundation,

195
they secured the services of Sir John Whyatt, Q.C., former Attorney General of Kenya and former Chief Justice of Singapore, as Chairman of the Committee, which constituted a number of distinguished British lawyers, including, at one time, Lord Shawcross. This Committee, the Whyatt Committee, has recently reported and copies of the Report are available for 10s. 6d. net., this being a private Report and therefore not published by the Stationery Office, and I have had to buy a copy out of my own pocket.
In November, 1959, a Question was put to the Prime Minister in another place on this matter which we are now discussing, on the remedies open to the private citizen where no inquiry was possible, and the Prime Minister replied that the Government proposed to await the result of the inquiry to be held by Justice. This was a very generous recognition of the existence of this Committee. Justice has now reported, and my Question is directed to asking the Government, now that this Report is to hand, what they propose doing about it.
Before dealing with the Report let me quote the terms of reference, which I think will be seen to cover the point I have just made about the existing means for investigating complaints. They were, to inquire into the adequacy of the existing means for investigating complaints against administrative acts or decisions of Government Departments and other public bodies, where there is no tribunal or other statutory procedure available for dealing with complaints, and to consider possible improvements to such means with particular reference to the Scandinavian institution known as the Ombudsman. The Committee soon found that there were two distinct categories of complaints—namely, complaints against the way in which the authority, Government Departments, local authorities and so on, had made their decisions; and, secondly, complaints against maladministration such as bias, unfairness or improper conduct.
They dealt with the two different categories of cases in different ways. They recommended on the first category—that is, on the wrong exercise of discretion or a purely discretionary decision
196
—that persons who are aggrieved should have right of appeal to an independent authority unless there are overruling considerations which make it necessary in the public interest for the final decision to be left to the Executive. I imagine that the exemption may relate to some decisions of the Service Departments where secrecy is essential, or to similar considerations of that kind.
The general principle of the right of appeal against discretionary decisions has already been accepted and is being widely applied, and in those areas of discretion where the tribunal or inquiry system already applies the Council on Tribunals keep the working of these tribunals under review and report annually, and no difficulty arises. But the discretionary cases which are not subject to rights of decision by an independent tribunal are those of a number of decisions made by a variety of Ministers, who are referred to in the Report itself, in the Home Office, the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Ministry of Health, the Board of Trade, the Service Departments and the Post Office. It is curious that all discretionary decisions are not subject to appeal. A number are, but a number are excluded, and it is sometimes a little difficult to find any principle upon which some decisions can be the subject of appeal while others cannot. But the Committee tried to give a considerable number of instances of cases where there ought to be an opportunity for appeal, and I will not labour them in my remarks.
As regards these particular decisions which are not subject to appeal, the Whyatt Committee recommended that the powers of the Council on Tribunals should be extended to enable the Council to survey those areas of discretion which are not at present subject to appeal and to make proposals for bringing such areas within the tribunal system where they think it is appropriate. This will probably present difficulties, but the principle of right of appeal in discretionary cases having been already conceded over a wide field, the Council on Tribunals should not find it so difficult to decide the extent to which in particular cases it should be extended.
I come now to the conclusions of the Committee regarding the complaints of maladministration. I recognise the value

197
of the Parliamentary facilities that are available, the Questions in the House, the adjournment debates and other valuable means for bringing to notice complaints of maladministration such as I am referring to. I would also emphasise that such complaints are relatively few, thank goodness, in this country and that nobody dealing with this responsibility would be unduly burdened in having to deal with the volume of complaints that would arise. Indeed, in the Whyatt Report there is given a number of cases of this kind in those countries where they have somebody to deal with them. The number of complaints is relatively small, and would be quite small and negligible even if applied to the much greater population of this country.
The value of these things would be more effective if supplemented by machinery which would enable complaints to be investigated by an impartial authority if requested by Members of Parliament. The Whyatt Committee therefore propose that an officer, to be called the Parliamentary Commissioner—not an Ombudsman but someone with powers similar to his—with a status similar to that of Comptroller and Auditor-General, should be appointed and, subject to certain conditions, should investigate complaints of maladministration against Government Departments received from Members of Parliament. The Members of Parliament would be the channel through which complaints would be passed on and investigated. Such an officer would be similar to that of the Ombudsman who has existed in Scandinavian countries for many years, in Sweden for 150 years and in other countries which are emulating the Scandinavian countries, for instance, New Zealand, which I believe has recently passed a Bill to introduce an officer of that kind.
The recommendations of the Whyatt Committee on this question are extremely limited: first, that all complaints which would be investigated would be channelled through Members of Parliament. Secondly, they would not at present investigate complaints against local authorities. Thirdly, that there would be a right of veto on any particular inquiry by the Minister concerned if he took the view that it was improper that such an inquiry should take place,
198
but of course publicity would be given to any such veto and the Minister would have to take that into account. And, fourthly, though the Parliamentary Commissioner would have access to the files of a Department, this would be limited to ingoing and outgoing correspondence and would not apply to internal minutes, so that he would not be allowed to know what had passed between the various officers of the Department.
They recommend that the Parliamentary Commissioner should submit an annual report to Parliament on the more important cases he has investigated, and he may also issue special reports from time to time on cases of particular interest. Your Lordships will agree that the recommendations on this aspect of their terms of reference, namely, maladministration, are, as I have said, extremely limited and cautious; very much so in the opinion of many students of the Report who have commented upon them.
But it is obvious that as experience is gained—and the Committee have decided on the policy of festina lente—more and more responsibility will be given to the Parliamentary Commissioner; that in due course he might even carry out investigations into complaints of maladministration by officers of local authorities, and the channel would not necessarily be confined to Members of Parliament. But it may well be that it is wise to start this up with the limited form of investigation.
I have summarised in the briefest possible form the terms of the Whyatt Committee Report, and I should like, on a personal note, to say that I am doing so under great difficulty; I hope I shall be able to keep my voice going to the end, but it is a little difficult. I would ask the Government to agree that the principle that the individual should have a right to have his grievances against authority examined by an independent person or body should be universally recognised, unless it is clearly in the public interest not to allow such an examination, and I should imagine that those cases would be very rare indeed. I would also ask them to agree that the decision on particular cases should not rest solely on the view of the Minister concerned. I would ask the Government further to agree that there should be a

199
method for an independent inquiry into maladministration, bias or unfairness on the part of authorities, such as the Crichel Down case; that this should not be by way of an ad hoc inquiry, which was forced upon the Government in that case, but should be a normal and regular part of our Constitution.
I do not necessarily advocate the recommendations of the Whyatt Committee. I shall be interested to hear what the noble and learned Viscount has to say about them. But if he agrees to the principles that I have just laid down, I would ask, if the Government do not accept these recommendations, what alternative methods they would suggest for dealing with these grievances. I am quite sure that as the contact of the ordinary individual with authority spreads, with the growth of Ministries and their powers, and the daily contact which the individual, more and more, is going to have with authority, the need for dealing with cases of the kind I have mentioned is an increasing one. We cannot afford to leave with the subject the feeling that there are types of grievances that he might have against authority which are incapable of being dealt with in an impartial way, and he is merely left with a grievance. I have put this down in the form of a Question. It has been a very long Question, but I hope that it is a not unimportant one, and that the noble and learned Viscount will be able to give a satisfactory reply.
5.7 p.m.
LORD AMPTHILL: My Lords, I rise to support the Motion moved by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, from the Cross Benches with his customary vigour and eloquence, which I, for one, always enjoy very much. I echo Lord Silkin's remarks, that we are grateful to the noble Lord for raising this matter again to-day. I think we are all very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Silk in, for putting down his timely Question on the Whyatt Report. Like him, I had to put my hand in my own pocket and buy my own copy. I listened to the noble Lord's remarks with great interest, and I am glad that his voice managed to survive the ordeal. I do not propose to follow the noble Lords who have spoken already in great detail, though in a general sense I shall cover many of the points raised by them, but my
200
principal object in rising to-day is to elucidate certain questions which have occurred to me in connection with inquiries arising from the Defence Ministry's activities.
Your Lordships will recollect that when I last spoke in a similar debate on July 12 last, also on a Motion by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, I recounted my experience as one of the trustees for a small agricultural estate at Ringstead Bay in Dorset, where we opposed the compulsory acquisition of part of the land by the Air Ministry for the purposes of erecting a tropospheric forward scatter wireless station for the United States Air Force. In retrospect, I fear I took up a great deal too much of your Lordships' time on that occasion, and I hasten to add that to-day I do not intend to take up more than a few moments of your time. Nor do I propose to refer to the Ringstead Inquiry in any detail, and only in so far as it may be necessary to illustrate some matters which I believe are relevant to this debate.
So far as Ringstead itself is concerned the matter is finished. The work is proceeding day and night, the bulldozers have completed their vile work, tons of concrete have already been poured, and this horrible birdcage of an aerial, 120 feet high by 700 or 800 feet wide, will shortly appear and add further disfigurement to the beautiful Dorset coast. When I was down there a week or two ago I even saw a Coca-Cola service van in attendance, and I must say I was strongly tempted to let the air out of its back tyre.
No, my Lords, my purpose in rising to-day is to raise one or two general questions, the answers to which, if we can get them, would, I think, be of considerable interest and importance to the public at large and to those who may find themselves in the same unfortunate position as did the Ringstead Trustees. The first matter which I wish to raise refers to the scope of the Council on Tribunals. When I spoke in the debate on July 12 last, I told your Lordships that I was referring the question of costs in the Ringstead case to the Council on Tribunals. It was obviously improper for me to say more then because at that time our reference was in fact before the Council on Tribunals. However, early

201
in August the Council on Tribunals informed us that they did not think that the Ringstead Inquiry came within their scope, because it was not a statutory inquiry within the meaning of the Tribunals and Inquiries Act, 1958, Section 1 (1) (c). They pointed out that the Ringstead Inquiry had in fact been held in pursuance of the undertaking given in Parliament by the Secretary of State for War in another place on March 6, 1959.
In their extremely courteous reply, the Council on Tribunals said they were reluctant to come to such a conclusion without hearing any contrary view which we wished to express. My co-trustee and I accepted this invitation and gave as our view that an inquiry held under the procedure laid down on March 6, 1959, was clearly within the spirit, if not perhaps the strict letter, of the 1958 Act. We also pointed out that there had never been any official indication, so far as we knew, that the protection afforded to statutory tribunals and inquiries by the Act of 1958 was not to be extended to such tribunals and inquiries under the new Defence legislation promised in this same statement of March, 1959.
Due to the long vacation—I make no complaint about this at all—it was not until October 5 last that we received a final reply from the Council on Tribunals. This stated that after further consideration the Council were still not satisfied that the Ringstead inquiry came within their terms of reference as laid down by the appropriate section of the 1958 Act. The Council invited us, if we thought it proper to do so, to request the Lord Chancellor to refer the matter to them under Section 1 (1) (b) of the Act. Rightly or wrongly, we did think it proper to do so, and, needless to say, with his unfailing courtesy the noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack gave us a full prompt and early reply. To our great disappointment, the noble and learned Viscount took the view that it was not within his statutory powers to comply with our request. The noble and learned Viscount went further and said that he had reached the conclusion that the Ministry could not be held to have acted unreasonably in this case, and consequently he would not, even if he had the power to do so, have referred the case to the Council in the exercise of his discretion.
202
I do not propose to argue this last point, as to whether or not the Air Ministry acted unreasonably in this case. The noble and learned Viscount can hardly expect me to agree with him, but this is neither the time nor the place to discuss that aspect, nor do I think it would be right for me, to do so. Nevertheless, I think that the experiences which I have just described raise certain important questions. First, there is this question of the scope of the Council on Tribunals. It seems to me, as a layman, to be rather splitting hairs to say that because an inquiry was held under the procedure laid down in another place on March 6, 1959, for Defence inquiries, it is not a statutory inquiry within the meaning of the 1958 Act. After all, this procedure was formulated as a stop-gap pending new or consolidating legislation of the Defence Acts.
The new legislation, when enacted, may or may not put relevant inquiries or tribunals within the scope of the Council on Tribunals. If it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to bring such inquiries within the scope of the Council of Tribunals, it seems to me unreasonable to exclude them now, because, as a temporary or stop-gap measure, they are held under a special procedure announced in Parliament. On the other hand, if it is the intention that the new legislation, when it comes along, will definitely exclude all such tribunals and inquiries from the scope of the Council on Tribunals, then I think that this is a matter which your Lordships will wish to consider when the proposed new legislation is before Parliament.
Your Lordships will be aware, as I am, that secrecy in the national interest is often of paramount importance; but this can be carried too far (as I think it was in some respects in the Ringstead case). Therefore, I hope that when the Lord Chancellor comes to reply he will be able to tell us that the new Defence legislation will contain provisions to bring inquiries and tribunals within the scope of the Council on Tribunals. In parenthesis, I should like also to ask what progress is being made with the drafting of this new Defence legislation. It really is needed to clear up the present jungle, which starts with the Defence Act, 1842, and proceeds through the Ordnance Act, 1885, to many others

203
which I will not weary your Lordships by reciting.
Turning now to the question of costs, I would remind your Lordships that the Council on Tribunals, in their Second Report issued in June, 1961, have this to say at paragraph 122:
"We expect the difficult question of costs will be specially referred to us before long."
I take this to mean that the Council anticipate that the Government will follow the recommendations in paragraph 94 and again in paragraph 326 of the Franks Report, where, in the last named, they say:
"We recommend that the Council on Tribunals should be asked to consider the basis on which reasonable costs should be assessed"
During our last debate the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has already said, told the House [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 233, (No. 108), col. 214]:
"I have had it in mind for some time—I warn my noble friend Lord Tenby—to refer this matter"
of costs
"to the Council as soon as they are free to take it up."
Now that the Council on Tribunals expect such reference and the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack has it in mind to make such reference, I think it is a fair question to put: has such reference yet been made? If not, when is it anticipated that it will be made?
Before leaving the Council on Tribunals, I should like to refer briefly to the draft rules and procedures. During our last debate in July, the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack explained the delay in producing these. As I understand the position, from what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, said, these rules and procedures are now ready. Frankly, I did not know that until I came into this Chamber. Only two days ago, I was telephoned to by a friend of mine who is connected with the National Federation of Property Owners, which I believe is one of the bodies consulted about these rules. He asked me to say that they were very concerned about the delay in producing these draft rules of procedure.
My Lords, I am nearly finished, but before I sit down I should like to make
204
a brief reference to the Whyatt Report. I am sure that all citizens of this country owe a great debt of gratitude to the Council and the Committee, and in particular to their Director of Research, Sir John Whyatt. In paying my humble tribute, I do not want to forget those whose benevolence made the research possible. I can only hope, as Lord Shaw-cross said in his preface:
"that those concerned with this matter will give it early and favourable consideration."
My Lords, I think that this Whyatt Report presents a really down-to-earth and practical approach to the problem of, to quote Lord Shawcross again:
"… reconciling the needs of organised society with the rights, liberties and privileges of the ordinary individual."
5.22 p.m.
LORD DENNING: My Lords, the matters which we are discussing today raise the perennial question of the protection of the individual against the State, the Government Departments and the Executive. We should remember, however, the long way we have come since a few years ago when there was the Crichel Down inquiry, which exposed a serious case of maladministration by Government Departments. The Franks Committee was set up, but it did not deal with that type of maladministration. It had quite enough to do with tribunals and inquiries, which were one section of the problem. We ought to be satisfied with the progress that has been made on that side. With regard to tribunals which decide between the individual and the State on matters of insurance, pensions, land questions and so on, that system of tribunals is part of our judicial system with appeals on points of law to the courts, of which one hears no word of complaint today. So much for tribunals.
With regard to inquiries, we ought to recognise how much has been done there too, because previously when there was an inquiry, whether it was a planning inquiry, an inquiry for the compulsory acquisition of land, or whatever it was, no one ever saw the report of the inspector. The formal decision of the Minister was just given, with no reasons, so that no one knew for what reason the Minister had come to his decision. As a result of the recommendations of the Franks Committee, which

205
have been translated by Ministerial circular into action, we have had since that time reports by inspectors made available to the parties so that they have seen them and we have had the reasoned decisions of the Minister.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, could I correct the noble and learned Lord on just one point? I can say, quite definitely and positively, that it was always the practice to give reasons for decisions. The innovation was the publication of the inspector's report. But there was never a decision given without giving reasons.
LORD DENNING: I am much obliged to the noble Lord. I think that is quite correct. I am not sure whether all Departments did that, but in any event the important thing is that the party did not know what the inspector thought of the case and what was the report that he made to the Minister. Furthermore, if the Minister differed from the decision, the party did not know why he differed. That has all been altered by the Ministerial circular, by which the party does know what the inspector thought of it and what he reported, and if the Minister differed, the party knows why the Minister differed. The Chief Inspector of the Ministry has recently said in a public lecture that that has had a markedly beneficial effect on public relations. Previously, it was the Ministry which opposed it, but now there has been a great improvement.
It was that very system of making the inspector's reports public which disclosed weaknesses. Indeed, it was the very publication of the report of the inspector and the Minister's reasons which led to the fact that in the chalk-pit case it was discovered that the Minister, before coming to his decision, had had information from the Ministry of Agriculture. The whole question arose as to whether it was permissible for him to have that information and consider it in coming to his decision without giving the party an opportunity of commenting upon it or giving counter-evidence upon it. He certainly cannot do that when it is factual evidence; he certainly cannot do it when it is expert evidence on questions of fact; but he claims to be able to do it by saying that it is just an evaluation of technical evidence. My Lords, that is a very
206
difficult and narrow distinction to make, and I would suggest that always, if there is any doubt about whether it is factual evidence or expert evidence, the party should be given the benefit of the doubt before it is taken into account by the Minister and should have an opportunity of considering it and commenting upon it.
The rules are not out yet, but we hear that they have been submitted to the Council on Tribunals. I hope that the rules will make provision for determining that very delicate question, and will also make provision for another weakness that is disclosed—that of costs—and will bring into question other inquiries as well as statutory inquiries. That is going forward to remedy that section of public administration.
But the problem which we have not yet tackled is the Crichel Down problem; the one of maladministration by Government Departments. It is for that reason that we ought to be grateful for this Report by Sir John Whyatt and his colleagues, where they have brought to our attention what has been done in Scandinavian countries by having what they call an Ombudsman. It has been a most valuable Report, but in truth, if you study it, you will see that in those countries they have not got that fundamental doctrine which we have here: the doctrine of Ministerial responsibility, whereby a civil servant is responsible to his Minister and the Minister is responsible to Parliament. If anything goes wrong in a Ministry, which may be due to the civil servants, the Minister has to answer to Parliament for it. Indeed, although he may have been guilty of no fault himself, he may in the last resort have to resign. Our doctrine of Ministerial responsibility is cardinal to this country and the way we do things. But if you should go to Scandinavia and read the reports it is very different there.
Let me give you some illustrations which appear from this Report. A civil servant can be summoned before the Ombudsman to account for his actions. Apparently a high official in a Foreign Office was found to be a spy. Immediately, the Ombudsman called the Permanent Secretary of that Foreign Office to book, inquired whether he had taken proper steps to safeguard security, and

207
criticised the permanent official. In another case, the head of an educational institution apparently influenced matters so that his own nephew, or some other close relative, got a scholarship. The Ombudsman called the head of that educational institution before him to account for his actions. The chief inspector of police warned off a taxi-man from his stand, and was called before the Ombudsman. Then an insurance officer, who did not reply quickly enough to a request for higher insurance money, was called before the Ombudsman. In other words, the Ombudsman can call a civil servant to book, have him on the mat and investigate the matter.
My Lords, that would seem to run contrary to our doctrine of ministerial responsibility. It may be that we carry it too far, but your Lordships can recollect ways in which we have dealt with such matters here. Where it was a question in the spy case of whether the security arrangements were adequate, then a committee was appointed under Sir Charles Romer to inquire into the security arrangements at the Admiralty. Where it was a question of telephone tapping by the police, after Parliamentary Questions a committee was set up under Lord Birkett. Where it was a question of nuclear disarmament people sitting down in Trafalgar Square and of the police being a little too violent, after Questions in Parliament, it was said that there would be a Departmental Committee. The remedy in this country so far in cases of maladministration is for the matter to be raised in Parliament, or for Members to write to the Ministers, and then the Ministers have to account in that way. If necessary, a committee is appointed.
My Lords, that is the way it works in this country, but I submit that in these days it is not sufficient. It really provides a safety valve, ensuring the safety of the administrative machine and providing for the public outcry against it in serious cases. But there is nothing that we need so much as, so to speak, a thermostatic control, to keep the whole thing from getting over-heated, a regular system by which complains against maladministration can be inquired into. That is the problem which is being considered in this Report, and
208
it is suggested there should be a Parliamentary Commissioner appointed. His inquiry could be vetoed by the Minister concerned, but he would inquire into matters which were put to him by Members of Parliament but not others in the first place. I venture to think that that is not a satisfactory solution. It would not suit the way in which we do things. One of the ways in which we could deal with it would be by tightening up or improving our whole system of laws relating to administration.
I will give your Lordships just two or three instances in which the courts have felt themselves unable to redress grievances. There was the case of a Mrs. Woollett, who had three acres of land in Essex which was requisitioned. She was told it would be released within twelve months, and, as a result of this, she bought a lot of equipment for it. Then, afterwards, the Ministry said, "We have changed our mind. We are not going to release it. We are going to keep it". There was no redress in the courts at all. Then there was the case only this year where people were seeking to buy or set up a builder's yard in Southend. They had a piece of land in mind, and they wrote to the Chief Engineer of the Borough asking whether this land would be available for use as a builder's yard. The reply from the Chief Engineer was, Yes; its existing use is as a builder's yard, so you do not need special permission for it". With that assurance they bought the land and occupied it. Then, afterwards, it was said, "It is not available. The Chief Engineer was wrong", and the local authority were allowed to enforce the restrictions, even though the land had been bought as a result of the assurance that it could be used as a builder's yard. And the law could give no redress.
The other case I would mention is that which appears in our books in which local authorities, Government Departments or whoever grant licences can cancel them, and even deprive a man of his livelihood by cancelling them, and there is no redress. The well-known case is where a taxi driver had to get a licence to run his taxi, and the authority were going to cancel the taxi driver's licence because they said he had been using the taxi cab for driving prostitutes around. When he was

209
up before the committee on the question whether his licence should be cancelled or not, he said, "I want to call my own witness to prove I was not on the day in question driving for prostitutes at all but I was driving it for an ordinary fare." He was not allowed to call that witness, and his licence was cancelled. There was an application to the court to try to upset that decision, but it was held that it was not a judicial decision but an administrative one, and that the court had no power to interfere. There is a whole stream of cases of that kind where the courts have no power to interfere because the decision is one of an administrative nature.
The question is: is our existing system good enough when it consists simply of Members of Parliament—maybe the Press as well, but certainly Members of Parliament—taking up such a matter and the Minister being responsible? Having regard to the large number of individual complaints that there are, ought we not to have a regular system, impartial and independent, which can inquire into matters of this kind. It may not be the right system to have an Ombudsman or even a Parliamentary Commissioner. It might be that the Council on Tribunals and Inquiries could extend their scope somewhat. I do not think the cases would be many. The cases of corruption or maladministration in this country are, fortunately, very few. But if the Council on Tribunals and Inquiries could extend their operations so as to bring within their scope cases of maladministration, and in that way serve as the germ of a new system, which might be called a Council of State, to deal with maladministration—a system which is so needed at the present day, when Government Departments and local authorities have so much to do with the individual—I think we should be setting out on a good, new path. At all events, the information collected in this Report is well worthy of consideration and discussion, and I hope the noble and learned Viscount will give it due consideration.
5.38 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, our debate this afternoon has ranged over a wide field, and I am sure
210
that the whole House is grateful, as I am, to the noble Lords who have spoken and to the noble Lords, Lord Lucas of Chilworth and Lord Silkin, to whom we are indebted for its initiation. I should like to say at once that I consider all the subjects which have been raised as subjects of great importance. I hope that your Lordships will bear with me if I spend a short time in explaining the question of the delay, which at first sight appears a long delay, in regard to the code of rules of procedure.
It is quite true that during the debate on December 1, a year ago, on the Oxfordshire Ironstone case I said that the draft rules were in an advanced stage of preparation, and that I hoped to be able to submit them to the Council on Tribunals for their comments very shortly. What happened was this: that the drafts were in fact sent to the Council early in January of this year. That was quite soon after this debate. But the Council thought—and I am sure your Lordships will agree with the Council—that before they came to consider the rules in detail, it would be useful for them to know the views of the various professional bodies concerned, such as the Bar Council, the Law Society, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, and similar bodies.
I must admit that there was some delay in placing the matter before these bodies and in sending the drafts to them. That was partly due to the fact that in the early months of this year the case which has been referred to as the chalk-pit case arose. Your Lordships will not think it unexpected that those of us who were concerned with the rules were also much occupied during that time with the chalk-pit case and its various ramifications. However, by May the draft rules were sent to these various bodies, comments were invited in that month and a large number of observations, more than 150 in all, were received between May and August. As your Lordships can imagine, the draft rules were revised after a very careful consideration of these observations, and that is why they were not sent back to the Council on Tribunals until last month. I ought to say, in fairness to the Council and to my noble friend Lord Tenby, that I understand they have already had a preliminary examination of the rules at their November meeting,

211
and they are going to examine them again on December 20.
As I said in the last debate, and as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, was good enough to remind us again today, the delay in producing the rules has in some ways been an advantage, for it has at least given us a full opportunity of considering the difficult question of new factual evidence. Because, as I said to your Lordships, I do not think anyone realised that there could be such bitterly held differences of opinion until we had to consider the chalk-pit case.
Your Lordships remember that the point at issue is the extent to which a Minister, who receives a report from one of his inspectors, should be at liberty to differ from the inspector without reopening the inquiry or giving the parties who appeared at the inquiry an opportunity of comment. My Lords, I think some of the difficulties have, in the process of our discussion, been fathered on me, but I have the Franks Report in front of me, and I hope your Lordships will allow me to remind you that they said:
"We recommend that the Minister should be under a statutory obligation to submit to the parties concerned, for their observations, any factual evidence, whether from his own or another Department or from an outside source, which he obtains after the enquiry. In the definition of factual evidence for the purposes of this recommendation we include expert opinion on matters of fact but not expert assistance in the evaluation of technical evidence given at the enquiry".
My Lords, that is the origin of one of our difficulties, and the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, will remember, as I do, his own speech on that point. He also found that very difficult.
There are various other aspects of the matter where all the facts are admitted and agreed; and then the question is: What is the proper inference to be drawn from these facts? We, as lawyers, would probably say that is a question of fact; but your Lordships, in your experience, know that you can have not only an honest but a reasonable difference as to inferences to be drawn from admitted facts, and this occurs in many fields of our lives. I am not going into that in detail, but I want to say that I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth—and I think the noble Lord, Lord Denning, took the same view—that it would be very little
212
use publishing rules of procedure which did not solve that difficulty. That is the point which, I am sure, the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, and his colleagues are considering; and, as I told your Lordships before, when they do come to views I shall be more than delighted to hear those views, and if there are any points they want to put to me, to discuss them. And I can say that the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, to say nothing of my own Department and myself, have given a great deal of thought to this matter, just as the Council have.
Now, my Lords, I may well be attacked for saying this, even saying it to your Lordships, but I feel that it is my duty to say it, and I must. We must find a solution which satisfies the needs of fairness and equity to all who are concerned. But it must not mean intolerable delays in the 6,000 inquiries which the Ministry of Housing and Local Government have to deal with every year. If we do that, we substitute another injustice. It is a difficult point, but I should not be honest if I were not to bring to your Lordships that point of view, because I am sure it is an important aspect of the matter.
Now, I do not think it would really be very useful if I were to develop all of the various arguments which have been put forward. As the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, knows, there are a number of approaches which we have considered and which he will be considering, but I do not think it would be profitable to go through them all to-day. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, and the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, ask me again about the submission to Parliament. I promise that I shall give that the most careful consideration. I should like only to say this: that if one did lay the rules, and there was a Prayer and a general opinion in this House that a rule, or rules, was or were not in accordance with fairness or equity, or, equally, on the other hand, if the House thought the delays caused were too long, I cannot imagine that any wise Minister—and I hope I may include myself, just for this purpose, in that category—would not look at them again. But may I leave it that I will consider that point very carefully, and I will let your Lordships know how my mind is working?

213
The next point which the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, dealt with was the question of the award of costs to successful objectors at inquiries. Here again, as the noble Lord said, the problem is not an easy one. Your Lordships will remember that the Franks Committee thought that costs should be awarded more widely than at present and that in compulsory acquisition cases and in cases relating to clearance schemes, reasonable costs should generally be awarded to successful objectors directly interested but that they should be awarded to unsuccessful objectors only if the acquiring authority has acted unreasonably. The Committee thought that, in the case of planning appeals, reasonable costs should generally be awarded to owner-appellants if they succeeded at the inquiry or if the planning authority had acted unreasonably, and that only exceptionally should costs be awarded to other successful appellants.
When we first discussed the Report of the Franks Committee, I said that I thought there were difficulties about these suggestions. I said, in particular, that it might be very unfair to give costs to successful objectors and to withhold them from those who had been unsuccessful because there might be a policy reason which defeated the second objector and allowed the first to succeed. However, the Ministry of Housing and Local Government have been very helpful and have made a further study of all the provisions in the Acts and of the practice that has been carried out back to the time of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, to which he referred to-day.
Therefore, I propose, with the concurrence of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, to refer the whole question of costs to the Council without any further delay, and to ask them to give me all the guidance in their power. The award of costs to successful objectors was, of course, one of the matters which emerged in the course of the inquiry into the North Oxfordshire ironstone case, which the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, mentioned, and which has recently been the subject of consideration by the Council. As the noble Lord said, the Council drew attention to this point, so that the reference by Mr.
214
Maclay and myself will be at a suitable time. I hope that what has already been done will be helpful to the Council in the way of background information, as it is not slanted in any way.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I brought this forward so strongly because the Council have said, in words, that this was an unreasonable case to have been brought, because it was so bad. May I remind the noble and learned Viscount that the Council's conclusion was:
"The précis of evidence and inspector's report both indicate that the applicants' case was bad and had little chance of success."
I interpreted this as meaning that it was a case which ought never to have been brought and therefore fell into the category of being unreasonable, and that costs should have been awarded against the applicants.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, at any rate, the Council have now got the question of costs to consider. May I be a little lighthearted for a moment and not be misunderstood by your Lordships? With regard to that Report, undoubtedly the Council have brought out the three points, but there were also eight points of criticism of procedure which the noble Lord developed in this House. I dealt with them in answering the debate and said that in my view they did not constitute errors in procedure. On the whole, on these eight points, the Council have agreed with my view. I would only point out to the noble Lord that he must not take that as a ground of criticism of the Council.
I think I have covered all points except that raised by my noble friend Lord Ampthill. If I may say so, again he warmed all our hearts by raising a problem which I know means a great deal to him emotionally, if he will allow me to put it that way. He raised the matter with great restraint and forbearance, for which I am grateful. On the question of his own costs in that inquiry, I took the view, for reasons I set out at some length in the letter which was written on my behalf to his solicitors, that it was not possible for me to refer this on the construction of the section. I also gave my view that I did not think that the inquiry had acted unreasonably and that therefore I would not have referred

215
the matter. My noble friend has said that he does not agree with that, but this is a point on which I think he will agree that two views are possible.
My noble friend went on to raise two more questions: first, the question of costs generally—and that I have already answered. The second point was with regard to new Defence legislation. I will certainly bring this matter to the attention of my right honourable friends in the Service Departments, especially from the point of view of asking them to consider whether the special tribunals which exist for obvious security reasons in Service matters will somehow be dealt with so that their reports can be made to the Council on Tribunals, and also from the point of view of costs. As a distinguished sailor, my noble friend will understand that, when security matters come in, it is not so easy. The question of reports should be as easy as in other matters, and I should like to give this a good deal of thought. I hope that, if not content, my noble friend will believe that the matter will not be pigeonholed and that the special position of inquiries in which Service Departments are involved will be considered. I do not think that I can go further, but I want him to know that I will consider his point.
I want to say a word about the Council itself and its composition. It is now at full strength and any further increase in its size would require legislation. I still believe that one of the great merits of the Council is that it brings to its work the experience of its members in a large number of different fields, and I should be very sorry to see it turned into anything in the nature of a body of fulltime professional members.
Nor do I think that a great deal can be usefully done to assist the Council by giving it a large increase of staff, although it is a fact that there has been quite a substantial increase in the staff in the past twelve months. The difficulty of the Council—and I know the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, who is so fair-minded, will appreciate this point—is that its work requires that it should be carried out by the members of the Council and not by its staff, however skilled these may be. For example, the scrutiny of the rules of procedure cannot be left to the officials of the
216
Council but must be undertaken by the members themselves; and the same applies in a large degree to the visits which are paid to tribunals and statutory inquiries and to the consideration of objections which is now forming a more and more important part of the Council's work.
I believe that the Council has fully justified itself in the three years which have elapsed since it was first set up, and I have no doubt that it is working with considerable efficiency and has shown its readiness to embark on thorough-going investigations and to form judgments which are quite evidently independent of any outside influences. If we are to give the Council the extra work which is suggested in the Whyatt Report, to which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, referred, then a new situation would arise and one would have to consider it again.
That brings me to the subject of the Whyatt Report, and here again I hope the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, will think this an adequate way of dealing with the subject. I should like to state quite briefly the problems which have presented themselves to my mind on a reading of this interesting Report. As your Lordships probably know, and as the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has said, it deals with two matters—and I think one can be clear about it only if one has that in mind. First, it deals with complaints against discretionary decisions where the citizen disagrees with the way in which an official has exercised his discretion but has no formal means of challenging it. My noble and learned friend Lord Denning referred to the question of a licence which is given to certain people, and I think that is a very good example. The complaint here is not that the official has abused his power, but that the decision is not in all the circumstances the appropriate one. The second, as again the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, made clear, is formed by complaints against acts of maladministration, which are complaints aimed at official misconduct, where it is a question not of appealing from but of making an accusation against officials. That is the real difference between the two parts of the case.
The remedy suggested by the Whyatt Report for the first type of complaint

217
is, broadly, an extension of the tribunal procedure over a much wider field than at present. The Report suggests that the powers of the Council on Tribunals should be extended so that it can survey these areas where there are no tribunals at the moment, and make suggestions where they should exist, where decisions are made which are not at present subject to appeal. The Council would also have authority to impose new procedures of inquiry similar to the statutory procedures which come under its supervision. It is further recommended that a General Appeal Tribunal should be established to deal with appeals from miscellaneous discretionary decisions which cannot suitably be allocated to special tribunals. I think my noble and learned friend Lord Denning was the only one of your Lordships who had the courage to hint, without nailing his colours to it, that perhaps we might get to something like the arrangement which is part of the structure of the courts. That is a different approach, but one which most of us have considered carefully because we read the book on it by our friend Professor Hamson. That is the position with regard to the first type of complaint.
For the second type of complaint the Whyatt Report suggests the appointment of a Parliamentary Commissioner whose status would be similar to that of the Comptroller and Auditor General. It is said that in the first instance he will act only on complaints received from Members of either House, although it is suggested that later his jurisdiction might be extended to entertaining complaints direct from the public. The Report proposes that before investigating a complaint against a Department the Commissioner would notify the Minister concerned who would have power to veto the proposed investigation. The Commissioner would have access to departmental correspondence and reports, but not to internal minutes. Any criticism in his report would be confined to the Department concerned and would not mention civil servants by name.
This is the guiding principle of the Report: that the individual is entitled to have an impartial adjudication of his dispute with authority, unless there are overriding considerations which make it
218
necessary in the public interest that the Minister should retain the responsibility for making the final decision. That is, of course, very attractive to enunciate, but I think all your Lordships who have had to deal with administration will consider that it requires careful thought, because it really is saying that the whole balance will be that if you find a decision left to somebody, and no appeal procedures from that somebody's decision, you must invent them. All I am saying (I hope your Lordships will not misunderstand me and think I am prejudging it) is that I believe it needs a great deal of thought, because the country has to go on and administration has to go on and you have to balance matters.
The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, raised an interesting development of that point. He said that it was difficult to find a principle between the cases where there were tribunals and the cases where there were not. I would suggest that, broadly, the tribunals have been thought appropriate in cases where the issues are defined and can be decided in accordance with settled rules; they have been thought inappropriate where the decisions are largely discretionary and subject to considerations of policy. I should remind your Lordships that even in the judicial sphere the exercise of discretion by a judge of first instance is very seldom interfered with by an appellate court. It is for your Lordships' consideration whether the application in the administrative sphere of the same principle should not be considered. If I may again wander for a moment, I remember my immense relief when the Court of Appeal took that view and said they could not interfere with the discretion when I had persuaded my noble and learned friend Lord Denning to exercise his discretion in favour of my client. But it is an important point that, if you say this is a matter of discretion, then the approach of the law has certainly been that we must be chary of interfering with it.
The other point is one which I think will appeal to your Lordships as a question which must be faced. There must necessarily be large areas where efficient administration means entrusting the administrator of appropriate rank

219
with the responsibility of making decisions, subject to the general instructions of his superior and the safeguard of Ministerial responsibility to Parliament. A wide extension of the tribunal system must be considered from the point of view of the possibility of its being slower, more expensive, and less responsible administration. I think that is a psychological problem which we have to consider. We want good administrators, just as we want good officers in the Services. If there is not to be responsibility, if there is always to be an appeal, shall we get them? That is what I am asking your Lordships to consider, because I think it is an important point which we have to bear in mind.
On the other point, your Lordships will obviously consider whether the creation of tribunals should be a matter for Parliament or whether it should be a matter for a body outside Parliament as is suggested in the Report. I think noble Lords will agree with me that the whole tendency in our Parliamentary lifetime has been for Parliament to insert provision for a tribunal in an Act when it thought right. I am trying to raise the points which your Lordships should consider, rather than prejudge them in any way. The proposals for a Parliamentary Commissioner have received more notice than those relating to appeals in discretionary matters. Here again, I feel there are very serious aspects to be considered which I hope noble Lords will think worthy of consideration. My noble and learned friend Lord Denning expressed the fear which has been expressed in several quarters, that the proposals would affect the responsibility of Ministers to Parliament. The fear has also been expressed that they affect the vitally important function of a Member of Parliament in himself probing, by letter, Parliamentary Question, and Adjournment Debates the grievances of his constituents.
On the first of these points, the question of Ministerial responsibility, there is bound to be a borderline area where the carrying out of a Minister's policy may in itself cause hardship. As all your Lordships know, when one is drawing a Statute one has to draw a line as to its application, and as one comes up against that line one comes up against the hard case. That is the reason for our proverb
220
that, "Hard cases make bad law." Your Lordships will see where that leads. Criticising the Minister's policy is a matter for Parliament but, as the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, indicated, it would be invidious for a Minister to appear to ward off the inquiry by the Parliamentary Commissioner by using his veto. It would look as if he had something to hide. Moreover, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, pointed out, it is the corollary of the responsibility of a Minister to Parliament for the actions of his staff that the Minister himself must discipline his staff when they err. Equally, many are troubled by the conception that a Member of Parliament might, under one pressure or another, have to pass to the Commissioner action which he has hitherto thought his own duty, and which has been one of the most important matters in preserving his personal relationship with his constituents, irrespective of Party.
If I have mentioned it to your Lordships before, I apologise, but during the eighteen months of my Membership of another place I saw nearly 200 constituents a month—over 3,000 in all—personally and face to face, in order to get the real strength of their problems. The importance of that is that it gets rid of the constituents' idea of this terrible, "we" and "they"—the idea that they are different from ourselves—if they can come and talk to us. I pushed all their troubles, by letter, by Question or otherwise, as a Member of Parliament. That is tremendously important, and I think it is a matter for consideration. I do not put it any higher than that—that it should be considered.
I have done my best to give your Lordships in brief outline an indication of some of the thoughts which have occurred to me on a first reading of the Whyatt Report. I have done so because I believe that the relationship of the individual with the modern, complicated, scientific State is one of the great problems of our time, and that we should never lose an opportunity for considering it. But I would ask your Lordships to say that, as far as the Government are concerned (the Report has been published for only quite a short time) it is obvious that, in view of its far-reaching proposals, the Government must have further time

221
before they can reasonably be expected to be in a position to define their attitude to it. Therefore, may I again thank your Lordships, especially the noble Lords, Lord Lucas of Chilworth and Lord Silkin, for introducing what to me has been a very interesting discussion, and ask your Lordships to extend your usual clemency to me for the length of my reply.
6.20 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, may I thank the noble and learned Viscount for the continued good will and courtesy which he always displays to me when I raise these rather controversial issues? I am quite prepared to accept the noble and learned Viscount's assurances that the matters I have raised will receive his very careful consideration. When he says that, I know that they will, and I have no further observation to make except this: I raised the Motion, noble Lords will remember, on December 1, just over twelve months ago. I played the coward and ran away to the sunshine of the Caribbean and South America, leaving your Lordships to withstand the rigours of the English winter, knowing full well I should arrive back in this country about
222
the same time as consideration would be given to the point I had raised. I intend to do the same again. I shall be with your Lordships again about Easter time, and I know the noble and learned Viscount will not object if I raise the whole matter again. Perhaps he will then be in a position to give me all the answers that he could not give me this afternoon. With my renewed thanks to him and to your Lordships for a most interesting debate, I beg your Lordships' leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I did not formally put the Question which is in my name on the Order Paper, but I think that the noble and learned Viscount has already replied to it and I would not expect him to give another reply. The proletarians will be here right through up to Easter, and it may be that the noble and learned Viscount will be hearing from me again, as well, round about that time.
House adjourned at twentyone minutes past six o'clock.