Lords Sitting of 14 February 1961

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Chelmsford
The Lord Lyell—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

TRAFFIC AND VEHICULAR LIGHTS
2.35 p.m.
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 information is available as to the number of motor accidents attributed to the diversity of levels and types of lights carried on different vehicles, and of light signals in different parts of the country; and whether consideration has been given to requiring more uniformity with regard to all of these.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD CHESHAM): My Lords, the answer to the first part of the Question is, No. The police reports, which are the source of our information on road accidents, do not attempt to indicate the cause or causes of each accident. The answer to the second part of the Question is that lights on vehicles have to be fitted within positional limits which are defined as closely as possible, to ensure that they give a proper and visible indication of their function, which may be, for example, to indicate the width of the vehicle, the direction in which it is travelling, or whether the driver intends to turn or to stop. Bearing in mind the widely varying sizes and shapes of different types of vehicle, it would not be reasonable to define these positional limits any more closely.
The type of light is determined partly by regulation and partly by arrange-
704
ments between manufacturers, and we are moving in the direction which the noble Lord advocates. For instance, we are about to circulate for comment a proposal to require all bicycles to carry the rear lamps marked with a British Standard number which are now obligatory only on those bicycles manufactured after the 1st April, 1959, and also revised requirements for direction indicators. Maximum and minimum lights for traffic light signals are prescribed in regulations. The permitted differences in height are fairly wide to allow for obstruction of view by gradient or other causes. But normally traffic lights are erected at the minimum height allowed.
LORD BOSSOM: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that comprehensive Answer, but may I ask him to go on a very busy road late at night and see the difficulty with all these lights? I am sure he would agree it would be well worth while to send out regulations to various local authorities to try to make lights a little more uniform than they are to-day.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I am not sure I understand my noble friend correctly. Is he referring to actual traffic lights or other lights such as advertisements, and so on, in the vicinity?
LORD BOSSOM: My Lords, I was referring to both. Although it may be impossible in regard to all cars, I am sure the Minister would agree that lights on new cars could be made more uniform than they are at the present time. And as to the signals, it is obvious that much more could be done.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, as I say, we have our eyes very much on this matter. We are moving towards greater uniformity and, one hopes, an effective reduction of the kind of problems my noble friend has in mind.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, when the noble Lord says he has no information except from the police, may I ask what about the Road Research Laboratory? Cannot the Road Research Laboratory help a little with regard to the type of lighting? And could the noble Lord not tell us whether yellow headlights, such as are used on the Continent, would not

705
be a considerable improvement on some of the more crowded roads in this country?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, the Road Research Laboratory has done a great deal of work on lighting problems and is of very considerable help in conducting detailed investigations into certain specialised aspects, but it is unable to cover the complete field. As regards the question of yellow as against white headlights, I do not want to argue the matter with the noble Earl at the present time, but I can assure him that there are certainly two schools of thought about it.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he is not aware that there is great urgency in bringing this uniformity into effect as soon as possible'? Is he not aware that, particularly on nights when it is wet, with so many shop advertisement lights being displayed, in many cases conflicting with the colours of indicator lights on cars, it is very difficult to judge which way a car is turning or even if it is stopping? Should there not be some uniformity, not only in the size of the lights and the indicators but also in the colour? The front lights on cars are often either white or amber, and it is very difficult to tell whether one is looking at the front of the car or the back of the car.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I think that if anyone is displaying amber lights on the front he is committing an offence, because the regulation specifies that the positional lights indicating the width of a car should be white. So far as I am aware, 'the only amber light one can show to the front is a flashing indicator.
LORD SHEPHERD: That is what I mean.
LORD CHESHAM: Then it is flashing on one side of the car only, and therefore unlikely to be confused with sidelights. But we are certainly very much aware of the problem the noble Lord has mentioned, which we could perhaps call the confused nature of lights on wet nights. It is a subject we think about a good deal and we hope to effect improvement steadily as time goes on.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, cannot the manufacturers achieve some uni-
706
formity with just a bit of persuasion by the Government?
LORD CHESHAM: I have already said that that is already going on.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I am not quite clear why the noble Lord says that this is too wide a subject to be referred to the Road Research Laboratory. I used to have much to do with the Road Research Laboratory, as the noble Viscount the Leader of the House has now, and in my experience they have to deal with very wide problems indeed. I wonder whether the noble Lord would consider asking his right honourable friend the Minister of. Transport whether he would call for a further report from the Road Research Laboratory.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I have great sympathy with what the noble Marquess said, but I think he did not take me quite correctly. It was not the question of lighting that I referred to as being too wide, but rather the problem of the complete analysis of accidents. I assure him that in consultation we have every intention and hope of getting as much help and value from the Road Research Laboratory as possible.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords. I should like to thank the Minister for the kind way in which he has treated this Question and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bossom, for having put it down. May I ask the Minister whether he will not seek to get wider research established than is going on at present, because we are all puzzled about these differing aspects on the roads which add to accidents?
LORD CHESHAM: I would certainly not disagree with what the noble Viscount has said, and I positively agree with him that there should be continued action and research into this problem.
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, in his original reply my noble friend stated that lights should be shown on vehicles to indicate the width of the vehicle. May I ask him whether his right honourable friend has any intention and, if not, Whether he will consider the point, that lights should be shown on such vehicles as lorries to indicate the height of the vehicle? And,

707
if so, should they not also show the width at the top? There is nothing more dangerous at night than lorries being driven, the height and width of which one does not really know.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I think the best thing to do would be to convey to my right honourable friend the general gist of your Lordships' opinions. including the opinion of my noble friend Lord Gosford.

SWEDISH ROAD SAFETY MEASURES
2.43 p.m.
LORD ELTON: 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 called to the fact that in Sweden there were only two road deaths during the last Christmas holiday period, and that, allowing for the difference in population and number of cars, a proportionate number of fatalities in this country would have been approximately 16, instead of the 127 actually recorded; and seeing that in Sweden a blood test for drivers is enforced, with exceptionally severe penalties for driving under the influence of liquor, and further that in Sweden a speed limit of 48 m.p.h. on the open road was experimentally enforced over the Christmas holiday, whether the Government is studying the Swedish example with a view to adopting, or adapting, it in this country.]
LORD CHESHAM: Yes, my Lords, Her Majesty's Government are anxious to gain any possible benefits from the results of experience of road safety measures adopted by other countries and would not hesitate to apply such measures for use in this country if this seemed likely to contribute towards road safety. My right honourable friend the Minister of Transport maintains a close contact with his European colleagues through the European Conference of Ministers of Transport which regularly discusses road safety problems as well as other transport matters. Apart from this my right honourable friend arranges for ad hoc consultation with the appropriate authori-
708
ties in other countries on particular road safety matters. While it is not always useful to make direct comparisons between the accident records for very short periods in different countries, my right honourable friend is nevertheless proposing to take the first convenient opportunity of finding out more details of Swedish experience last Christmas.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether, owing to the difference in climate and conditions of traffic generally, it may not be rather dangerous to draw too much in the way of comparison from a country like Sweden?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I think it is certainly necessary to obtain the fullest possible details on this matter before attempting to draw any conclusions.
LORD ELTON: My Lords, although, as my noble friend Lord Howe has suggested, it is always dangerous to draw comparisons because there are always contrasts, would not the Minister agree that valuable deductions could probably be drawn from such an obviously successful experiment in a country which, admittedly, has poor roads and worse surfaces, but nevertheless presents many similarities? May I ask one further question, in case the possible unpopularity of adopting or adapting the Swedish example should enter into Ministerial calculations?—I am sure that questions of popularity and unpopularity seldom do, but should they do so, is the Minister aware that in a recent British television feature viewers, so I am told, saw a Swedish citizen being interviewed, and in the course of the interview he said that the Swedish law on drink and driving was very tough and had been very unpopular indeed at first in Sweden, but that they now accepted it and felt that it should be copied all over the world?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, if the noble Lord would be a little patient with me as I endeavour to answer his some what complex supplementary question, I would say this. As I understand the matter, on the information I have at the moment, I do not know that the particular experiments to which he refers are accepted as an unqualified success in Sweden. For instance, I have seen it stated—I do not associate myself or

709
otherwise with this opinion—that it is difficult to draw any definite conclusion on speed limits owing to the fact that the roads were covered in ice and snow at the time in any case, and therefore there was a physical speed limit in operation at the time. But I can assure the noble Lord that there is a great deal of controversy in Sweden as to whether or not this has been really effective. I think the best thing would be, as said before, to obtain the fullest possible information and to estimate and evaluate it as accurately as may be.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether, when making these inquiries, the Government would contemplate going into the question of regulations in Sweden in regard to the halting of vehicles on highways, and perhaps even the parking of them? In the view of some of us, this is a major cause of the really serious accidents, particularly when bad road conditions exist.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I will certainly suggest that what my noble friend puts forward should be done. I hope it will not have escaped his notice that we have already started certain action on the same lines.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, I meant in comparing the figures. Do the Swedish regulations compare with ours?

POOLE CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed to a Select Committee.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed to a Select Committee.

DEVON COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [H.L.]
2.50 p.m.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD MERTHYR): My Lords, this is a General Powers Bill consisting of 138 clauses and three Schedules. I wish to make a statement on Clause 55 which I apprehend is likely to give rise to considerable controversy. This clause pro-
710
vides for the control by the County Council of afforestation on certain lands which were previously exempted by Section 12 (2) (e) of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, from the obligation to obtain permission for development. There are twelve Petitions against this Bill but none of them is against this clause, which is therefore technically unopposed and would normally not have to be specifically justified by the Promoters before the Committee. For this reason, I shall support the Motion standing in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Buckinghamshire. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second lime.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a, —(Lord Merthyr.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Select Committee.
THE EARL OF BUCKINGHAMSHIRE: My Lords, now that the Bill has received its Second Reading, I beg to move the Instruction standing in my name. As the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees has stated, Clause 55 seeks to amend Section 12 (2) (e) of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947. This section was meant as a safeguard for forestry, and, if I may, I will refer very briefly to it. It reads:
"in this Act, except where the context otherwise requires, the expression 'development' means the carrying out of building, engineering mining or other operations in, on, over or under land;
Provided that the following operations or uses of land shall not be deemed for the purposes of this Act to involve development of the land, that is to say:
(e) the use of any land for the purposes of agriculture or forestry (including afforestation), and the use for any of those purposes of any building occupied together with the land so used;…"
As I have said, this clause seeks to amend that, and a number of us feel very strongly that this should not be amended.
But the most important reason for my rising to move this Instruction is that originally, when Clause 55 was inserted in the Bill, there was, I understand, a strong outcry that it should not be included. We had thought that the clause was to be withdrawn and that an agreement which has now been come to was to be made between the Government, the Forestry Commission, the National

711
Parks Commission and the two bodies who represent land owners and woodland owners. Now, in spite of that agreement, which I understand was reached last month, this clause has been inserted. Surely it is a strong matter of principle that when an agreement of that kind has been reached a Private Bill should not include a clause such as this, which goes against the very principles of that agreement. If this clause were to be passed it would set a precedent for other counties; they would start bringing in such a clause in their own private Bills.
There is one other point of which I have not given notice (although I do not think that matters) which I might make: that if afforestation with careful voluntary planning under this agreement were allowed, it could possibly affect the rainfall in the area and so help to prevent the floods that we have seen occurring in Devonshire and other counties in that part of the country.
In conclusion, I should like to take this opportunity of thanking both the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees and his advisers for helping me to frame the Instruction which is on the Order Paper. I would ask your Lordships to take notice of the wording. I am not asking for the clause to be deleted, here or elsewhere, but only that it shall be given special attention by the Committee. As the Lord Chairman has stated, it is an Opposed Bill but this clause is not opposed; and with this Instruction I am drawing the attention of the Committee to the clause.
Moved, That it be an Instruction to the Committee to which the Bill may be referred not to pass Clause 55 (Control of afforestation) without special attention.—(The Earl of Buckinghamshire.)
2.58 p.m.
LORD HYLTON: My Lords, I should like to support my noble friend in this matter. It appears from what he has told us that the clause, if carried, would establish quite a new precedent and one in opposition to the powers given by the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947. He pointed out that agriculture and forestry are the two basic uses of land which are free from control. This clause in the Devonshire County Council Bill seeks to control planting of new land.
712
In my view there are severe objections to that method of thinking. First, as the noble Lord has said, if the Bill should be passed in its present form for one county, it is perfectly clear that any other county with a national park, or with common or open land under access agreements, would, or might, bring it under control in the same way. I think your Lordships know that no less than one-tenth of the land surface of England and Wales is included in national parks, and much of this land is the only reserve for plantable land if there is to be no interference with good agricultural land.
I believe that not only the right honourable gentleman the Minister of Housing and Local Government, but also the right honourable gentleman the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who casts a fatherly wing over forestry in all its phases, is involved in this new proposal. We in the West of England are very fortunate because the National Parks Commission singled us out as doing sensitive but intelligent work in surveying woodlands within the national parks. While we are grateful for having been singled out in that way, I believe—and this afternoon I am speaking entirely for myself, although I am a member of a National Parks Committee—that we must not press too far the control of forestry by national park committees. What we want is the sort of co-operation envisaged in the agreement to which my noble friend Lord Buckinghamshire has referred.
The agreement holds out very good hopes that, by consulting together various interests—the national park interests, the private forestry interests, the Forestry Commission interests and the local inhabitants—they will all come to some happy agreed solution. That may sound rather far-fetched to your Lordships, but I hope that in regard to some of the parks, at any rate, agreement will be reached. That will be much better than this rather formal sort of compulsory power that is suggested in the Devonshire County Council Bill. Also, of course, it is far better than any more extreme action that might be taken by any national park committee in trying compulsorily to acquire land for forestry and so on—but that is another point which I must not raise to-day. I do not think that national parks can be treated as museum pieces. New woods must

713
be planted; there must be a great dean of now forestry; and I do not believe that this method of control is going to help. I therefore support the Instruction of my noble friend Lord Buckinghamshire.
3.2 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, in view of the remarks of my noble friend Lord Buckinghamshire, I think that your Lordships may like a brief comment from maiden me on Clause 55 of this Private Bill. Clause 55 deals with an admittedly very important problem. The possibility of large-scale afforestation of open land in national parks has recently, as many of your Lordships know, caused widespread concern. It must not, of course, be forgotten. as my noble friend Lord Hylton said, that forestry, like agriculture, is part of the natural scene in a national park and is also essential to the life of the park and its people. On the other hand, new forests in national parks could not only change but also impair the essential character and beauty of the landscape, if the wrong sort of trees were planted or if they were wrongly sited. 'It is not surprising, therefore, that many representations about this matter have been made to my right honourable friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government. In view of their responsibilities for Dartmoor National Park, it is also very proper that this should be a subject of serious concern to the Devon County Council as the park planning authority.
Granted that concern, the question is whether it be wise to proceed in the way suggested by the Devon County Council in the Bill. As your Lordships know—and it has already been made clear in the House this afternoon—agriculture and forestry have never been regarded as development for the purposes of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947. It seems most undesirable that they should be made so without some especially compelling reason, even in a national park or in the other areas covered by Clause 55 of this Bill. Apart from this, again as my two noble friends have already made clear, discussions have recently been proceeding, at the Minister's invitation, between the Ministry, the National Parks Commission, the Forestry Commission, the newly-created Timber Growers' Organisation
714
and the Country Landowners Association with a view 'to working out a voluntary scheme to deal with this very problem. I am glad Ito confirm what has been said, that agreement on a voluntary scheme has now been reached, and I would also pay tribute to the part which the noble Lord, Lord Strang, as Chairman of the National Parks Corn-mission, has played in working out this scheme.
I feel that I should make it clear that the Minister's view is that this new voluntary scheme should be given a fair trial. It is surely better to proceed by voluntary agreement, if possible, rather than by any form of compulsion; and if Clause 55 remains in this Bill, with its compulsory powers, no one could really say that we were giving the voluntary scheme a fair chance. In view of this, the Ministry have now approached the Devon County Council, expressing the hope that they will withdraw Clause 55. I understand 'that the County Council wish to discuss this matter further with the Ministry, who are of course willing to do so. In any event, my right honourable friend will be reporting in the normal manner to the Select Committee, where the various issues can be, and indeed should be, threshed out. And, in view of what I have said, your Lordships will not be surprised to hear that I am quite willing to accept my noble friend Lord Buckinghamshire's Motion for an Instruction.
3.7 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, before the noble Earl expresses thanks for the speech of the noble Earl who has just spoken, I rise first to congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Jellieoe, on an excellent first performance from the Treasury Bench—excellent not from the purely conventional way but because he did not read his brief. He appeared, at any rate —and I believe it was so—to have digested what had been told to him and used his own language. I hope that some of his successors will take a leaf out of his book and will be equally successful.
On the merits of the matter, of course there can be no objection to giving a Committee an instruction to look at a particular clause. That is their job, and one would hope that they would do it without any direction from this House. 1ndeecl, I rather deplore giving directions

715
from this House to a Select Committee of its own Members asking them to pay particular attention to a particular clause. I have no objection to the Bill's being discussed generally, and the particular clause being discussed generally, so that the Committee may know what are the feelings of the House. But I think it is rather offensive to tell the Committee, after a discussion of this kind. to pay particular attention to a particular clause.
Again on the merits of the matter, I agree somewhat with those who have drawn attention to the clause. not necessarily for the reasons they have given, but because if we are to bring any control over forestry, even in national parks, it ought to be done as a general measure and not done by a Private Bill in particular cases. I think there is a lot to be said for control of forestry. I should even be prepared to discuss agriculture in national parks. Obviously, the present view is that they should be exempt from control, but there may be a case for controlling them, and I should like that matter to be considered. But certainly this would appear to be prejudging their consideration and applying it to an individual case. For these reasons, I am not going to oppose the Instruction. I do not think it is worth very much further debate. But I rather regret that it was felt necessary to give this Instruction, because I am quite sure that the Committee would have taken this into consideration in any case, especially in view of the agreement about which the noble Earl has just told us, and also the action the Minister proposes to take.
3.10 p.m.
THE EARL OF BUCKINGHAMSHIRE: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has taken the very words out of my mouth in offering the noble Earl congratulations on his first speech on the Front Bench. He has, I understand, a more difficult Motion to reply to later on, and I am delighted that my Motion should be the first to, shall I say, break him in. With regard to the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, I should like to make it clear to him that I had no intention whatsoever of giving any direction to the Committee. All I was asking was that the attention of the Committee should be drawn to this particular clause. They
716
are perfectly free, as I understand it, to pass the clause or not, as they wish. Once again, I would repeat my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, and to his advisers, for the framing of this Instruction, because it was due to them that it was done in this way. I am most grateful; and I hope that the House will accept my Instruction.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SUICIDE BILL [H.L.]
3.11 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to amend the law of England and Wales relating to suicide and for purposes connected therewith. My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 1a. and to be printed.

RIGHT OF PRIVACY BILL [H.L.]
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to protect a person from any unjustifiable publication relating to his private affairs and to give him rights at law in the event of such publication. My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Mancrsoft.)
On Question, Bill read la, and to be printed.

ZETLAND COUNTY COUNCIL (SYMBISTER HARBOUR) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Considered on Report (according to Order).

FARNHAM CASTLE MEASURE, 1961
3.13 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON rose to move to resolve, That in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Farnham Castle Measure, 1961, be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent. The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, 'I rise to move the 'Motion standing in my name on the

717
Order Paper. I do so with somewhat mixed feelings. As a Church Commissioner and a member of the Estates and Finance Committee I am wholly, if reluctantly, in favour of what the Measure sets out to achieve. But it also happens that was the last Bishop of Guildford to live in Farnham Castle, so I cannot help feeling some regret that this historic 'building will no longer serve as the official residence of the Bishop of Guildford. On the other hand, I realise only too well that, as a place of residence, it belongs to a day and age which is past. At the present time, no Bishop can afford to live even in the comparatively small proportion of the whole building which I occupied while I was there.
The object of the Measure, and the effect of the various clauses, is fully set out in the comments and explanations of the Legislative Committee which are attached to the Report laid before your Lordships' House in November last. I need not therefore worry your Lordships with a description. Briefly, the situation is this. Before the division of the Diocese of Winchester, Farnham Castle was for many centuries the residence of the Bishops of Winchester. When Winchester was divided, the castle was geographically in the new Diocese of Guildford, and plans for its future had to be made. The Diocese of Winchester (Division) Measure, 1923, provided for a scheme to be made either for the sale of the castle or for its continued use for purposes connected with the Church of England. A scheme was duly made in 1926, and under that scheme the castle was to be used as the official residence for the Bishop of Guildford, for diocesan offices, for a theological college or a school, a training college or a retreat house. The castle was vested in the Diocesan Board of Finance, and the actual use had to be determined by the Board, with the approval of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. Part of the castle was set up as a residence for the Bishop, and the remainder remained vested in the Board of Finance and was used as a retreat house until the end of 1958.
The late Bishop of Guildford, my immediate successor, did not live in the castle. The present position is that the whole castle is unoccupied; and, after exhaustive efforts, no other use connected
718
with the Church of England that would be practicable has been found. It is clearly highly desirable that the building should be occupied. It is also desirable, in order to facilitate this, that the whole building and grounds should be in one ownership. The object of the Measure is therefore to vest the whole property in the Church Commissioners, and to give them power to let, but not to sell, the whole or part to approved persons for approved purposes: and this approval is required to be given by the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of Guildford. The Measure has been drawn up in the closest association with the Church Commissioners and the diocesan authorities. It has received the approval of the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings, and was approved by the Diocesan Conference with one dissenting vote. It was debated on two occasions in the Church Assembly. At no stage was there a Division, and the only amendments made were small drafting ones made at the instance of those in charge of the Measure. The Ecclesiastical Committee has reported favourably upon the Measure, and I have no hesitation in commending it to your Lordships. I beg to move the Resolution on the Order Paper.
Moved to resolve, That in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Farnham Castle Measure, 1961, be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent.—(The Lord Bishop of London.)
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am sure we are all grateful to the right reverend Prelate for the careful explanation given of this Measure. I was asking about it before the meeting of your Lordships. I now fully understand it, and welcome it very much. May I take this opportunity of saying how sorry I am to see the notice in the papers that the right reverend Prelate may be leaving his important charge, and to say how grateful many of us have been for the manner in which he has assisted the House of Lords in the past by his quietness, good fellowship and the general good feeling which he has displayed?
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH ETC. (PENSIONS) BILL
3.18 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, I hope that this Bill will prove useful, short and uncontroversial. I hope also that your Lordships will allow me to take the opportunity, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, to pay a small tribute to the debt which agriculture owes to the work of the Agricultural Research Council, which, since its establishment in 1931, has widened its activities and has, I think, a beneficial and far-reaching influence at the present time. Like the other Research Councils for which I am responsible, it is manned largely by those whose work there is a public service, and in particular I should like to mention the work of the noble Duke, the Duke of Northumberland, the present Chairman, and also his predecessor, the noble Lord, Lord Rothschild, who for several years was a great help to us in the chair of the Agricultural Research Council.
My Lords, the Bill is needed for technical reasons. It seeks to enable the Council, the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister of Agriculture to make contributory unfunded superannuation schemes for the staffs of the agricultural institutions, and agricultural colleges in Scotland, which are financed wholly or mainly by those authorities.
The background to the Bill is. briefly, as follows. Until 1953 the pension arrangements of the Federated Superannuation System for Universities, which, I am sorry to say, is known, like many other bodies, by its initials—" F.S.S.U.", were applied equally to the Civil Service scientist and to the agricultural research scientist, under an arrangement by which the conditions of service recommended by the Barlow Report of 1945 on the Scientific Civil Service were also applied to the staffs of the State-supported agricultural research institutes.
In 1953, large numbers of F.S.S.U. civil servants (if I may use the phrase) were permitted to exchange their cover under the F.S.S.U., providing benefits re-
720
lating to contributions throughout the member's career, for the pension provisions applying to the Civil Service generally under the Superannuation Acts, where benefits are related to salary on retirement. I think it can be debated which of the two systems is better in present conditions, but for some time now we have been under pressure from the staffs of the various agricultural institutes, and particularly those financed or grant-aided by the Agricultural Research Council, who felt that something on the lines of the Superannuation Acts would be more suitable for their particular case. In particular, there has been pressure for pensions arrangements to be extended to industrial staffs, as in the case of the Civil Service and other public bodies.
This Bill is designed to enable us to effect these changes. It will enable us to make satisfactory pension arrangements without the complications involved in setting up separate pensions funds. Moreover, unless employees' contributions to an unfounded scheme or schemes are actually required under the terms of a Public General Statute, the employees would be deprived of their tax relief on their pension contributions, under Section 378 of the Income Tax Act, 1952, which applies only where the superannuation benefits are payable in pursuance of a Public General Act of Parliament, and the persons participating in the scheme are required by the Act to pay contributions. The Bill achieves this by one of its subsections.
The Scottish agricultural colleges have been included because, apart from their teaching functions, the colleges are responsible for the general and specialist advisory service to farmers in Scotland. It was desirable that the college staffs, as well as the research institute staffs, should have parity, as nearly as possible, with their Civil Service counterparts in matters of conditions of service, and the present superannuation conditions of college staffs there are similar, I am told, to those of the staffs of the research institutes.
Looking rapidly through the clauses, I think that what I have said explains the purpose of Clause 1, and subsection (1) includes the enabling power. So far as the Agricultural Research Council is concerned, the institutions referred to are both institutes and units set up and

721
directly controlled by the Council and independent agricultural research institutes which, in the opinion of the Council, are wholly or mainly maintaintd by grants from them. So far as the Secretary of State for Scotland is concerned, they are grant-aided agricultural research institutes, and Scottish agricultural colleges which, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, are wholly or mainly maintained by grants from him. The final words refer to the income tax point to which I have referred. I do not think I need refer in detail to subsection (2).
With regard to subsection (3) I should say this. It provides:
"Nothing in this section shall prejudice any power conferred by the Council's charter as for the time being in force, or any pension scheme made under such a power."
We made that qualification to safeguard the Council's authority to continue to provide, where desired, for the payment of pensions under existing schemes. It is the intention of the Council and of the two agricultural departments to give existing staff the option of remaining under their present arrangement or of joining the new scheme; but once a new scheme has been made, it will be compulsory for subsequent new entrants. Clause 2 is formal in its entirety. My Lords, with that explanation. I hope the House will give a Second Reading to this small but, I hope, useful measure. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill now be read 2a—(Viscount Hailsham.)
3.26 p.m.
LORD WISE: My Lords, I wish, first of all, to say how much I appreciate the quiet and orderly manner in which the noble Viscount has introduced this Bill. I seem to prefer him in the afternoon rather than the evening. At any rate, I appreciate what he has said, and he has explained the Rill fully. I think he is right, too, in paying a tribute to the Chairman of the Agricultural Research Council, because anything that any council or committee can do to assist agriculture must be for the benefit of the
722
country. I also appreciate his words as regards the background of the Bill.
I had it in mind, when reading the Bill, that there might have been some sort of negotiations in the past between the employees of the various bodies and those in authority, and I think this Bill sets out what must have been agreed between those particular parties. There is one point in the Bill which, in my view, is a very good feature, and it is that consultation will take place between the authorities and the employees before schemes are initiated. Joint consultation of that sort must be to the advantage of those who are to be given pensions, gratuities, or the like. The Bill had, I noticed, a very easy passage in another place. It was discussed late at night, though perhaps not so late as certain business last night, and within a matter of a few minutes was passed through the House. But that does not make it any less important as a Bill; therefore I think we must welcome it in this House and hope that it will soon be put into operation.
I notice that it provides pensions not only for industrial employees but also for non-industrial employees. So far as the numbers who will benefit by the Bill are concerned, it appears to me that there are about 6,000 employees, of whom two-thirds will be non-industrial and one-third industrial. The Bill provides for payment of contributions by the employees, and it also provides, I believe, that the Agricultural Research Council will not lose any money by the payment of these pensions; any expenditure on the part of the Council will be refunded to them, so that the other work of the Council will not be lessened in any way. We on this side of the House commend this Bill, and we wish it well.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord both for his kindly personal remarks and for his general commendation of the Bill. I, too, prefer the calm atmosphere of to-day to the excitment which was engendered last night by noble Lords opposite.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

OVERSEAS SERVICE BILL
3.30 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COLONIAL AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF PERTH): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. I recall how, about six months ago, I made a statement in your Lordships' House about our intention to introduce a Bill to encourage those who serve in Her Majesty's Overseas Civil Service to continue in their work in the territories overseas and at the same time so arrange things that the cost would not be too onerous on the Governments who employ them. At that time my statement was welcomed by all your Lordships, which did not surprise me. Subsequently we issued a White Paper (Cmnd. 1193), which set out in great detail the problem and what we proposed to do to deal with it. Now, with this Bill, we reach finality.
I am very happy and privileged to introduce the Bill and move that it be read a second time. It is a one-clause Bill which covers an important matter. Indeed, all the work we may do in the way of colonial government and economic development, in arranging for roads, transport, schools and all the things which go into the development of a territory, all the work done by such bodies as the Colonial Development Corporation and the industrial companies and others who go into the territories, is of no use unless we have good administration and a good Civil Service. The purpose of the Bill is just this: to ensure that so far as is possible the Governments of the colonial territories will have a good Civil Service and that those who go from this country to work overseas are happy in their work and ready to stay.
At this time, when many of these territories are nearly independent, it is important that they should be encouraged to maintain a good standard of administration, even though the cost of that standard might be something more than the Governments would ordinarily feel inclined to bear. This is the main driving force behind the Bill —namely, that Her Majesty's Government are prepared to find the money to encourage those officers who are serving overseas to stay.
724
How is that achieved? First of all by our undertaking to pay the inducement which is often given to those who serve overseas—the difference between the local pay in the territory concerned and what they would receive if working over here. Secondly, we undertake to pay the pension element. Thirdly, we are proposing to pay the cost of the education of the children of officers serving overseas, which is a matter of the greatest importance. Fourthly, there is the question of the cost of fares. Here we thought that it was right and proper that the local Government should share the burden with us, and we propose in any agreement with them that we should bear half the cost of the fares and that they should bear the other half. Lastly, when territories are nearing independence we ordinarily come to an arrangement with the Government concerned. known as the Public Officers Agreement, which provides for compensation in the event of an officer losing his position because of the hand-over, or compensation for the changed circumstances in which he works. Often that compensation element is an expensive item for a country which is about to launch into independence; and so we undertake again to meet half the cost of this compensation in the event of an officer leaving service.
In these various ways we hope to encourage officers serving at the present time to stay, and to stay on at a time which is often very difficult for them; because, clearly, when there is a changeover, of necessity there will be a certain amount of worry to the officers concerned and it is important that they should have some provision like this to give them further encouragement at such a time. This will also be of value to the country concerned, which probably does not have an adequate supply of locally recruited people who can fill the administrative services efficiently. There are no kinds of strings attached to our scheme: that is to say, when we come to agreements with local Governments, there will be no question of saying that we must have this or that or any right to watch over developments.
Your Lordships can imagine that this adds up to a pretty formidable Bill. The estimate shown in the Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill is of an expenditure of £16 million this year, and

725
the expenditure will go on more or less at that rate for a long time. When we break down this figure on the assumption that the Governments want to come to an agreement with us—and all the experience we have had so far shows they generally do—it shows, in rough calculation, that one way or another we are going to contribute about £700 a year towards the cost of each individual serving overseas.
When such large sums are involved I think it is both right and proper that the Treasury should stand in as watchdog, and for this reason we find in Clause 1 (2) and (3) that the Treasury are to act as watchdog in two capacities. First, they are to have a look at the agreements that may be made between the Governments and ourselves, and secondly, they will have a say in the designation of eligible classes.
It may be asked: who is eligible for this scheme? The answer is: those who are designated by the Secretary of State and recruited by him, either directly or through the Crown Agents or otherwise. This may cover not only those who are pensionable in their service but also those who are engaged under contract. On the whole, it covers a wide field, and the estimate is that some 20,000 may be affected if the various Governments all wish to enter into agreements. About half of the whole number are in East Africa. The mention of East Africa recalls to my mind something which I want to say, because clearly all this provision is no good if the civil servants in the territory concerned are not happy. We have recently had the report on salaries revision by Sir Gilbert Fleming, to whom we are greatly indebted. We have said that in principle we fully support this Report, and my hope is that the East African civil servants will feel happy, having got both this leg and that of the Fleming Report to encourage them at the present time.
This is a one-clause enabling Bill and I think it is quite straightforward: indeed, I notice that the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum is somewhat longer than the Bill itself. I do not think there is anything on which I need further touch in the Bill except perhaps to note that subsection (4) of Clause 1 defines various of the categories which will be covered by the Bill and refers to the
726
Overseas Service Act, 1958. It was found convenient, in the light of experience, to use that Act for definitions of various categories and various people, but otherwise that Act was much more limited. It dealt with persons, whereas this Bill deals with Governments and this is generally a much larger scheme. I know that a number of noble Lords wish to speak on the Bill and I will not delay your Lordships further. If there are any questions that arise, perhaps I can deal with them in the winding up. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Perth.)
3.41 p.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I am sure we are all grateful to the noble Earl for his admirable presentation of this Bill, and I think my only complaint is that he was perhaps a little modest about his merits. I do not think there is anyone in this House (and we have a fairly long list of speakers) who will not welcome the Bill; and that for the two reasons mentioned by the noble Earl. The first is that it will encourage that fine body of men in Her Majesty's Overseas Service to carry on the absolutely invaluable work which they are now doing—and this is a recognition of the value of that work. The second reason is that it will enable the Governments of dependencies overseas to retain the services of many of these men, which they would otherwise lose, during the next five to ten years when they will still lack locally recruited administrative and technical personnel.
I would go rather further than the noble Earl, and say that I believe this to be one of the most important measures of technical aid that any Government has ever presented to Parliament. It shows the new look of the Colonial Office since the present Secretary of State took over. I am not sure that a testimonial from this side is going to be a good thing for the Secretary of State, and that is why I hesitate to say anything. On the other hand, your Lordships always expect a personal opinion, and I feel (perhaps I may speak as one who has some knowledge of conditions overseas) that the Secretary of State has already won the trust and respect of most of the people for whom he is responsible in our overseas dependencies. Although

727
he may be a controversial figure at the moment, and although one cannot say what the future will bring, he has acquired a reputation that will make him at any rate one of those who have done a great deal for progressive administration at the Colonial Office.
My only serious criticism of the Government—and I do not think the noble Earl would expect me to express no criticism at all—is that this Bill is, perhaps, overdue. I cannot help thinking that if it had been introduced, say, five years ago, before Ghana, Malaya and Nigeria became independent, they would still have the services of many excellent officers who have now retired. But further delay would have been much more harmful than the delay that has already taken place. The fact is, as the noble Earl pointed out, that the emergent territories in Africa, Southern Asia and the West Indies that will in due course, and in the not very distant future, become independent are much poorer than the new independent Commonwealth countries in Asia and Africa. It will therefore be far more difficult for them to afford the expatriate officers they will desperately need in the early years of independence without assistance from the United Kingdom. So far as the scattered islands and strategic outposts are concerned, which are not economically viable and cannot expect total national independence, they are also extremely poor—indeed, the poorest of all our Commonwealth relatives—and when they reach the appropriate stage of internal self-government will need this assistance that Her Majesty's Government are offering them.
I am particularly glad that Her Majesty's Government are offering to pay half the compensation to which an officer is entitled on retirement. I should like to recall something from my own recollection of what happened before compensation was paid, even in part, by the United Kingdom Government. I remember the unfortunate effect in Ghana when the Ghana Government had to foot the whole bill for the cost of compensation. The administrative service in that country was threatened with breakdown because expatriate officers found (and they were absolutely right in taking the course that they decided to take) that the amount of their compensation would fall if they did not retire from the Service
728
almost immediately after independence. The Ghana Government therefore had to pay the whole amount of compensation for lass of career, and subsequently had to re-engage many of these officers on contract terms far more favourable than the terms they had had as members of the Overseas Service. Not only was this a very costly business for a West African country, but, even more serious, it made the Ghanaians feel that they had had rather a poor deal from Her Majesty's Government. I am very glad indeed that under this Bill Her Majesty's Government recognise their continuing financial responsibility for emergent territories after they become independent, and I feel sure that the recognition of this responsibility will prevent the situation that arose in Ghana from happening again elsewhere.
Another lesson which I have learned, and which the noble Earl pointed out in the course of his remarks, is that overseas Governments need expatriate officers, and particularly technicians, even more urgently just after independence than while they are Colonies. I do not think the noble Earl gave what I feel is the most important reason for this. I venture to suggest that the reason is that the pace of economic development and the improvements in the social services, such as health and education, accelerates as soon as the local leaders have to show their own people that they can do better than a Colonial Administration. That is a perfectly natural and perfectly right attitude. But the hotter pace can be kept up only if there are sufficient expatriate officers, particularly doctors, teachers, agricultural experts and people of that kind, to cover the years before the locally recruited personnel have been trained to take their place. As the noble Earl said, the cost of this scheme is heavy, but I am sure that the dividends it will bring in good will and welfare overseas will be out of proportion to the additional burden on the taxpayer.
The noble Earl asked for questions, and I propose to put this one to him. I wonder if he can tell me on what grounds the Secretary of State is expecting a bill of about £150 million at the end of the ten-year period. This means an average figure of £15 million a year, which is only £1 million less than the figure of £16 million expected for

729
1961–62. I wonder what the basis for this is. I hope, as the noble Earl does, that all the Governments concerned will negotiate agreements, but I wonder whether, for reasons of prestige, some of them may not. I do not think these are valid reasons, and I sincerely hope that they will not be adopted. But that is a possibility.
The other thing is that as the expatriate officers are replaced by locally born officers (and this is a process which goes on from year to year) the amount payable by Her Majesty's Government to cover the various items to which the noble Earl referred—inducement pay and other things—will surely steadily decline. I wonder whether both these factors, and especially the second, have been taken into full account, and whether it might not be reasonable to anticipate a falling off of the annual expenditure, especially in the second half of the ten year period. I think we are bound to ask ourselves whether this measure, generous as its provisions are, is a sufficient guarantee of security for the careers of these officers to induce them to stay in the Service and to prevent it from running down—because this running-down is what is happening at the moment. It is a process which has been going on steadily since retirement and compensation began.
With deep regret. I personally do not think that this question can be answered except in the negative. I believe that the Service is running down, and I do not see anything in this Bill that will prevent this process from continuing. I do not blame the overseas officers at all, because they have to face the certain fact that they will be replaced by local men as soon as, and I am afraid sometimes before, they are adequately trained to do their work. I do not blame Her Majesty's Government, because I do not think any Government could guarantee to find a job for every officer who feels himself obliged to leave the Service. I am sure that Her Majesty's Government will do their best to use every possible method of placing these men and of giving them a better security in their careers.
I think one of the ways in which the absolutely invaluable experience of these officers could be used is by appointing them to the staff of High Commissioners
730
in territories that become independent—because this process of independence is going ahead very rapidly. There will be more and more High Commissioners in countries that were formerly Colonies or dependencies, and provided that a man is not used in a territory in which he has had previous service, I am quite sure that he would be an invaluable assistant on the staff of a United Kingdom High Commissioner. There is an enormous amount to be said for employing a man who has lived and worked overseas and whose experience has not been mainly in Whitehall.
The Government have far better opportunities than I have of surveying all the possible means of finding employment for these men. But even so, when that is done I should not be at all surprised if the noble Earl were to say that it is impossible for him to guarantee jobs for everyone. The Government must look elsewhere, because it is just as important from the point of view of overseas territories as it is from the point of view of the Service, to provide the technicians who are required overseas.
May I ask the noble Earl whether he can say something further about the recommendation to set up a Commonwealth Advisory and Technical Service—which would also help a little in the direction of providing employment for overseas officers who retire—as recommended by the Committee on Estimates which went into this matter in discussing the work of the Colonial Office. The Government say in their White Paper (Cmnd. 1193) that they are examining the recommendation of the Select Committee on Estimates about a Commonwealth Advisory Technical Service. I am not asking the noble Earl, unless he feels in a position to do so, to say anything about that now. There is to be a debate on technical aid, and aid generally, in your Lordships' House next week, and perhaps he might prefer to reserve his remarks until that debate. But I think your Lordships would like to know what the opinion of the Government is—whether this is likely to help the Overseas Service, and whether anything on these lines could be organised to help Commonwealth countries who urgently need technical skill. I believe that when we contemplate the resources of this

731
country and the needs of countries overseas the most valuable service we can render to them in the coming years is technical aid. My Lords, we welcome this Bill, both for what it does in a limited way in providing a further measure of technical aid, and because it is the expression of a policy which we hope will bear further fruit as time goes on.
3.56 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I welcome this Bill and congratulate Her Majesty's Government upon presenting it to us. I also have had some experience of the situation created by Commonwealth countries coming up towards independence. It has always been a considerable difficulty when a country has to, as it were, provide large sums to the expatriate officers for compensation. Also, very often the officers whose service they most wish to retain are those who desire to go out under the compensation schemes. It has always been an immense problem, and I congratulate the Government on at least going a considerable way towards solving this problem.
This is a highly important Bill, because the situation in East Africa at the moment is one which gives considerable concern to all of us. Quite apart from Central and South Africa, even in East Africa, because of the impacts of events in Central Africa and South Africa, there has been a considerable withdrawal of credit in the last few months, and the economic and social situation has been greatly affected by it. This is one of the anchors which the Government are, quite rightly, putting down in an attempt to stabilise the economic and social situation in East Africa. They are quite right to do so. I need not mention the other anchors, because they do not arise on this Bill. One of them which I could mention is the setting up of a university for East Africa, to train Africans to come along and, in the future, to take the place, among others, of these expatriate officers.
I thought the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, struck a rather funereal note, a sort of Moore and Corunna note, about the Secretary of State, Mr. Macleod. I hope circumstances will not soon arise
732
when we shall lose the benefit of the work of Mr. Macleod in the Colonies. Not long ago, I sat on the other side of the table from him and also the noble Earl, Lord Perth, when the affairs of Uganda were being discussed, and I must say that he made a great impression on all of us, as did the noble Earl, Lord Perth, for the obviously sympathetic way in which he appreciated the problems which we, on the other side of the table, were putting before them. I was appearing with and for the Africans.
There is one point I would make on the general issue, and I think it has been touched upon by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel. I, too, cannot quite see where this vast amount of money is going to be expended. As I see it, 21,000 is the number of persons affected at the beginning, but as the years go by and Africans and others are trained in the various countries to which this Bill applies the number of expatriates will undoubtedly diminish, and consequently There will be not nearly as much money to be expended. I should have thought that that amount was rather an overestimate, but no doubt when the noble Earl the Minister comes to reply he will be able to give us the basis upon which this figure has been calculated.
I would ask for clarification on two or three matters. First of all, there was an article in the Daily Telegraph a short time ago which said that the overseas officials were complaining that they have to sever their connection with the Home Civil Service and that they cannot resume links with it after the officers have retired. This article in the Daily Telegrap was published after Cmnd. 1193 appeared, but it does not seem to me, from reading the White Paper, that that complaint is at all based on fact. Indeed, in paragraphs 26 and 27 of Cmnd. 1193 the reverse seems to be the case, and the Government appear to promise these people that they will do everything they possibly can to assist them in getting work in various Government Departments, here and overseas. I think there must be a misunderstanding on the part of some of these overseas civil servants.
There is one point which is, I think. in need of clarification, and that is the taxation question. Compensation is to be paid under Clause 1 (1) (b) and is mentioned in paragraph 9 of Cmnd. 1193 Is this taxable? On the face of it, it

733
would appear to be a capital payment for loss of future professional advancement, but I do not know that it has been clearly stated—it certainly is not clearly stated in the Bill and it is not too clearly stated, I think, in the White Paper. I believe it would be helpful if the noble Earl could tell us to-day whether compensation for relinquishment of career is in fact a capital payment or an income payment; in other words, will tax be payable on it, either in this country or in the colonial territory concerned?
The case is made more urgent by reason of the fact that in some previous cases where gratuities of this nature have been paid to overseas civil servants, even though those payments were thought by the servants to be of a capital nature they have attracted income tax; and, of course, if there is no double taxation agreement it means that the unfortunate man has to pay not only the full rate of colonial tax but also the full rate of United Kingdom tax as well. That is obviously a matter which needs examination, particularly where capital payments are being made by instalments. It is always a tricky business to get the Inland Revenue to accept that capital payments can be paid by instalments and are not, in fact, income payments which attract tax.
The third question I would put is the position of the East African High Commission officials. The noble Earl knows about those, because half a dozen came to see the Secretary of State a week or two ago—they may be here now, for all I know. The point, as I understand it, subject to correction by the Minister, is that when Tanganyika becomes independent the other three territories, Kenya. Zanzibar and Uganda, will not be independent at that time; it may be that they will be later, but not at that time. What the situation of Zanzibar is one does not Know. Will the provisions of this Bill apply to the High Commission Territories which will still remain under the High Commission? It is a conundrum, because one of the constituent partners of the High Commission will have become independent whereas the others have not. I gather that the ruling up to now has been that the East African High Commission officials will not come under the terms of this Bill, but I think we ought to know.
734
There is the question of exclusion of territories from the Bill. According to paragraph 10 of Cmnd. 1193, Nigeria and Sierra Leone have separate settlements. I hope that the settlements which have been arrived at in those two countries are at least as good as the one under the Bill, and that as far as the civil servants are concerned they will not suffer by the fact that this Bill was too late to deal with their problems. Secondly, Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland are special cases as they are in the Central African Federation. Thirdly, there are four territories —the Bahamas, Brunei, Bermuda and Hong Kong—where this form of help is not considered appropriate.
I would ask only these questions: what happens if the Central African Federation breaks up, as it may well do? Will Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland then be eligible and be able to come under the terms of this Bill? Secondly, what are the special reasons in the four territories which make the scheme inappropriate? I know something about the four, three of them particularly well and one not quite so well. Possibly the Bahamas and Bermuda may be a separate case; but Brunei and Hongkong certainly at first sight seem to be on a par with many other colonial territories, and it is a little difficult to see why they are left out.
I should like to support the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, in this plea that the Government should do all they can to give employment to these officers in Her Majesty's Service. After all, they all went into the Service in order to serve Her Majesty and the country and they chose that form of employment as being the one which they liked best. If we could continue them in it, in all probability they would render very good service indeed. As I have mentioned before in this House, there is one problem: in order to become civil servants under the Commonwealth Relations Office, the Foreign Office or the Colonial Office one must have at least a second-class honours degree, and apparently you cannot become a civil servant unless you have got over that particular hurdle.
I would suggest in these circumstances, in view of the fact that there is this supply of excellent material and also in view of the fact that the Commonwealth Relations Office's need for men in the

735
various territories which it serves is extending very rapidly indeed, that it would be a good thing, temporarily at least, as was done immediately after the war, to waive this question of a second-class honours degree in the case of suitable officers who have served overseas in the colonial territories. I do not think that the heavens would fall if a man who had not got a second-class honours degree but was otherwise suitable were posted to India or Pakistan or Malaya. Quite a number of people who have not got second-class honours degrees have been able to function quite well in those countries.
Finally, again in connection with this question of employment, there is the position of the Colonial Office staff. I am sure the noble Earl knows that some of them at the moment, and particularly the more senior ones, are feeling a little hurt at what they regard as the attitude towards them of the Commonwealth Relations Office. Some of them tell me they feel they are not wanted. I hope that is not so and that the noble Earl will assure us that it is not so. Many of the Colonial Office staff are men of great experience. They have served the Crown with great loyalty over the years, and it would be a loss of much valuable experience if men who had been in the Colonial Office for many years and served admirably there, who were of the necessary character and temperament, were allowed to drift off rather unhappily into the Ministry of Agriculture, and so on, in this country, where their great experience might not be put to the best possible advantage. I have mentioned these facts because they have come to my notice. With those few questions, I should once more like to express my gratitude to the Government for their imagination in bringing forward this Bill.
4.10 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, as the noble Earl, Lord Listowel said, there is nothing except welcome for this Bill in all parts of the House, and there is no question as to its merits. But I must confess that when I read this Bill my feelings were a mixture of admiration for the Colonial Office at its presentation and amazement that the Treasury should have given consent to its going forward in its present form. If your Lordships
736
will examine for a moment the Bill and the Explanatory Memorandum, I think that your Lordships, on reflection—and particularly those below the gangway—will feel that were Mr. Gladstone with us he would be extremely shocked. The reason I say that is that the territories are unspecified; the ceiling of expenditure is only estimated (in 1961–62 the figure is expected to be about f16 million, and after that between £12 million and £16 million a year), and there is the big tolerance of the Treasury in accepting the amount to be reimbursed to the territories as being unspecified, except that it is to be in whole or in part. Then the officers are not defined, except that they are to be designated by the Secretary of State; and, finally Treasury consent to designation can be given generally.
My Lords, I think it is no exaggeration to say that never in the history of legislation has so much vagueness covered so great an expenditure. But even so, I think that it is good that it is that way, because it is Government recognition of the fact that the needs of the hour require fresh methods and outlook. So when I make those observations about my surprise at the Treasury's agreeing, it is not in criticism but, I repeat, in admiration of Ministers who have been able to overcome the Treasury to the extent evidenced in the Bill. Undoubtedly, we can only welcome the throwing overboard of some of the rigid precedents of the past. Officers in these emergent territories are servants of the State, and I think that in the past they have justifiably felt fears, because those fears are natural and human. Governments get many kicks. Kicking a Government is a pastime not always confined to the opposite side of the House to the Government. In this case, I think that the Government deserve praise for prompt and wise action.
As the Minister said when introducing this Bill, approximately half the officers concerned come from East Africa. It is really almost a record in administration that while the East African Salaries Commission Report certainly helped to allay fears, Her Majesty's Government's prompt action has been of much greater help. The Report was published on January 7, and acceptance of the main provisions was announced on the same day. Since then, the Kenya and Uganda

737
Governments have reacted favourably. So, in the event, within one month of the publication of the Report, decisions have been taken which mean that Her Majesty's Government take over direct responsibility for between one-quarter and one-third of the salaries, the passage costs and, in part, of the pension rights.
I therefore echo what the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, said—namely, that this Bill is a real step forward, and I think the Colonial Office deserve much praise for their prompt administrative action. This Bill is an earnest to emergent territories of our continued goodwill as our Colonial policy comes to fruition. As the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, said, speaking with his first-hand knowledge—and some of us have also been in the colonial territories—civil servants are the very background of administration in those places. Indeed, the tragedy of the Congo has shown that up so much. My worry is rather that of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel. Is this going to save the Service running down? That is the doubt. If it does not, where is the provision of the technical personnel, which these emergent territories require, to come from?
Shortly, we in your Lordships' House are to have a debate covering the case of such territories. I do not want to do more than just touch on it, in the same way as other noble Lords have clone. The quality and the quantity of technicians that we require in the future is going to amaze even those of us who to-day try to visualise the future with some degree of imagination. I do not believe that the numbers, even if there is no run-down of the Service, are going to be enough for the future requirements of these territories. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will take up with energy and fervour the suggestion which was put forward in the Report of the Select Committee as regards bringing in the Commonwealth. I hope that perhaps one day we may see a Commonwealth pool of qualified technical men0 and a Commonwealth Board which would assess needs and allocate resources on a Commonwealth basis.
Then we shall learn, I hope here from the Government, that industry can do more than it has been asked to do in the past. The boards of directors of
738
great enterprises, like leaders of great trades unions, may have certain positive views on certain matters; but by and large they are both bodies of great patriotism who love their country, as we all do. I believe that industry has only to be called upon and it will be prepared to make a great effort and some sacrifices, perhaps to the efficiency of their enterprises, perhaps some sacrifices to those who own industry—that is, the shareholders. I believe that boards of directors would do that if they were appealed to. I believe that we shall require the secondment of young executives, medium-grade executives, and senior executives from industry to colonial territories if, in the future, we are to fill the gap which I see yawning ahead in regard to the requirements of the emergent territories for technical aid in so many directions. Your Lordships have only to look at page 18 of Cmnd. 1193 to see the wide scope of technical help already given. All that, and more, will be required many times over. We cannot do it alone.
There is a danger that this Bill may not even, as we hope it will, hold the level; but even if the expectations of the Government are fulfilled and the level is held because of this Bill, that level will not be enough for the future and it will be necessary to bring in the Commonwealth and industry. I know, of course, that we are ourselves short of technicians in this country. Nevertheless, I believe that the greatest good we can do to the Free World is to support these emerging countries with technical help, as well as the financial and other help we can give in other directions. And so, in the completion of our colonial task towards which this Bill is yet another step, I think we should ourselves find rewards, moral and material, in making quite sure that these emerging territories have the full benefits of British skill and enterprise.
4.21 p.m.
LORD MILVERTON: My Lords, I should like to preface some rather critical remarks which I wish to make in relation to this Bill with a personal apology which perhaps your Lordships will accept. I think that as I spent the whole of what is called my working life in the Colonial Service I am perhaps in a better position to know what the

739
"toad beneath the harrow" feels like. We have heard a lot of very interesting views from those who studied this question from what I may call, with great respect, the outside, but I should like to tell your Lordships, rightly or wrongly, how an ex-colonial civil servant looks at this Bill.
I need hardly say I welcome this Bill as evidence that Her Majesty's Government have been giving serious, if somewhat belated, attention to the joint problem of the personnel of the Colonial Services and also of the territorial Governments under whom they serve. The Bill before us, as it says, sets forth to give legislative authority to carry out the policy announced in the White Paper (Cmnd. 1193) dealing with service with Overseas Governments. I welcomed that Paper when it came out and appreciated its inherent desire to help both the territorial Governments and the members of the Overseas Service to continue, as far as might be mutually desired, a collaboration which would satisfy both the employer-Government and the Overseas Service employee. No doubt it will go some way towards succeeding in this endeavour but I feel its success will be limited by the fallacies on which, as I view it, it rests.
To call the Colonial Service the "Overseas Service" does not alter the fact that a group of contract officers does not and cannot make a Service. The Colonial Service, with its proud record, is dying, theoretically functus officio, and what we are trying to do is hand over its priceless traditions and the fruits of its experience to other hands. I do not think we ought to delude ourselves about this. As former colonial territories become independent there are undoubtedly individual officers whose help they value and whom they are, as yet, unable to replace with local substitutes. They wish to retain those officers as individuals for a limited time, and the terms, however we may disguise it, are really contract terms which take into account their previous service and the conditions under which they were enlisted.
It is true that their loyalty to the Government they serve is superficially unchanged, but in fact it is a different Government in that it has now a local and independent centre. The newly in.
740
dependent Government welcomes their help and is glad to retain it for a while. but is naturally reluctant to have the subtle change in emphasis obscured. My personal opinion is that it would have been wiser, when territories attained independence, to arrange for all Overseas officers whom that Government wish to retain to change to a contract basis, with compensation assessed as at present to be paid at once, and pension rights frozen at that date and payable when the contract ended. I also think that all new appointments to independent territories should be only on a contract basis, whether they are new recruits or transferred officers. However, the Colonial Service have suffered a sea change; and I want now to return more directly to the Bill.
I have studied the White Paper (Cmnd. 1193) with great care and also the debates in another place. There seems to be an underlying idea that if the United Kingdom takes over the expatriate element of Colonial Service Officers' pay and allowances, the local Governments will be prepared to keep them for an indefinite number of years. This reasoning seems to me fundamentally unsound because it takes no account of two factors: the man himself, and the attitude of local politicians. First, payment of a man's salary and allowances by the United Kingdom is not going to keep him in the Service when his career prospects have been heavily slashed. For instance, since independence in Malaya the topmost rank open to an expatriate (with the exception of two posts) is that of what is called "super-scale D" (Permanent Secretary), the higher ranks—Chief Secretary, Financial Secretary, British Adviser and super-scales A to C—having been abolished. Even the rank of Permanent Secretary is becoming less and less open to expatriate officers in Malaya and elsewhere. Western Nigeria has recently Africanised all its Permanent Secretaries.
The men of the Colonial Service have certain qualities and abilities. It is, I maintain, denying the facts of human nature to expect such men who joined for a career to accept, in their thirties and forties, a dead-end job with no prospect of advancement beyond a comparatively low level. The best will naturally seek a career elsewhere as soon as they have reached the limit open to them in the

741
Service; and the younger ones will leave straight away, because of lack of prospects. I am not overlooking the sense of vocation and devotion to their work and pride in their achievements which is an essential ingredient of this or any other good Service. But, as I have tried to explain, when independence comes, the Colonial Service ceases to be a Service. It becomes a group of individual officers on contract with a very restricted scope of activity.
To return to the second category I mentioned, it is equally starry-eyed to expect politicians in a newly independent country to permit expatriate officers to stay on for an indefinite period. Even if the leaders wished to do this—which generally they do not—the Opposition and the aspiring young local officers would soon make life too difficult for the Government there to adopt such a policy. I am not for a moment decrying this local attitude; I regard it as the most natural thing in the world. It is a very natural resultant from the exhilaration stimulated by independence. By all means let us give full credit to the Colonial Service for its magnificent work, past, present and in a diminishing future. But do not let this obscure the point. The only things that will keep men on in the Service are either the prospect of a further career—and when I say "career" I mean "career", not a junior temporary post —in the Commonwealth Relations Office or the Foreign Service, or the near certainty of getting a job after retirement should their posts be abolished prematurely.
As regards the C.R.O., the Foreign Service and the proposed Commonwealth Technical Service, it is obvious that only comparatively few can be absorbed; but all such jobs help. If I may make a constructive proposal, could not a stated number of posts be allocated each year for competition each year by colonial officers only? They should be, of course, at various levels, so that it would be worth while a man's remaining in the Colonial Service for a few more years in the knowledge that he could compete for a higher level. The competition no doubt would be strong, so that only the best would succeed. As regards other jobs, the Overseas Services Resettlement Bureau (referred to
742
in paragraphs 28 to 30 of the White Paper) is the one hope. I understand that the Ministry of Labour employment offices have had little success in helping colonial servants because they know so little of their background and because few employers go to them for the level of men we are discussing. By contrast, the Bureau has had remarkable success, despite the lack of publicity it has so far enjoyed. I made some inquiries and I am informed that out of 1,920 registered, 1,180, or over 60 per cent. have so far been resettled.
I suggest that the Colonial Office should cease to do good by stealth and give far greater publicity to this Bureau. The languages, the customs, the way of thinking of a large part of the world's population is the hard-won knowledge that these men can supply. They are a potential source of manpower for business concerned with the export trade, a source which needs to be tapped quickly before it is lost. Large numbers, I understand, are likely to retire from East Africa as well as from West and Central Africa in the near future. The Bureau should, I suggest with respect, have the support of the Government at a high level, Ministerial and official, in approaching the business community and in stressing the advantages of these men when it comes to competing for export markets, especially in the newly independent countries.
I should entirely disagree, with respect, with my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye in suggesting for a moment that business would have to lower its standards to admit these men. The knowledge that many of these men possess of the countries in which these businesses are trying to establish their export trade is of infinitely more value and far harder to acquire than that business technique which can be picked up by the right sort of man in a relatively short time. My Lords, there is, I suggest, a regrettable lack of knowledge in commerce, industry and other spheres of the recruiting opportunities afforded by a disbanding Colonial Service. And, my Lords, if we look at it like that, I suggest that this is a golden opportunity for business which is not likely ever to recur.
To turn to another aspect, speaking on January 24 on this Bill in another place,

743
the Secretary of State for the Colonies said— and I ask your Lordships' permission to quote this, since it is a very important statement [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 633, col. 42]:
"We have a duty also to make certain that the administration of any country is as efficient as we can make it, that increasingly local people take an increasing part in it, and that, if the time comes in any particular territory for Her Majesty's Government to hand over their responsibilities to any other Government, we should leave as, perhaps, the most precious heritage of all, a well-tried, efficient, independent and incorruptible public service. It seems to me that those are the two duties which we should have in mind all the time as we consider the Bill."
Those were the words of the Secretary of State— very lofty sentiments, my Lords; so lofty that they lose sight of the time factor. It takes many, many years to fulfil these conditions, and the Secretary of State's actions— I say this with respect— and apparent intentions do not, in my opinion, agree with those words. I do not wish at all (this is not the occasion) to discuss the personality of the Secretary of State, but in view of what the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, said, if I had to select a motto to embody the feeling of the Colonial Service I would say it would be: "Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes". Their trust, my Lords, has been shaken from time to time recently.
The Secretary of State's dream of a Service like that can be achieved only before independence and while experienced guiding hands are there. It is, I suggest, unreasonable and unnatural to suppose that such training can be done after the achievement of independence. You cannot have it both ways. The Secretary of State's words seem to me to constitute a strong plea in favour of hastening slowly in East and Central Africa, where the people are far behind Malaya and West Africa in their ability to carry the responsibility of independent government. Apart from absence of haste being wiser and better for the people, the dissatisfaction about retention of some control over the pace of advance is easier to handle than the reorganisation of chaos after imprudently premature independence.
In passing, may I point out once more— take this as one instance of the sort of things that members of the Colonial
744
Service have to look at; it is a silent service and we do not hear their views but they must be thinking— that if the declarations of some African leaders in Kenya are correct, that independence within a year or two is linked with the release of Kenyatta to be Chief Minister, it is fairly certain that no European officers will wish to remain in the Government service of that country after that date; and I suggest that no good purpose is served by obscuring that fact.
To return to the Bill, perhaps the best way of attracting new men to go to colonial posts would be to get it accepted in Britain that three to five years' experience abroad, whether it be in America, Canada, Australia or tropical countries— and I stress the words "or tropical countries"— adds to a man's business value in experience of responsibility, in breadth of vision and adaptability. The habit, from Soviet Russia to the United States of America, of depreciating the honourable record of British colonial rule should be fought on every occasion it arises. You have only to look round the world to note the achievements rendered possible by thousands of colonial civil servants: Si monumentum requiris, circumspice.
In conclusion, my Lords, when this Bill was being considered in another place (if I may be forgiven for what is, if I may call it such, a relevant irrelevance) a great deal was said about the inadequacy of Colonial Service pensions, including widows' and orphans' pensions, because they were based on salary scales which the depreciation in value of the pound had made completely inadequate. In another place, Member after Member, on both sides of the House, rose and pleaded the case of the Colonial Service pensioners, particularly the widows and orphans section of them. There is an obvious and very lamentable discrepancy between the purchasing value of pensions granted over the past years and the current cost of living. In this country attempts have been made by successive grants of percentage increases to alleviate the hardships due to this drop in the value of money. Colonial pensioners have repeatedly asked for similar concessions to meet their own cases, but the attitude of Her Majesty's Government has been that, while they would do all they could by persuasion to induce Colonial Governments or newly-independent Governments to translate a

745
similar sympathy into similar action, the ultimate responsibility was not that of Her Majesty's Government. In some cases they have succeeded in getting some improvement, but in others they 'have not. There is thus no uniformity in the treatment of pensioners, all of whom are, or have been, to quote from White Paper 306:
"…servants of the Crown, and the conditions of their employment are embodied in Colonial Regulations. These Regulations constitute the Secretary of State as the ultimate authority for appointments, discipline, promotions, and general conditions of service".
I know that the principle that the respective Territorial Governments are responsible for pensions and for adjustments to meet depreciated values is technically correct. I would not dispute that for a moment. Nevertheless, I suggest, with respect, that that view is morally indefensible. Fears about the future safety and adequacy of pensions afflict both old and new officers. The older officers, whose pensions were granted on the older rates of salary, before inflation had forced a reassessment of salary rates, suffer most, but none will remain unaffected in the future.
My Lords, I suggest that the Government's attitude of detachment is unworthy of a good employer. The Treasury hand out millions in grants-in-aid, and are willing to grant more millions for the purposes of this Bill. Yet they grudge assistance to the pensioned men and women about whose services to this country and to mankind such beautiful and inexpensive tributes are constantly paid in speeches. It has been said that "Man shall not live by bread alone." It is also true that lofty sentiments constitute a very unsubstantial diet. I hope that the noble Earl will have something to say about this when he replies to this debate. With these misgivings, I support the Bill.
4.45 p.m.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, when the Government announced their intention in July last to bring in a Bill of this nature, I remember saying at the time that it might well prove to be one of the soundest investments this Government have ever made, provided, of course, that it effects what it sets out to do— and I bear in mind the speech of the noble Lord who has just resumed his
746
seat. But, of course, if it does not effect what it is designed to do, then much of this money will not be called upon, because the overseas civil servants will not, in fact, stay on in the newly-independent territories. Therefore, I agree very much with the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, in his surprise at the modesty with which the noble Earl the Minister of State introduced the Bill. Personally, feel that he could have boasted about it a great deal more, and not have introduced a perhaps somewhat apologetic note on the ground that it might cost the British taxpayer £16 million in the first year. My own feeling is that, if the Bill does effect what it is designed to do, then even if it were to cost double that amount it would be well worth it. Therefore, I hope that it will be approached from that angle, and that it may be made quite clear to the British taxpayer what a very sound and valuable Bill this is from every point of view, not least of all financially.
Taking that attitude, I rather wish that, when the Government decide to do something of this nature, they would go into it wholeheartedly. I pick upon one small point. For instance, the noble Earl, when introducing the Bill, said it was thought right and proper that only half the passage costs should be paid by Her Majesty's Government. They are to pay the full inducement pay, the children's education and the allowances, but only half the passage costs. Yet the purpose of the Bill is to enable the colonial territories, and also the emergent territories, not to have any extra cost beyond the local rate of pay. There is therefore a certain disincentive to these officers if they are required to pay half the passage costs. It is a small point, but, as I say, I wish the Government had decided to go into this matter wholeheartedly, and had included the full passage costs.
My Lords, my speech will be confined narrowly to the Bill, and I have a series of points to put to the noble Earl, of which I have not, I fear, given him notice, though I feel he will undoubtedly be able to answer them quite easily. There is a question in relation to pensions which the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, brought up— and this, again, is a limited point. It is said that the cost of pensions attributable to the inducement pay will, of

747
course, fall upon Her Majesty's Government. But, as we have heard, these pensions need increasing from time to time; and, by a process of negotiation with the ex-Colonial Governments and the present Colonial Governments, the pension rates of those who retired some time ago have in fact been raised more or less to a level obtaining in the United Kingdom. I believe it was said that there were only about 11 out of the 40 territories where negotiations remained to be completed. But, my Lords, if, in the future, it is considered necessary to raise these pension rates— and I am afraid that it probably will be in due course— presumably Her Majesty's Government will be able to increase the pensions attributable to the inducement pay without reference to the Colonies. I think that point is of some interest to those in the Service at the present time, or will be to 'those going into it in the future.
I now turn to the question of inducement pay. I want to confirm that it is possible, and, indeed, that it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government, to use the inducement pay, that is apparently going to be negotiated with each individual territory, which in turn will offer different rates of basic salary, according to its own wealth, or lack of it, to level up all the salaries of the Overseas Civil Service, wherever the individual civil servant is serving. It is well known now that the poorer territories have the greatest difficulty in attracting first-class civil servants for their Governments, because they are not able to offer sufficient salary. It seems to me that, if the Government are going to pay inducement money, there is every reason why that inducement pay should be used to standardise the salaries in each grade, in whatever territory the individuals concerned are serving. That would be of immense help to the poorer territories. One of the territories with which I am acquainted, and which I have particularly in mind, is British Honduras, where not only have they never been able to offer sufficient salary in order to get the sort of people they want, but they are also very much under-staffed.
My Lords, that brings me to my next point; that is, the establishment of the
748
Colonial Governments. It is said in the White Paper, at line 4, on page 10, that:
"Any variation in the number of officers to whom the scheme will apply which results from the establishment requirements of the territories concerned will be determined annually by H.M. Government in discussion with the territorial Government concerned."
This, of course, is also where the question of Treasury control will enter the arena. Will the Government use this inducement pay, and the powers given to them by this Bill, to bring up to full establishment all colonial territories which at the moment are not? And will they be able to put that over to the Treasury, so that every colonial territory will have its full establishment and an even level of pay for all the officers serving in the Overseas Civil Service?
There is also a particular class of overseas civil servant. It has been mentioned, to a certain extent, in respect of the Fast Africa High Commission, but I am thinking more of those people who are employed in the various research institutes. It is said in the White Paper that overseas civil servants who at present are paid out of Commonwealth Development and Welfare Funds will also come under this new scheme, as a result of which much of their pay will be borne directly by Her Majesty's Government and the savings resulting will return to the vote of that particular Fund in the territory concerned. But, my Lords, if I remember aright, the people employed in these research institutes are already paid direct from the central research funds of the Colonial Office, and are not paid by the territorial Governments. I should like to know what their position is going to be, and whether they are affected by this Bill. I have particularly in mind the admirable agricultural, forestry and veterinary research institute in Kenya, not far from Nairobi, which at the moment is under-staffed, yet has been doing quite exceptionally fine work. I wonder if it is possible under this Bill to bring that research institute up to establishment, too.
Now I come to the question of new appointments. It is said in the White Paper, at line 2 on page 10, that fresh appointments will normally be restricted to dependent territories. Presumably, that is because, in the independent ones, the lower ranks will always be filled by the people who are domiciled in the

749
country. This problem has been dealt with both by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, and by the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, but it is a little difficult to see how new people are going to be recruited for the Overseas Civil Service. It is pretty clear that this can be done on contract only. If the noble Earl could give any further information as to what progress is being made in the approaches, referred to in paragraph 33, to various Government Departments and industrial organisations, I am sure the House would be most interested to hear his reply.
That brings me to this question of the technical assistance. I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, that the figure given in the White Paper, of 200 people appointed as technical assistants in 1959, is a gross under-statement of what can be done in the future. Therefore I hope that this matter will be pushed very hard. I see no reason why, in the future, the appointments made, not only within the Commonwealth but in other places, should not easily run into four figures. And this would, of course, very greatly assist the re-employment of the members of the Overseas Civil Service.
My Lords, I think there is one other point worth mentioning—I am not sure whether the noble Earl, Lord Perth, mentioned if in his introduction; and if he did, apologise. It concerns the contract officers in Kenya. It was pointed out by the Secretary of State in another place that the very large numbers of people recruited before October 1, 1954—and even some others, under special conditions which I need not go into—are to be included in this Bill. That, of course, has done an enormous amount to restore some confidence in the Service in Kenya. Perhaps the noble Earl would say if there are other similar cases in other Colonies, and whether they will be dealt with in the same way.
I do not think I have anything more to say of detail on this Bill. I have asked a considerable number of questions, I am afraid, but I think they are the kind of matters that need clarifying if we are to get an idea of the real potentiality of the Bill before us. In closing, there is just one thing I want to say (it was also said by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and by the noble Lord,
750
Lord Ogmore), and it concerns the Colonial Secretary. As the noble Lords pointed out, he is a controversial figure. I am not going to enter into the present controversy or to express an opinion in any way on political and constitutional matters, but I think one thing should be emphasised. That is, that the Secretary of State has been responsible for certain practical measures which, whatever the political and constitutional changes which have been brought about, or will be brought about (and we all know they change, both before and after independence) are likely to succeed only if practical measures designed to underpin the security of the State are taken. This is one of these practical measures. The noble Lord, Lord Milverton, doubts whether it will succeed. I hope that he is wrong; but we cannot ignore what he has said, with his vast inside experience of the Colonial Service, which none of the other speakers to-day have had directly. I hope very much that it will succeed, and certainly it is designed with that in mind.
Other practical measures have been taken, such as the setting up of the Committee, over which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, presided, which has just reported on the future of legal education for Commonwealth and Colonial students, both in this country and their own, and the Commonwealth Teachers Act with which my noble friend, even, if not directly associated, no doubt had something to do. I think that we can congratulate the Colonial Secretary and the Colonial Office for having introduced these measures, and I only hope that in future they may be able to apply their minds to practical matters of economics. I hope that they will continue in this way. They will certainly do so with the blessings of all in your Lordships' House.
5.2 p.m.
LORD BIRDWOOD: My Lords, I shall detain your Lordships for only a few moments. I shall lend just one more voice in full support of this Bill, even though a layman like myself is left in some confusion, after having listened to the doubts raised by the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, speaking from his great experience, and I shall listen carefully to any reply that the noble Earl is able to give to those doubts. As it seems to me, it does not matter very much whether you regard

751
this as a matter of a number of individual contracts of the officers concerned or whether you regard it merely as a measure to ensure the continuation of the service of these men. What does matter is that these men shall be made available in these territories for the task of helping the territories, and exactly how we define the purpose does not seem to me to be so important.
I should have thought that the Bill would have been based on the experience which has already been gained. I should have thought that the territories must by now have expressed their desire to keep a number of these men, and the men themselves must have already expressed their desire to stay, provided provisions such as outlined in this Bill are made available. To me the Bill just recognises a principle which is recognised on all sides— that good men make for sound administration and that sound administration is the foundation of a healthy State. It seeks to retain men who are as much the bricks and mortar of these developing countries as are the blessings of the accumulated Welfare and Development Acts. Indeed, without these men, these blessings might well have been negatived.
I propose to raise only two points in regard to the Bill itself— first of all, the point which the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, touched on. He expressed both surprise and delight at what he described as Treasury tolerance. I would share that delight; but where the Treasury is concerned we are always suspicious, and I do raise a suspicion over subsections (2) and (3) of Clause 1 of the Bill, which state that the designation of a person or a group of persons under this Bill shall be subject to Treasury consent. I should be grateful for some elaboration of this point from the noble Earl. I assume that if a territory wants a man and Her Majesty's Government agree, it will not be for the Treasury to veto an appointment or a group of appointments. The noble Earl described the Treasury as a watchdog. I hope that the watchdog does not stop anybody from getting in.
The other point I want to raise partly arises from the actual terms of the Bill itself but, in my view, it is a very important point. Here we have a Bill more imaginative in its effort to supply man-
752
power to developing countries than any measure, national or international, that has yet been undertaken, and one doubts whether the British public are going to hear anything whatsoever about it, still less the world outside. I say this, remembering that yesterday's Daily Express, referring to the launching of a sputnik up to Venus, said "Russia's hour of triumph is Britain's hour of shame." In my view— we all have our own views of this— the measure before us, representing £150 million of taxpayers' money over 10 years, is an infinitely greater achievement, in terms of human welfare and human progress, than sending up space ships to wander around in the solar system. The dividends may not be visible; nevertheless, they are there; they are real. My general reflection is that certain sections of the British Press may prefer to praise up the far more obvious accomplishment and ignore our own great contribution in these terms to progress, and I hope that the Press Department of the Colonial Office will bear that kind of thing in mind.
We shall have another opportunity to cover this field when we come to the Motion in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel. I have only one other point to make. We hope that local officers will be available to fill these appointments at present held by expatriate officers under the terms of this Bill, so that, in a real sense, the training of local personnel is linked closely with the operation of the Bill. Paragraph 31 of Cmnd. 1193 tells us about a conference to study this problem of training local personnel, under the title of "Public Service in Colonial Territories" which was held in London just under a year ago and was attended by representatives of all the African territories, with, I think, the possible exception of Ghana, for some reason. If the noble Earl can tell us anything about the decisions which may have emerged from that conference, we shall be grateful. For the reasons given, I fully support this Bill. I judge that it must effectively bridge that gap of which we have all been aware ever since the Overseas Service Act was passed in 1954.
5.10 p.m.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, it is not my intention to attempt to sum up or to discuss this Bill in detail, but I should like to ask the noble Earl about

753
one matter that has been brought up already by other noble Lords, in connection with the Treasury control under this Bill. We can all understand that the Treasury should have a say in the agreements that may be entered into by the Government with overseas Governments, because those probably involve continuing liability for finance. But the quest ion of Treasury consent to a person designated under this Bill and this scheme seems to be breaking new ground: indeed, I would ask the noble Earl whether there is any precedent for such a provision in any of the public services. It seems to be carrying Treasury control rather far.
Then I wish to ask the noble Earl a question slightly outside the Bill, but arising from it. All noble Lords agree that technical personnel to help the emergent and dependent countries in their progress is the most important thing that we can provide from this country, and the object of the Bill, which all noble Lords have welcomed, is to assist in that direction. But the requirements of overseas territories in trained personnel go beyond the strict ranks of Government employees. There are whole classes of people, men and women, holding employments overseas who are not Government employees and, therefore, are not covered by these provisions. The Secretary of State was asked directly what he was doing about such people, and he replied that the present Bill was costing a great deal of money and that there was no question of extending its provisions. There are people employed by local authorities in the strict United Kingdom sense— such as city councils, public health departments, labour boards, railways and so on— in overseas territories; that is to say, not under the Government, but under some other authority. Those people are just as important in their way as the members of the different branches of the Overseas Service. Her Majesty's Government must have been discussing these matters with other Governments, and I wonder whether they have considered this matter at all, and, if not, whether they propose to raise it at any future time so that some provision can be made to ensure the continuance of the careers of these officers overseas.
5.14 p.m.
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, we have had a debate which has ranged far and wide and has given me many questions to answer, some of which I shall be able to answer and some not. Perhaps it will teach me to boast more loudly about a Bill, and then I may have fewer questions put to me. But, on the whole, I think it right policy to leave it to other noble Lords to say what an admirable Bill it is— it is all the more pleasant coming from them. Almost without exception, this Bill has been welcomed. It is true that we have to thank my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for it, in the sense that it came in under his rule, and I know that he will be glad to hear what noble Lords have said. I do not think it is appropriate for me to get involved in controversy as to whether my right honourable friend is going too fast or too slow, or all the other things that one or two noble Lords raised. I am content to stand on our record of the colonial territories that have been launched into independence.
I think the only point I should make— and it is quite right, as I say, that my right honourable friend should get credit for this Bill— is that this has been a continuing process of trying to find ways and means of encouraging the Overseas Service to stay with us. I well remember that his predecessor (now with us in this House, the noble Viscount, Lord Boyd of Merton) was also, whenever he got occasion, extremely anxious to do all he could in this way. But it is a difficult problem to find ways and means to encourage these overseas people to stay. I do not think that in that connection we are in any way starry-eyed, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, accused us of being. We realise that this is an extremely difficult task, but what we are anxious to do, and what I believe this Bill does, is to make it easy for these people to stay. We are under no illusions that, by making it easy, that guarantees that they will stay. We cannot force them to stay, and it would be quite wrong for us to do so. But we want to make them feel that they will have encouragement and to know that we are with them if they want to help the country in the difficult period which it is entering into.
It is true that, at the time when countries are about to launch into

755
independence, there is every likelihood that the local Government will want to have its own people in positions of great responsibility. It is for that reason that we enter into the public service agreement with each of the Governments before they reach independence, and why we have compensation arrangements. It is not that we do not realise the problem; but we do not lament (if I may put it that way) the fact that the countries are growing up. We recognise that that happens, and we do our best to give them encouragement while they are growing up and when they have grown up.
The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, asked: why the figure of £150 million? I think the answer is twofold. Of course, it is only an estimate. If, for one reason or another, various of the countries do not wish to take advantage of the Service, then the estimate will prove to be too high. It may be, on the other hand, that we shall find an increasing demand— indeed I should expect it. You may find it likely that with these new Governments, for the very reason given by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel— that they want to show what a good job they can do— the demand will stay, even if they get more and more from their own sources. But the main reason for the fact that if people do go, none the less the estimate will remain high, is that the element of compensation in our calculations will increase, while the other elements will go down. It is an estimate, but it is about as good a guess as we can make. As the noble Lord, Lord Birdwood, said, this £150 million is something of which we should be proud and about which we should tell the world; and I will certainly see that all we can do is done to make it known to the world.
The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, asked me to say something about the Advisory and Technical Service. I am afraid it is a little early to say anything about this, but there will be an opportunity in a future debate— I think it is next week. I can only say at this moment that we have not forgotten it: we have it very much in mind.
The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, asked me several specific questions, and I will
756
do what I can to answer them shortly. He asked what was the position in regard to the East African High Commission Service, and in particular in regard to the delegation which came over here and made certain representations last week. I think the result of those representations will be known very shortly. What they wanted to know was whether they could have compensation in the same way as Tanganyika is proposing to have compensation— a public service agreement at the same time as Tanganyika. That is a very difficult question. It does not really come within the ambit of this Bill. Moreover, the fact that one out of four countries has independence is not necessarily a good reason why that service should then say, "We are also in the same boat." It is a problem about which, as I say, there have been representations, and we are looking at it very closely.
The noble Lord then asked me about the position of Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland. He asked whether they could come into the scheme in the event of Central Africa in some way or another— I think he used the words "breaking up". Even if it does not break up— and certainly I hope that will not happen— we are prepared to see that Nyasaland or Northern Rhodesia come within the orbit of the scheme. The noble Lord mentioned two or three countries which were not coming in at the present time, such as Brunei. I would say two things on that. One is that there are the words, "at present", and the other is that clearly a country like Brunei has not the need of the help we are talking about. It is a very rich country— I am happy that it should be— and one must assess to whom we shall give on the basis, in some small degree, of their circumstances.
LORD OGMORE: Before the noble Earl leaves that point, I do not think that should be so as regards Brunei. Certainly it does not apply to Hong Kong. I should never have regarded Hong Kong as rich, in view of the enormous poverty there. If they really went into a big scheme of resettlement, they might need help.
THE EARL OF PERTH: That is why I said that the important words were, "at present". The noble Lord asked me

757
whether the compensation which might be received in instalments on retirement was taxable. I am glad to say that the answer to that is, No.
Many of your Lordships raised the question of jobs and how important it was for those who were leaving that they should have jobs found for them. I think it was quite right that the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, should refer to the excellent work done by the Overseas Service Resettlement Bureau. He said that over 60 per cent.— and I think it is over two-thirds— have been found jobs. Of course, the Bureau is in close touch with industrialists and the business world, who I feel certain myself know the work of these people and are anxious to get hold of them. But there can be no guarantee of jobs. We do all we can, and the Resettlement Board does all it can. I should like here to pay a tribute to the readiness of the Commonwealth Relations Office, whenever they can, to take people from the Colonial Service into their scheme of things as they grow and have need of new recruits. I think they have been both forthcoming and helpful on that. I am not surprised, but I should like to make a record of it.
The noble Lord, Lord Hastings, asked me quite a few questions, and I am afraid I am not able at this moment to give him all the answers. I think what I had best do is to write to him in the case of one or two of them, and see what I can do to help him on others. He asked, for example, with reference to the question of designation which has been arranged for Kenya— a group of about 700 who will come into the scheme although they might or might not ordinarily qualify— whether there were similar groups in other territories. I think the answer is that there are a certain number in the East African High Commission, but probably not in the other territories. There may be the odd one, but I think that is generally a correct answer.
The noble Lord asked whether this Bill could be used for levelling-up (I think he made the point) all through the territories, so as to ensure that, wherever the people might serve, they would get exactly the same terms. I think that is a rather difficult concept. After all, some of these territories may have more attractive living conditions than others,
758
and in some of them the cost of living may be different from that in others. The idea of getting everybody on to the same scale, particularly when one remembers that the basic responsibility lies in the particular territory, is one that I do not think would work. But certainly we will look at it.
Then there is the question of whether, as a result, we can be sure that each one of the territories will get their full establishment. Of course, whether there is a full establishment or not is not only a question of money. There are many other questions, particularly that of the difficulty of finding the right people who are ready to go to the territories. While the levelling-up might help in that respect, I am afraid that it would not give any guarantee that, as a result, every territory would get all the people it wanted.
LORD HASTINGS: I should like to impress upon my noble friend the importance of levelling up the salaries if possible, because of the effect it has on the ultimate pensions.
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, I understand, but there are certain practical difficulties involved.
The noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, and many of your Lordships, referred to the generosity of the Treasury; and he said that he was astonished at their "readiness to play", if I might put it that way. On the other hand, the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, was less certain, and asked whether it was not a strange thing that there should be this provision in the Bill about each person having to be approved by the Treasury. I think we must look at the Bill in regard to that point. This is a Government-to-Government arrangement; it is not with each individual. What we are trying to do is to say that broad categories can or cannot come within the agreement. We make that arrangement with the Government concerned. If we had no control, or the Treasury had no control, we might find all sorts of people whom we did not think appropriate coming within the ambit; and at the beginning of these arrangements it is important that the right categories, the right designations, should be arranged.
We have had this problem, for example, in regard to Kenya, where we have a designation agreement. This is

759
very important. In it 700 civil servants who received some inducement have been included, although, if the Treasury had not been ready to accept a wide interpretation— if they had stuck to the strict letter of the law— they could have said that these people do not qualify. What I am trying to say is, that the agreements are between Government and Government. The categories have to be agreed with the Government concerned, and "there has to be some measure of control."
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, if I may intervene, is the noble Earl quite satisfied with the wording of the Bill, or does he think there might be need for amendment at a later stage? The wording of the Bill quite specifically says "person" in the singular, which to an ordinary layman would be an individual, a particular officer. Subsection (2) of Clause 1 says that
"no person shall be designated under such an agreement…"
The noble Earl says he is in fact thinking of categories of persons, in the plural; categories of officers. Is there some special reason for using a word which does not, I think, according to the ordinary dictionary sense, mean what he intends?
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, I had felt satisfied about it, but I will certainly look into the point further. What I think is important is the spirit in which it is operated. The first proof we have had of this has been a very satisfactory proof in what has happened in Kenya.
This question of Treasury approval is not something that worries us very much in regard to these colonial territories. Indeed, we have had a similar position ever since the first days of the Colonial Development and Welfare Acts: every project has to be approved by the Treasury. I think you might take the same point and ask, "Have the Treasury to approve some small detailed scheme here or there?" In fact, we have had no trouble, and I think it is a necessary means of ensuring that there will not be abuses. One has not to deal with the individuals: it is the Governments with whom one is dealing. The point I want to stress is that the Treasury have shown great understanding here and have been most forthcoming. We are satisfied with the provision as it stands, because it follows
760
a practice with which we are familiar in regard to the Colonial Development and Welfare Acts.
A question was raised as to whether local authorities could be covered by this Bill. The answer to that at the present time is no, because it says quite specifically that this is in connection with employment in the public services of the territories. One of the difficulties you find is trying to draw a line. If you included local authorities, would that include, for example, harbours or railways? In the case of harbours and railways is it not appropriate that they should be paid for— as indeed they are paid for— on quite different terms? It is quite a different proposition; it is almost a public enterprise which is run on commercial lines, and the same sort of factors do not come into it. We have felt it important and right to restrict the arrangement to the public service— that is to the Governments concerned.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, I appreciate that, but the point I was trying to make is that these employees of the non-Government authorities also suffer anxiety and are liable to throw up their careers, to the detriment of the country they are now serving.
THE EARL OF PERTH: I recognise the point, but one can only hope and expect— as in some cases has proved to be the case— that the local authorities will be ready to do what is necessary to ensure that their employees remain.
The noble Lord, Lord Birdwood, asked if I could give some further detail about training arrangements which have been made since we had that meeting at the beginning of 1960. I am very glad to have that opportunity, because, of course, all this work in the Overseas Service is going hand in glove with our attempt to help the development of the local services themselves and the training of local recruits. It is of great credit to the Overseas Service expatriates that they should do such a good job in training, because in a sense they are training themselves out of a job. But they do it in a completely selfless and valuable way. We have had recently the Adu Committee working in Nyasaland to recommend what should be done. Mr. Adu is a senior civil servant from Ghana, and we are very grateful to the Ghana Government for releasing him. In Kenya we

761
have had Mr. Thurston doing a similar study. He has come from the Ford Foundation and we are very grateful to them. In Kenya there has been set up the new College of Administration, the building of which is going to cost £350,000. Lastly, our own Royal Institute of Public Administration, which has courses here, has already arranged to send out someone with an official from the Colonial Office to study what they can do in the way of making further use of what we all know are such valuable services.
My Lords, I have endeavoured to answer most of the questions that have been put to me. If any noble Lord feels that I have not done it adequately perhaps he will get in touch with me, and I will see what I can do to write to him about it. This is a far-reaching Bill which I believe is generous; and while it will not achieve miracles I think that it can do great things Ito ensure that the Service goes on, both at this time and, more particularly, when the countries have just about reached independence. It is, I believe— and I know that many of your Lordships have said the same thing— the best possible form of aid we can give to these territories. I think I shall echo your Lordships feelings when I say that our record shows that we in this country are specially suited to give this type of aid. When I look back to what we have done over many, many years in the way of bringing countries to independence, I see that again and again that has been due to the selfless work of the Overseas Service. This is an attempt to ensure that they will carry on with that work. I hope that your Lordships will now agree that this Bill should be read a second time.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITIES (CON- FERENCES WITH COMMON- WEALTH COUNTRIES AND RE- PUBLIC OF IRELAND) BILL
5.38 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, this Bill comes to us from another place without amendment. Its purpose is to con-
762
fer upon representatives of Commonwealth Governments in certain circumstances the same immunities as now attach to representatives of foreign Governments in the same circumstances. It is our hope, which I am confident your Lordships will share, that the Bill may receive the Royal Assent in time for its provisions to be applied to Commonwealth delegations at the meeting of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers next month.
In proposing any extension of immunities Her Majesty's Government are aware that your Lordships' House has never regarded lightly any proposal to increase the scope of diplomatic immunities legislation and will now wish to satisfy itself that there is good reason for so doing. As I shall explain, this Bill only corrects an anomaly in the law as it is now and puts Commonwealth representatives on all fours with the representatives of foreign Governments. For that reason I hope your Lordships will agree that it should have a Second Reading.
The persons dealt with in this Bill are representatives of the Governments of Commonwealth countries and the Irish Republic attending conferences in this country with representatives of our own Government. Under Section 4 of the International Organisations (Immunities and Privileges) Act, 1950, which was in itself a consolidation of legislation first passed in 1944, representatives of foreign Governments could, by their inclusion in a list published by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, be accorded diplomatic immunity. But there is at present no such provision in our law to cover representatives of Commonwealth Governments. It is that anomaly which the Bill now before your Lordships' House seeks to correct.
As your Lordships will be aware we already have legislation, in the Diplomatic Immunities (Commonwealth Countries and Republic of Ireland) Act, 1952, to give the Commonwealth High Commissioners in London and their staffs the same immunity as is accorded to foreign Ambassadors. The procedure provided in the Bill is the same as that employed in the case of conferences with foreign representatives. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State— in

763
this case the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations— is empowered to compile and publish in the London, Edinburgh and Belfast Gazettes, the names of the representatives and staffs qualifying for immunity under the Bill and the dates of the beginning and termination of such immunity. Your Lordships will also observe that the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland is included in the operation of this Bill. The Federation is included in subsection (6) of Section 1 of the 1952 Act relating to Commonwealth diplomats appointed to this country, and similar treatment is accorded to our High Commissioner in Salisbury and his staff. It is therefore appropriate and right that the Federation should be included in this Bill.
The Republic of Ireland is also covered by the Bill, because under the Republic of Ireland Act, 1949, it is not a foreign country for the purposes of United Kingdom law and is, therefore, not covered by Section 4 of the International Organisations (Immunities and Privileges) Act, 1950. Clause 2 of the Bill will enable its provisions to be extended to other countries which may in the future become members of the Commonwealth.
Noble Lords will wish to know the nature of the immunities conferred by this Bill. They will be the same as those for a foreign envoy and his retinue. These include, first of all, immunity from suit and legal process; secondly, inviolability of person and of official premises, residence and archives; and thirdly, exemption from liabilities under social security legislation and for personal service. Under existing legislation, an envoy is also accorded exemption from taxation and Customs duties, and a representative would, as a result of this Bill, be accorded exemption on the same basis. A member of the staff of a representative would also foe accorded exemption according to his status on the same basis as a member of the retinue of an envoy. But if a member of the staff of a representative is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies and is not a citizen of the country represented he will have immunity only in respect of his official acts.
The immunities will continue for the period of the conference only and that
764
period will be stated in the lists published in the Gazette by the Secretary of State. Her Majesty's Government have asked other Commonwealth Governments and the Government of the Irish Republic whether they would be prepared to introduce similar legislation in cases where it does not already exist.
I hope your Lordships will agree that this is a good and useful Bill and does no more than provide a normal protection to representatives of Commonwealth Governments attending these conferences, which are such an important part of our close ties with Commonwealth countries, and that we ought to correct the present position by which the representatives of Commonwealth Governments are treated less favourably than those of foreign Governments. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.— (Lord St. Oswald.)
5.45 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, has said, this House has always been vigilant in endeavouring to secure that immunity is not granted to a wider section than is absolutely necessary. In the days when there was a Labour Government this task was undertaken by the late Lord Simon, who invariably rose on these occasions and put the questions— very critical ones— and ensured that the Bill did no more than was absolutely necessary. After the Labour Government, it fell to the late Lord Jowitt, and he did the same. Since his unfortunate decease it has fallen to my lot to raise these same questions.
So far as this Bill is concerned, I recognise that it remedies what appears to have been an omission and that it is essential that representatives of the Commonwealth attending conferences should have diplomatic immunity. There is no objection to that at all. One wonders how they got on until now, for there have been conferences before. Presumably they have not had diplomatic privilege in the past, and they appear to have got on quite well without it. But I assume that it is advantageous that they should have it. This does not apply, I take it, to other countries, such as trust territories, that come within the British colonial empire. I wonder why not. If people from such territories as are still under British

765
dominion come to this country for the purpose of a conference, is there any reason why they should not similarly have immunity as in the case of members of the Commonwealth? Perhaps the noble Lord will be able to explain to me why they have not been incorporated in the Bill.
I have only one or two small points to make on the context of the Bill. The first is that this immunity should apply only so long as is necessary. The machinery in the Bill provides that the Minister makes a list of people who are immune, and at the end of the conference, or at such other time as he thinks fit, he amends the list by taking people off. There is no obligation on the Minister to do this; he "may if he thinks fit". I should have preferred some stronger language than leaving absolutely to the discretion of a Minister the time when the list is altered.
LORD ST. OSWALD: The noble Lord is referring to the Secretary of State putting names on a list, not taking them off a list?
LORD SILKIN: I was referring to taking them off the list. This Bill provides that he may, if he thinks fit, take them off. That is the language of the Bill.
"Whenever it appears to the Secretary of State that any person ceases or begins to be qualified for inclusion in a list…he may amend the list…or, if he thinks fit,"
provide an amended list. It is a small point, but it does leave a certain amount of discretion in his hands.
But perhaps the more serious part is subsection (4) of Clause 1, which deals with the case of people who are members of a conference, but who are citizens of the United Kingdom. They have immunity:
"in respect of things done or omitted to be done in the course of the performance"
of their duties. That is a little different from the language used by the noble Lord, who said that it applied during the period of the conference. That is not so. This is intended to be narrower than the period of the conference and applies only "in the course of the performance of their duties." These are words which, to me, are very reminiscent of the language of an Act of Parliament under which my firm, and I am sure the noble
766
and learned Viscount, at some time or another, made a very lucrative living— the Workmen's Compensation Act that used the phrase
"accidents arising out of or in the course of employment,"
In many cases it is going to be a little difficult to define what are:
"things done or omitted to be done in the course of the performance of…duties."
Supposing, for instance, one of the persons defined in subsection (4) of Clause 1 goes to a reception where the hospitality is more abundant than usual and that it is a reception which he attends in the course of his duties, and he drives home and meets with an accident. Is he immune? Is this something which has arisen in the course of his duties, or not? One can develop that point (although I do not propose to do so) and find even more difficult cases. I should have thought it desirable to define rather more closely what we mean by the words:
"things done or omitted to be done in the course of the performance of his duties."
It may be that to avoid all argument, the language used by the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, would have been better; to say the person is immune during the period of the conference. But, having inserted these words, which I presume are intended to give the representative a limited immunity only, it seems to me that the Government have created a good deal of unnecessary difficulty and confusion, and possible litigation, in the event of a person such as is defined in subsection (4) getting into difficulties and being in a position to say that his action was something he did in the performance of his duties.
Subject to that point, which I feel is an important one, I think this is a very proper Bill, and I hope that even if Her Majesty's Government find it necessary to take some note of what I have said about this clause, they will still get their Bill through in time to operate on the occasion of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference.
5.54 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I agree that we should watch the position carefully. Any attempt to broaden the field of those who have diplomatic immunity I think deserves the most careful scrutiny of us all. But as the noble Lord, Lord St, Oswald, has rightly said, this is really a

767
question of correcting an anomaly, and when we have admitted people from foreign countries there is absolutely no reason why we should not admit the same kind of people who come on Commonwealth delegations. I believe the Government were quite right to bring in these people, and I welcome that action. There are, however, a few very brief observations I should like to make.
The first is about reciprocal arrangements. I understood from the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, that we have asked the countries named in Clause 1 (5) whether they are going to give us reciprocal arrangements, but he did not say what the answers have been. I suggest that it is right and proper that where we make these arrangements we should definitely get reciprocal facilities from the countries to whom we have given these privileges. Perhaps the noble Lord will assure us on that point. The second point I would make is particularly with regard to the Republic of Ireland. For some reason, we have always treated the Republic of Ireland in a peculiar, dual way. In law they are a foreign country, but we have never treated them as such, and both in legislation and in practice we always treat them as a member of the Commonwealth; so much so, indeed, that the Department in Whitehall which deals with them is not the Foreign Office but the Commonwealth Relations Office. I have no objection at all to that. In fact, I welcome that kind of treatment.
In my view, it is the greatest possible pity that the Republic of Ireland is outside the Commonwealth. I hope that the present, very much better feeling which was indicated in the debate we had fairly recently in this House will be extended, and that within no long time we shall see the barriers in Ireland go down, to the satisfaction of all Irish people, and that Ireland will come back into the Commonwealth. But I would particularly ask whether the Republic of Ireland will give us reciprocal treatment— whether we have asked for it and whether they are going to do so. In some cases they do not reciprocate. Any Irishman who has been resident here for six months or so has a vote, but I believe citizens of this country who live in Ireland do not get a vote.
I should like to say a word on a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin,
768
but from a rather different angle. He raised the question of citizens of the United Kingdom and the Colonies, and I quite agree with him that if we are to have any definition at all, it is better to have the one given by the noble Lord the Minister rather than the one now in the Bill; because under the Minister's definition one can, so to speak, limit and define things which happen during the progress of a Conference, but it is very difficult indeed to define them under the Bill. I wonder, though, whether it is really necessary to make this distinction at all so far as the delegations are concerned. I think it is invidious to try to draw the distinction between one member of the delegation and another.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, if in fact the Bill were altered on the lines of the noble Lord's speech, in practice, it will be quite unnecessary to have any exact definition.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I would quite agree, but, after all, we are not dealing with the noble Lord's speech; we have to deal with the Bill. We are discussing the Bill and stimulating the noble Lord to put down, in Committee, an Amendment which will amend his own Bill in the light of his own speech. It is a rather unusual set of circumstances for a Minister who moves the Second Reading of a Bill completely to alter one of the main terms of it, and then for the Opposition to suggest that he puts down an Amendment. I think even the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, will agree that I am entitled to draw the attention of the House to some of the difficulties which will arise if the noble Lord does not amend his own Bill.
One of the difficulties is that owing largely to the welcome development that not only do people go out from this country to the Commonwealth countries but people from different parts of the Commonwealth go to other Commonwealth countries to work, it sometimes happens that there may be on a delegation, for example, from Nigeria, some Jamaicans. There are quite a number of West Indians working in Nigeria and a Jamaican may well come over on a Nigerian delegation. The odd point is that under this Bill all the Nigerians would come within the scope of the Bill, but not the Jamaican. He would be excluded because he is a citizen of the

769
United Kingdom and the Colonies. Similarly, with a citizen of Sarawak or Brunei— which is perhaps a better example, There is a close and developing connection between Brunei and the Federation of Malaya and we might have a citizen of Brunei who comes over here on a Federation of Malaya delegation. He would not have the advantage of this Bill except to the limited extent as defined in Clause 1 (4), and he would be odd man out.
There may well be in the future a joint delegation from the Federation of Malaya and Singapore. In such a case the Malayan portion of the delegation would have all the facilities of protection of this Bill but the Singaporians would not; they would come under Clause l (4). We now occasionally have a delegation from Ghana coming over with a United Kingdom citizen on it; in fact the Attorney General of Ghana is a United Kingdom citizen, and there are several others. He would not get the full benefit of the Bill, but others would. I regard this as a most undesirable distinction to make and I think it is a pettifogging one. The House may remember that on the International Atomic Energy Agency (Immunities and Privileges) Order, passed by the House on December 19, I raised the same sort of point with regard to international atomic energy delegations. I think that when a delegation comes over here we should treat all members alike so long as they are part of the delegation and while the delegation lasts. I think it is quite wrong to have rather a pettifogging way of cutting out people because they have a sort of legal status of being citizens of the Commonwealth and United Kingdom Colonies.
Finally, I have one much smaller point than the others; it concerns a matter of tidiness. I do not see why we cannot include Sierra Leone in Clause 1 (5), concerning the countries to which this Bill is going to apply. By the time it is passed, presumably, Sierra Leone will almost be an independent country. I should have thought, from the point of view of tidiness, that we might include her now. In any event, not all the countries under the Bill are independent countries of the Commonwealth, as the noble Lord has already indicated. The Federation of
770
Rhodesia and Nyasaland is not independent. The Republic of Ireland is not in the Commonwealth at all. So I do not see why we cannot include Sierra Leone, in view of the fact that in a month or two's time, probably in April or May, she will be, I hope and believe, a full member of the Commonwealth. I have no doubt that the answer will be that an Order in Council can be made under Clause 2 (1). That is perfectly true, but I should not think it would be worth all that bother. All that the noble Lord has to do is to add the words "Sierra Leone", and that will avoid all the trouble and expense of the promulgation, and so on, of an Order in Council.
6.4 p.m.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I am grateful to the two noble Lords for the welcome they have given to the Bill. I have tried to satisfy them on a number of questions which they have put. I do not know that I can give entire satisfaction to all the questions, but I think I may give general satisfaction. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, asked why the Bill does not apply to other than sovereign territories; so did the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore. The answer is that, speaking generally, as a general rule it is accepted internationally that this sort of immunity attaches to diplomats and representatives of sovereign States, and it would require a considerable departure from normal practice to give the same benefits to representatives of States which were not sovereign States as yet.
The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, spoke of the Secretary of State's ability to take off or put on to a list the people who were the representatives, or the staff of the representatives, who were to enjoy the immunity given under the Bill. My Lords, the principle of this is that he will be able to publish a list and to close that list on a certain date, the date being announced in the original publication of the list in the Gazette. If, however, I understand, the conference is for any reason held over or prolonged, there is nothing in the Bill to prevent him from extending the period during which the persons, any one or more of them, can continue to enjoy immunity; and that immunity can be retrospective so far as its actual publication in the Gazette is concerned. The present intention is that the period shall cover the time that they

771
spent in conference and a reasonable period for them to leave the country.
The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, also spoke of the term
"in the course of the performance of his duties".
I am certainly not one to measure my knowledge of the law, my understanding of the law, against his; and I am happy to be assured that the exact meaning is, in fact, for the courts; and there are other instances where the law can be quite satisfactorily interpreted by the courts. I cannot, in fact, answer the question out of hand, but it is a matter for lawyers; and I certainly would not compete with the noble Lord sitting opposite me.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, that is the very thing one wants to avoid. This sort of question came before the courts for years and years: "What was something arising out of and in the course of one's employment?" Here, we are repeating this thing again. Surely, we do not want to have to bring up decided cases on the matter and have legal arguments. Is it not much better to settle it straight away?
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, is the noble Lord saying that the use of this phrase in legislation has given rise to continual dissatisfaction or repeated dissatisfaction?— because I am unaware of it. I am not saying that it is not so, but it has not, certainly, been brought to my notice.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, that is exactly what I was saying.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, in point of fact I am not going to contradict the noble Lord, but it has not been considered a serious enough situation to involve putting another definition into the Bill. In addition to what I have said about the actual phrasing and the difficulty of drawing a meaning from this phrase, "in the course of his duties", this particular passage of the Bill accords with a similar limitation imposed on Commonwealth diplomats appointed to this country in the normal way; that is, the High Commissioners' staffs; and is, in fact, written into the Diplomatic Immunities (Commonwealth Countries and Republic of Ireland) Act.
772
1952. As I say, I have not been informed that it has given rise to any particular awkwardness.
The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, asked why a citizen of Jamaica in a Nigerian delegation should not receive the same diplomatic immunity accorded to the rest of the delegation. I have already answered that point to the best of my ability. He made it clear in advance that that answer would not be particularly satisfactory to him, as I understand it. But, at the same time, it is normal practice throughout the world, and we do not feel that in this Bill we could depart so far from that practice. The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, also drew attention to the fact that while Southern Rhodesia is included in the Bill, Sierra Leone is not. In fact the machinery for bringing Sierra Leone in directly it does achieve independence is very simple, and the decision was to leave it until that could be done. The noble Lord drew attention to the fact that it could be done under Clause 2; and that is the intention.
The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, also asked, as I understand it, whether it was intended to withhold this immunity from States which did not reciprocate. As I mentioned, requests have been made to the other Governments involved, asking them to consider taking this action, introducing this legislation, and, as I understand it, most of them have already replied helpfully and are considering doing so. The noble Lord mentioned in particular the Government of the Republic of Ireland. I understand that they are seeking how it can be done under their Constitution.
The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, also asked why a "blanket" cover could not be given to all members of a delegation instead of by means of a list, and he invited me to introduce an Amendment on the basis of my own speech. Although I have never been averse to doing the unusual, I think the arguments against it in this particular instance are greater than would warrant my taking that course. They are, in fact, arguments which I think the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, would be more likely to be able to appreciate technically than myself.
LORD OGMORE: May I say to the noble Lord, if he will give way, that I did not raise the question of a "blanket". I quite appreciate the fact

773
that we must have a list. A list is essential. 1t was not a "blanket" I was referring to: it was the question of whether it was not invidious to have members of delegations who might be from a colonial territory employed by an independent territory being treated in quite a separate manner when they came over here. That is the point I bad in mind.
LORD ST. OSWALD: While they are on a delegation under the meaning of this Bill?
LORD OGMORE: Yes.
LORD ST. OSWALD: I think the noble Lord need have no particular fears on that account. The real reason for using a list is that, in that way, the public can know, or at least can discover, where they stand in relation to a particular delegate.
LORD OGMORE: If the noble Lord will forgive me, I am not talking about a list at all. It is the noble Lord who has introduced a list. I do not want to pursue this now, but we do not want to get this wrong. Quite frankly, I do not care whether there is a list or not. I quite appreciate that one must have a list, but that is not really the point. Perhaps the noble Lord would be good enough to look at my speech in Hansard.
LORD ST. OSWALD: I certainly will. It appears that I have misunderstood the noble Lord. It is an argument which I think he has used before in similar debates, and as I understood it, both on those occasions and on this, he saw no necessity for a list to be published. In fact, the list as published is practically a blanket list. I have asked for a list as an example, and I have in my hand now a list, reprinted from the London Gazette of August 21, 1956, of the delegates at the Suez Canal Conference, and the list of immunised staffs of the representatives is very large indeed. The United States had 17, France 19, and Soviet Russia 32, all enjoying immunity during the course of that particular conference.
My Lords, I think those were the only questions put to me directly, and I hope that I have given some satisfaction, or at least satisfied the curiosity of noble Lords, as to why the provisions in the Bill are phrased in the way they are.
774
I am happy that neither noble Lord has expressed any doubt as to the requirement of this Bill, and I hope that they will be willing to give it a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

PLYMOUTH CORPORATION (HARROWBEER AERODROME) BILL [H.L.]
6.15 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD COLYTON: My Lords, my motives in undertaking to introduce this Bill this afternoon are twofold. In the first place, I desire to assist the Lord Mayor and Corporation of the City of Plymouth, the Promoters of this Bill, which in their view is of the greatest importance for the future development of the city and the interests of its citizens. In the second place, and speaking as a Devonian, I consider that the passage of this Bill is in the interests of the development of aviation in the South-West, and in particular of scheduled air services throughout the whole area. The latter is a matter to which I have drawn attention from time to time over the past ten years, both in your Lordships' House and in another place.
As far as the City of Plymouth is concernecl, the present position is that there is no proper airport at all. There is a small airfield at Roborough, the ground levels of which are all wrong. There is no hard runway, and it is quite unsuitable for modern aircraft. Before I proceed to my main argument, let me at once dispose of the suggestion that the present Roborough airfield could be extended and modernised as a possible alternative to the Harrowbeer scheme. Roborough can, in fact, be extended in one direction only; extra land would have to be acquired, and very substantial earth-moving operations would have to be undertaken. This would give one runway of 3,600 feet in length— smaller than one of the two principal runways at Harrowbeer, and incapable of extension to the length necessary to enable an aircraft of the type of, say, a Viscount to land. Moreover, the cost of converting it would be twice as much as the restoration of Harrowbeer Airport. I will not

775
labour the point, my Lords; but, to put the matter briefly, if Plymouth is to have an airport, there is no practical alternative to Harrowbeer within a reasonable distance of the city.
I now come to what are the reasons why it is essential that Plymouth should have an airport. Plymouth is the regional centre for much of Devon and Cornwall, and it is the largest city in the South-West, with a population of 217,000. There is a further population of some 50,000 in the immediate neighbourhood. It is an active city, with a great tradition, and its outstanding record in the postwar years in the matter of planning and reconstruction after the appalling damage done by enemy bombardment is itself evidence of the city's determination to go ahead.
At the present time, the Royal Dockyards and Establishments employ over 30 per cent. of the male workers. This means— and there is already anxiety on this score— that if further steps in disarmament take place, there could be a large redundancy in the employees of the dockyards. The need for more and diverse industry is apparent also from the fact that the rate of unemployment in Plymouth is twice the national average, while earnings are approximately £3 below the national average. I would add that Plymouth is not now a designated area under the Local Employment Act, and it is therefore dependent on local effort to attract further industry. And this, my Lords, the City Council have been hard at work doing. They have been trying to get more factories to come to Plymouth, but they feel that nothing must be neglected in this endeavour to provide Plymouth with all the facilities which a modern industrial city requires.
An airport is certainly one such requirement. All one has to do is to read the statistics of air travel, both in this country and on the Continent, and indeed throughout the world, to see the trend of modern development. Plymouth cannot afford to be left behind. Owing to its isolated position, there is, in fact, greater need for improved transport in Plymouth than in many other parts of the country which are already well served in this respect. The Plymouth Corporation have been in touch with
776
firms, both in this country and in the United States, with a view to attracting them to Plymouth, and on more than one occasion the matter of air facilities has been raised. I have a note here of one firm of American origin which went so far as to say that there were occasions when the shipment of their products by air was absolutely essential.
My Lords, I should like at this stage to say a few words about the wider issue of the need for scheduled air services in the West country. Such services existed, and were most successful, in the days before the war, when the Great Western Railway ran excellent services linking up many places in the South-West with the Midlands and elsewhere. To-day, the South-West is the Cinderella of the country in the matter of air transportation and, indeed, of communications in general; and such progress as has been made has been largely due to its own efforts. For example, the new magnificent toll bridge over the Tamar between Devon and Cornwall is not being built, as might have been expected, by the Ministry of Transport, but jointly by the Plymouth Corporation and the Cornwall County Council without any Government grant; and the same thing seems to be true in regard to the provision of air services.
British European Airways operate a small service from St. Just, near Penzance, to the Isles of Scilly. Up to now they have refused to consider the establishment of an air service linking the Isles of Scilly service with London. On the last occasion when I raised this matter in Parliament, and when I had gone into it with officials of B.E.A., I was told that such a service would not, at present, be economic. In view of the fact that there are at present over one million tourists visiting Devon and Cornwall each year, most of us in the West country would strongly dispute this assertion. I have constantly urged that a trial B.E.A. service, perhaps in the first instance for the summer months only, should be inaugurated. However that may be, there is the beginning of an interest among the independent air lines, and individual charter flights and some scheduled services are now being introduced and operated.
Those of your Lordships who have travelled in the United States and in parts

777
of the Continent of Europe will well remember the internal air services, with moderate-sized aircraft, often known as "coach services", which operate between Boston, or Milan, and the smaller towns in the area. There is no reason at all why we should not have something of the sort operating from London, Exeter, Plymouth, Penzance, and linking up with the Isles of Scilly service. But, quite clearly, the existence of a modern airfield at Plymouth for the Plymouth traffic would be a very important feature of such a scheme.
My Lords, we are often told that we must wait for helicopters, and this matter has again been raised in connection with the Plymouth airport. But I think that all the technical authorities are agreed that neither helicopters nor vertical takeoff aircraft will be capable of competing economically with fixed-wing aircraft on medium flying distances for many years. To sum up this argument, there is an overwhelming need for regular air services through the South-West; Plymouth is an essential part of such a development, and would greatly help in making these services economical.
I now turn to Harrowbeer itself. This airfield was built during the war for the Royal Air Force. It has two principal runways, one 3,920 feet in length, and one 3,340 feet in length. It is capable of taking aircraft such as the Dakota, and its more modern successors. It is also capable of extension to 5,000 feet, which would make it serviceable for Viscounts. The land on which the airfield is situated is on Roborough Down, four miles North of the City of Plymouth. It will be necessary to enclose only about 200 acres for the airfield out of the 2,000 acres of Roborough Common. About 50 of these 200 acres are already covered with tarmac and concrete runways. The Bill gives powers of access over a further 74 acres in order to enable roads to be built round the aerodrome, if that should prove to be necessary.
I understand that the main objections which are likely to be raised to this Bill are two: first, that it is proposed to restore an airfield on common land; secondly, that it is in a national park. These are, indeed, the main grounds of objection in the two Petitions which have been deposited, and which would, of
778
course, be fully considered should your Lordships give this Bill a Second Reading this afternoon.
So far as the argument that the airport is on common land is concerned, it has been alleged in certain quarters that the Report of the Royal Commission on Common Land, presented in July, 1958, contained provisions laying down that it was undesirable that common land should be compulsorily acquired by Private Bill. There was a Committee in the other place which in 1958 rejected the St. Neots Urban District Council Commons Bill on the ground that the wide issues of general principle raised by the Bill should not be agreed to by means of private legislation. This has been quoted as an argument against action by Private Bill to acquire the common land needed for Harrowbeer Airport. My Lords, the facts are exactly the opposite. The Royal Commission Report was mainly concerned with the management and improvement of common land, and the St. Neòts Bill was an attempt to deal, in the case of one common, with the sort of problems which the Royal Commission were required to consider generally. It clearly would have been undesirable to pass that Bill if general legislation covering the same ground was imminent. The Plymouth Corporation Bill is quite different. It is similar to the many other Private Bills which Parliament has already passed authorising common land to be acquired for various public purposes.
In this matter, the Royal Commission did not recommend that any change in the existing procedure should be made. As a matter of fact, by a curious coincidence, some of the land which the Plymouth Corporation are seeking to acquire for the airfield has already been the subject of a compulsory purchase order. The Devon County Council, who are one of the Petitioners against this Bill, are already under an obligation to build certain roads across the site of the aerodrome by the end of June, 1962— and that, incidentally, is one of the reasons why it is urgent that Plymouth should get the rights to this airfield now. To do this, the Devon County Council have already had to obtain a compulsory purchase order, which has already been

779
the subject of special Parliamentary procedure.
The second major ground of opposition is that the airfield lies within the area of the Dartmoor National Park. This has naturally caused concern, and it is, I submit, the only serious argument against the scheme. One is bound to sympathise with those who wish to preserve the amenities of our national parks, and particularly our own beautiful Dartmoor. On the other hand, there are certain aspects of this matter which require to be made clear. Roborough Down, on which the aerodrome stands, is separated from Dartmoor proper by the townships of Yelverton and Dowsland, and by enclosed farmlands, as well as by a main road and a railway. The loss of 200 acres lying right on the edge of the national park area, and outside the national park proper, out of a total of no less than 365 square miles of park, is surely not going to do any serious damage to the amenities of Dartmoor. Indeed, it might well be argued that the existence of an airport would be a means of improving communication with the rest of the country, and would enable many more people to visit and enjoy Dartmoor than do at present.
I would add that, as usual in the case of development in a national park which is authorised by a Private Bill, the Promoters would be required to engage a landscape consultant in order to advise them on the design and layout of their buildings and installations, and to undertake to remove the buildings if it should turn out that they are no longer required. There is no doubt that the Plymouth Corporation will be prepared to accept these conditions.
To sum up, my Lords, first, the City of Plymouth needs a modern airport for its future industrial development and for the interest and welfare of its citizens. Secondly, no other suitable site is available, except the old R.A.F. Harrowbeer airfield on Roborough Down. Thirdly, the establishment of a commercial airport at Plymouth is a necessary adjunct to schemes for the development of air services to the whole of the South-West, which will have to be undertaken in the near future. Fourthly, the argument that the acquisition of common land by a Private Bill is contrary to the recommend-
780
dations of the Royal Commission on Common Land is fallacious. Fifthly, and finally, the objection that the airfield would lie just within the borders of Dartmoor National Park is illusory, for the general public making use of the amenities of the park (of course, your Lordships will appreciate that these are mainly the inhabitants of Plymouth) would not suffer to any appreciable extent, if at all.
My Lords, I have ventured to go into this matter at some length this evening. Whatever arguments there may be to the contrary, it seems to me perfectly clear that the proper place for them to be deployed and examined is before the Select Committee, where evidence can be heard. Therefore, I would urge your Lordships, having heard the general explanation which I have tried to give, to give this Bill a Second Reading. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.— (Lord Colyton.)
6.32 p.m.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD MERTHYR): My Lords, it is not, I think, my duty or my function to act as an advocate either for this Bill or against it, but rather to do my best to assist the House on the constitutional and procedural aspects of this matter. It seems to me that to-day there are two alternatives before the House, as will be obvious to your Lordships. The first is to reject the Second Reading of this Bill to-day; though I am bound to say that I observe that no one had put down a Motion for the rejection on the Order Paper. The second alternative is to allow this Bill to go upstairs to a Select Commitee, which will perform a quasi-judicial function and which will have the advantage of hearing arguments on both sides marshalled by counsel and assisted by sworn evidence. If a Second Reading is granted to this Bill to-day, I think the fact that there are two Petitions against the Bill which will be heard upstairs will ensure that the issues will be properly joined and that both sides will be fully heard— I would submit, far more fully heard than could possibly be done on the Floor of your Lordships' House.
By giving a Second Reading to a Private Bill, the House does not necessarily approve the principles of the Bill. That, as I understand it, is the accepted

781
constitutional position. It is almost an invariable custom, though not quite, to give a Second Reading to a Private Bill in your Lordships' House, unless what the Bill proposes to do in one part of the country is something that the House would not allow to be done anywhere. Apart from that, it is extremely rare, as I say, for the House to refuse a Second Reading to a Private Bill.
At this stage, may I quote from Erskine May? I am afraid that some of your Lordships will have heard this many times, but I think that it is relevant. I quote a short passage from page 1,008:
"It is unusual for the Second Reading of a Private Bill to be debated in the House of Lords. Where a debate does take place, however, the House has in recent years invariably upheld the principle that the decision of the Committee on the Bill should not be prejudiced by discussion on Second Reading unless the House has come to the opinion that, whatever the local circumstances may be,—
pausing here, I would emphasise the words, "whatever the local circumstances may be"—
"the powers conferred by the Bill should not be allowed to the promoter."
There is little more that I wish to say in this effort to assist the House, except this. If your Lordships give a Second Reading to this Bill to-day, and if the Committee upstairs pass the Bill, the House will still have an opportunity, should they so wish it, of rejecting the Bill. It is always possible to throw out a Bill on Third Reading. Again, it is not common, but there is no denying that it can be done. Therefore, if I may go so far as to do so, I would respectfully suggest that to-day your Lordships should allow all that the Promoters want to say about this Bill and all that the opponents want to say about it to be heard in the perhaps more easy atmosphere of the Committee Room rather than on the Floor of the House.
6.37 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: I am sure that the House is greatly indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, for the guidance which he has given to us, and to the noble Lord, Lord Colyton, for the way in which he introduced this Bill. I am bound to say that, having listened to both noble Lords. I feel rather more inclined to ask the House to reject the Bill than I was before. In the first place, the very powerful advocacy of the noble
782
Lord, Lord Colyton— and it was powerful advocacy— rather tended to require those who take an opposing view to make their views known at this moment rather than allow the Bill to go forward. Furthermore, the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, pointed out that this Bill could be rejected on Third Reading. But it would be far more difficult to reject it on Third Reading, if we had allowed the Bill to go through on Second Reading; and if we had allowed the Committee to accept the principle, it would be far more difficult to decide that we were going to reject the views of our own Committee.
The noble Lord, reading Erskine May, pointed out that it was most unusual for a Bill to be rejected on Second Reading and that the main ground— indeed the only ground— for rejection was that what was asked for in the Bill would not be permitted anywhere else in the country. I should have thought that this was exactly the position. If a proposal came up in any part of the country to build an aerodrome in a national park, I should have thought that that was something that ought to be rejected, beyond any doubt. However, there is no Motion before the House— though that in itself is not fatal. Had we decided to press the matter, I think that it would have been right to give notice of rejection, so that noble Lords on all sides would have known that this was the issue before the House. Therefore I am not going to ask the House to reject this Bill on Second Reading, though other noble Lords may take a different view, and if they do, I will support them in the Division Lobby.
Having regard to the powerful advocacy of the noble Lord, however, I think the position of those who hope that the Bill will be rejected in Committee— and I make no secret of the fact that I strongly hope it will be rejected in Committee— should be made known straight away. I think the main point— the noble Lord stated it— is that this land is part of a national park. It is part of an area which Parliament has declared to be an area which should be preserved for the benefit of the people of this country and enjoyed by them; and though not regarded as sacrosanct, it is one of our most priceless heritages. It is invidious to compare one of the twelve national parks with another, and I do not propose to do that;

783
but I would say that Dartmoor ranks high among the list of our national parks and is perhaps as greatly appreciated by the general public not only those in the neighbourhood of the Western country but the public of Great Britain, as a whole, as any of the national parks. Devon and Cornwall are national playgrounds which all of us have at times enjoyed and which I hope we shall continue to enjoy, and nothing should be done to deprive the people of this country of this great national playground.
The noble Lord says: "Well, it is only at the edge"; and I rather gathered him to say that these 274 acres which it is proposed to use for an airport were practically not in the national park at all. But this land is definitely part of the national park and is an area which has been included in the designated area. It was subjected to scrutiny at the time when it was decided to make it a national park. I think it is quite wrong to distinguish as between one part of a national park and another and to say that it is not so important: in fact, this is a very important part of the national park. It is enjoyed by large numbers of people living in Plymouth—it is, I understand, only about four miles from the City of Plymouth—and I feel that to suggest that it is not so important as any other part is quite fallacious.
Every time there is an attack on a national park some need is pleaded. Of course, nobody would dream of suggesting that they should be in a position of being able to deprive the public of a national park unless they could allege that there was some need. There is always a need. Sometimes there is a need for more sand and ballast; sometimes it is an overriding claim for industrial user; and in this case there is the need for an airfield. The noble Lord has not made out a case for an airfield for Plymouth. There are a large number of cities in Great Britain with a population equivalent to that of Plymouth and with a surrounding population in the neighbourhood of 50,000. If each of those were to demand an airport at the expense of one of our national parks, we should be in a very sorry way. As I say, I do not think the case of an overriding need for an airport at Plymouth has been made out.
Plymouth is one of the cities of this country which has suffered most as a
784
result of war damage—I would put it in the first half dozen—and it has been foremost in preparing a plan for its redevelopment. It began in 1943, and was probably the most enterprising city in this country in preparing a plan. The plan was prepared by Sir Patrick Abercrombie. In the Abercrombie plan—which I do not suggest for a moment is sacrosanct, but it should be treated with the greatest respect—Sir Patrick says that he
"recommended that Plymouth's priceless heritage of Roborough Down should be restored and preserved as an open space for the use and enjoyment of the inhabitants of the city "—
not for the use and enjoyment of those who want to travel by air, but of the inhabitants of the city. It would be quite contrary to the Abercrombie plan and the remarkable work that has been done in Plymouth if this part of the Abercrombie Report were to be disregarded.
Nor do I accept, even if a case were made out for the need of an airfield for Plymouth, that there is no other land available within reasonable distance of Plymouth for the purpose. That is the sort of point that is always made: that there is the need, and there is no other land available. But I would suggest that, even if those two points were established, you would have still to weigh up the damage that would be done to the cause of the preservation of our amenity and our open space in this country as against the advantages that would arise from! providing an airport for Plymouth.
I do not want to argue this case at length. I have agreed, speaking for my-self, that this matter should go to the Committee. But I want the Committee to be under no illusions as to the strength of feeling that exists in this House and in the country, as a whole, on matters of this kind. Only a short time ago the Government were defeated on an issue regarding open space. With great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, I would say that that was a less important question than the particular one of encroachment on this area. I am not going to weigh up two undesirable actions one against the other, but the Government were defeated, and that largely by their own supporters.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, may I just correct the noble Lord's memory on that? The Government yielded to the eloquence of my noble friend Lord

785
Birkett, and a much lesser eloquence of myself and others, including the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, on a previous occasion, and withdrew their opposition to my Amendment. They were not defeated. The issue on which I defeated them occurred earlier the same afternoon, but it was not on that issue.
LORD SILKIN: I stand corrected. But the defeat was there hanging over their heads; the Government were under no illusions that if they put the matter to a vote they would have been defeated.
LORD CONESFORD: There I agree.
LORD SILKIN: I am glad the noble Lord agrees with me. This is a matter to which we all, in all parts of the House and throughout the country, attach great importance. This Bill is being opposed by practically every amenity society in the country. I would say, finally, that we attach importance—and much more importance, I may say, than to the question of an airfield—to being able to attract people to this country. What is it that attracts them? It is the beauty of our island; it is places like Dartmoor, the Lake District and so on, which are in many ways unique. All countries have their unique pieces of scenery, and this is one of our unique treasures. If we gradually, under one pretext or another, let them go, this Island will cease to be a place which will attract people from abroad, and not only shall we suffer economically but we shall suffer spiritually as well. So I hope that, while taking account of everything the noble Lord has said in introducing this Bill, strong account will also be taken of the opposition, and the very powerful opposition, which exists to the proposal.
6.51 p.m.
VISCOUNT LAMBERT: My Lords, I should like first to congratulate my noble friend Lord Colyton on the clear, concise and fair way in which he introduced this Bill. It is with regret that I heard that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, was not convinced entirely of the necessity for an aerodrome at Harrowbeer. When anyone suggests taking either a part of a national park or a piece of common land, many people react violently. I want to discuss for a few moments the two interests that are materially affected—the people who live and work in Plymouth,
786
and the commoners themselves. During the 1939–45 war, as the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said, no town was submitted to heavier or more continuous bombardment than Plymouth.
LORD SILKIN: Yes, Hull.
VISCOUNT LAMBERT: I said "not more bombardment". They may have had as much. As the noble Lord said, Plymouth showed the greatest enterprise and resource, first in planning the rebuilding of their city, and then in rebuilding it. For that reason alone, one would have thought that the town would have been deserving of an aerodrome. But there are other reasons.
First of all, many other towns of a similar size to Plymouth have an aerodrome of their own, and they are not nearly so remote. As my noble friend Lord Colyton said, 30 per cent. of the working men of Plymouth are employed in the Naval Dockyards, and, as we all know, great changes are taking place every day in the weapons of war. The future of the Dockyards of necessity must be precarious. Surely, it is only right and wise of the Council of Plymouth to take a look at the future to see that, should the necessity arise, they will be in a position to attract industry to the town, and to ensure work for the very loyal men who work in these Dockyards.
I said just now that Plymouth was remote. It is 200 miles from London. It has a good railway service, but the fact remains that to get to Plymouth by train takes five or six hours. From Manchester, I understand that it takes nine hours. Therefore, if a man requires to go to Plymouth on business he must spend at least two days, or possibly three, and will obviously prefer to move his business to some town which he can get at more quickly. If there were an aerodrome at Plymouth, no doubt he could get there in two or three hours. It has been argued that the Exeter aerodrome would be a good substitute for Plymouth. But Exeter is more than 40 miles from Plymouth, and a man would take at least two hours to get there by car; and, in addition, he would have all the difficulty of hiring and arranging transport for himself. I feel that there is a strong case, both from the civic and from the economic point of view, that Plymouth should be enabled to provide its citizens with an aerodrome.

787
There are various estimates of the number of commoners on Roborough Down, but I am told that it is between 10 and 40. They have the right to graze sheep and cattle during the hay harvest on the 2,000 acres of Roborough Down. Roborough Down is a long, narrow stretch of land, and consists of 2,000 acres. It is proposed to put the aerodrome on 200 acres in the middle. Therefore, the commoners will still have no less than 1,800 acres. The most modern technique of grazing grassland is to put stock on for a short while, and then take them off. Surely, the commoners, if they grazed the Southern half for the first three weeks of the hay harvest, and then the Northern half for the second part would improve the grazing. They would have little or no loss. But I understand that the Corporation of Plymouth are willing, and indeed anxious, to give them compensation for any loss to which they may be subjected. I would suggest to the Corporation that they might have taken a leaf from the railways which, when they were built 100 years ago, gave various people various concessions. I feel that it would be a welcome concession to the commoners of Roborough Down if, for instance, a party of them each year could be taken by air to the Cup Tie. That would have the advantage that it takes place in April, before the hay harvest.
We in this country—and I am the first to admit it—owe a great debt of gratitude to the many people who have striven in the past, and are striving now, to preserve the beauty of our countryside. I am delighted to see here my noble and learned friend Lord Birkett, who has done so much, and I feel that the noble Lords, Lord Silkin and Lord Dalton, must be always grateful for being given the opportunity of giving legislative sanction to our national parks. We as a country are also indebted to my noble friend Lord Strang for the way in which the parks have been developed and carried on under his chairmanship. It must give all those noble Lords, and a great many people connected with the national parks, the greatest satisfaction that an increasing number of people each year are having the leisure and the opportunity to enjoy them.
788
My Lords, I should find it very hard to support this Bill if I thought that it would in any way endanger their great achievements. We in Devon are justly proud of Dartmoor. Dartmoor is a very big place, of 365 square miles, or 220,000 acres. The aerodrome will take only 200 acres—surely a very small price in amenities to pay for the very great advantages it will give the people of Plymouth, as well as, should there be need, a sense of surety, because there will be industry and employment for the men who work in the Dockyards there.
7.0 p.m.
LORD DALTON: My Lords, I confess that I have been shocked by this Bill, simply by the one feature of it which has been referred to by so many speakers, the proposal to tear away some 200 to 300 acres from the national park for the purpose of this aerodrome. My noble friend Lord Silkin deployed at considerable length—and I shall seek not to repeat his arguments, though I found them very persuasive—the argument against even small beginnings, even small nibblings at our national parks as they now stand. I have known and loved Dartmoor from my boyhood on, and I was very proud and happy when it was duly designated as a national park. I did not find as persuasive as the argument of my noble friend the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Colyton, that this land was hardly inside the park at all and that its disappearance would not be noticed. I still feel—and I speak with some knowledge of the country, including the area around Yelverton to which he referred—that this would be a serious wound to this piece of uniquely beautiful natural scenery. Therefore I should need a great deal of persuading to persuade me to support the principal proposal in the Bill.
On the other hand, I say at once that I. for my part, and I am sure nearly all other noble Lords, will always listen to the voice of Plymouth with great sympathy and with a memory of the great battles through which Plymouth has passed. Not only in this last war but long before Plymouth has been famous in song and story. It fell to me, as President of the Board of Trade in the latter part of the last war, to join most helpfully (it was the Corporation and

789
citizens of Plymouth who were helpful rather than I) in what has been already highly and rightly praised; the tremendous speed, audacity and efficiency with which battered Plymouth prepared to face the aftermath of war.
Of all the blitzed cities (and they were one of my special concerns at the Board of Trade) Plymouth undoubtedly got quicker off the mark than any other of the blitzed cities—I say that without any hesitation—both in presenting its plans and in beginning to execute them in times of great shortage and difficulties. If, therefore, geography had been different, and if it had not been Dartmoor, and if Dartmoor had not been near to Plymouth, the thought I have about all this would be differently balanced. But as is, greatly though I admire what Plymouth has done, confident though I am that Plymouth has before it a great future, and hopeful though I am that Plymouth will solve its unemployment problem in these new conditions, yet I cannot bring myself to support the principal proposal in this Bill.
As a comparatively new Member of this House, I am grateful to the Lord Chairman for his exposition of what I might call the procedural habits of the House in the past in relation to such Bills as this. In my still childish innocence in this place, after more than 30 years in another place having to give votes the overwhelming majority of which were determined by my Party Whips, I had instantly hoped when I came here that I should enter a place where I could give votes in accordance with my own individual sense of right and wrong and of the weight of the argument in particular cases. My inclination coming here to-day, my feeling being so strong upon this matter, would be to hope that I should perhaps at the end of the debate take part in a Division. But I have taken note of practice and I do not wish to be unreasonably iconoclast in anything I do. But I take note also of what my noble friend said. He said, as I understood it, that although he himself would not incite any noble Lord to divide against this Bill, yet he would not seek to dissuade them I am very grateful to him for that reassurance, and if, as the debate goes on—and I think there are some further noble Lords who wish to speak on this matter—out of those speeches there should anise a desire for
790
a Division against the Bill then I shall join those who initiate such a manœuvre.
7.8 p.m.
LORD BIRKETT: My Lords, it must fall upon very grateful ears to hear from any speaker at this hour that he proposes to speak for only a very few moments, particularly if he has the power of making himself believed, because as a matter of practice it is usual for people to begin by saying, "I do not propose to take up much time", to appease their hearers, and then to take a considerable time to do it. But I intend to take a very few moments, for very good reasons, and the principal reason is that the arguments against the proposal of the Plymouth Corporation have been so fully and, if I may say so, so spiritedly stated by my noble friend Lord Silkin and by Lord Dalton that there is little need to say more. But I should like to enrol among those who oppose this Bill. I must confess that I was impressed very much at the outset by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Colyton, which was, if I may say so, a powerful presentation of this case and one which I felt ought to be answered at once; and if it was to be answered decisively I thought it should be by refusing a Second Reading to this Bill. But then when the Lord Chairman came with his calm, detached, judicial survey of the matter, saying, "Let it go to the Select Committee, for there all the detail can be examined with great care", I felt that there was much to be raid for that course. But, for my own part, I would make it perfectly plain that I should like to see this Bill defeated, and I do not mind how it is done.
I would say this to the noble Lord, Lord Colyton, and the noble Viscount, Lord Lambert, who made such a kindly reference to me: that with the part of their speeches which was devoted to the interests of Plymouth I can quite well agree, and I think the House would well agree. Both from history and from all that they have done, they are entitled to say, "We should have special consideration and we feel we ought to have an aerodrome". In the ordinary way the local authority ought to be able to say, "This is what we want. We know the local needs better than anybody else and

791
we do not wish to have our powers curtailed by anybody else". And I would agree up to this point: that if this proposal had not infringed what I think are two principles of great importance, then they might have had their aerodrome without any discussion. But what has happened in this case is that the Plymouth Corporation have done two things. They have said, first of all, "By this Private Bill we will deprive these commoners of their ancient rights". It is true that they say, "We will pay them compensation for taking their rights from them". And secondly, they have said, "And we shall erect this aerodrome in the national park". I quite agree with the previous speakers that that is the real offence which this Bill commits.
I was most interested in what Lord Silkin said. Perhaps I may repeat a quotation I made in this House the other day. It is a quotation from Milton:
"Besides what the grim wolf with privy paw Daily devours apace and nothing said".
So here a little and there a little, the great heritage of the national parks is being eaten into by proposals such as the present proposal, and I think it is the duty of this House to resist it.
Lord Colyton, and I think Lord Lambert too, both made reference to the fact that there were two Petitions against this Bill, one from all the amenity societies in the country and the other one, singularly enough, from the Devon County Council. As to the proposal which Lord Colyton made about the necessity for the aerodrome, the necessity for this site, the economic future of Plymouth and so on, it is interesting to note that the Devon County Council were as much concerned, I should imagine, as the noble Lord with these considerations. Nevertheless, they go to the length of putting forward a Petition in which they challenge the contentions of the Corporation, and go on to say that the invasion of the National Park of Dartmoor ought not to take place.
For those reasons, I think that the House would do well to record now its abhorrence (if the word is not too strong) at this proposal. The National Parks Act, 1949, was hailed all over the country as something which was now going to guarantee to us the preservation of that
792
which makes our country quite distinctive. Everybody, I think, is agreed that there is no countryside to match the English countryside, wherever you may go. You may go to other lands and see magnificent sights, but you can never get what we have in this country. When that Act was passed by the Labour Government—the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, had much to do with it—everybody who cared about our countryside felt more secure that the fairest spots in our land would be inviolate, preserved from the hand of the invader. But in truth and in fact, as the years have passed we have found to our painful cost that this really is not so—that there is here an invasion of a national park, there an invasion of a national park, and it has become quite common form in proposals of this kind to say, "Let us take the acreage from this land which was set aside solemnly by Parliament for the preservation of its natural beauty and for the enjoyment of the people of the countryside."
Finally, I should like to say that the chairman of the Yelverton and District Residents' Association wrote to me and spoke on behalf of 1,000 residents who are members of that society. He pointed out, with some force, as I think, that all those people who since the war had bought their houses in Yelverton and district had done so upon the assurance that here was a national park, that it was then free from the kind of considerations which applied elsewhere, and that this particular site which is now sought after by the Plymouth Corporation had been relinquished by the Ministry of Civil Aviation in 1953. For all these reasons, I would venture to submit to the House that, whatever decision your Lordships may take—whether or not you will say, "We will not grant this Bill a Second Reading", which I think would be a difficult decision to make in view of the quotation from Erskine May and in view of the desire of the Corporation to have its case heard fully—I hope it will be felt that the House is quite free at any stage to mark its displeasure, even on Third Reading, by rejecting the Bill.
7.15 p.m.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, the reasons for my taking part in this debate are both sentimental and practical. Early this century my grandfather was

793
Member of Parliament for Plymouth; and Harrowbeer is but a few miles from Merrivale, and a stone's throw from Walkhampton. I have lived in Yelverton, where, in effect, the aerodrome is proposed to be sited, and I have also landed on Roborough airfield. But when considering this Bill I felt, like my noble friend Lord Colyton, that one should consider to a certain extent the economic prospects and future of the City of Plymouth.
As has been said, this is a city which in the past has been largely dependent, from an economic point of view, on the Naval Dockyard. In spite of a fact, as stated in Chamber's Encyclopœdia, that Plymouth has one of the finest harbours in the country, over the years it has seen a steady decline in the amount of freight handled there and in the number of passenger vessels calling there. Now no passenger steamship liner regularly calls at Plymouth. No doubt that is due to insufficient industrial incentives, a lack of adequate inland communications—in other words, it suffers from a certain remoteness, as I believe my noble friend Lord Colyton said. There is, therefore, a need for an expansion of the tourist trade. I think that Plymouth could be a perfect starting point for incursions into the whole of the South-West of England and further afield. There is a fear that, with our present streamlined Navy, employment in Her Majesty's Dockyard may be curtailed over the coming years.
There are at the moment certain light industries, but, as has been said, these are insufficient to provide adequate employment for the working population. However, since the war, due to the Corporation's efforts, various other industrial concerns have established themselves, giving employment, I understand, to about 5,000 persons. These firms are considering expanding. Towards the latter part of last year, I understand that twelve firms stated that they will be in a position to give employment, when they are set up, to 2,000 workers, and they hope to achieve a figure of 4,000 at a later date. But all this is insufficient to cater for the working population of Plymouth.
The Dockyard is still the major industry. It employs approximately 19,000 persons. I believe that almost similarly
794
important industries are those of transport and retail trades employing around 18,200 persons. I feel, therefore, that Plymouth City Council should he commended for the steps they are taking to attract a far greater number of industrial firms to that city. It must he remembered, too, that there is at Plymouth a very high unemployment rate—I believe that it is double the national average. There is also a certain reserve of women who I understand are not employed at the moment, and there will be a considerable "bulge" due to children leaving school. They, too, will be seeking employment.
As has been mentioned by my noble friend Lord Colyton, American industrialists interested in developing in Europe have been contacted on the spot. In other words, the Corporation's estates and development valuer went to the United States in 1955 and in 1960 to see whether American firms would settle at Plymouth. The facilities required to attract such new industrial concerns must surely include better communications. Here I think it is interesting to know that a £1 million scheme for the setting up of a regional technical college has been embarked on. An application has also been made to the University Grants Committee for the establishment of a university in Plymouth. think, therefore, that it can be said in all fairness that Plymouth is looking ahead and doing its utmost to cater for the youth of that area, for the city's economic wellbeing and also for the town's working population as a whole.
Surely your Lordships would not wish to hamper in any way the City Council's efforts to diminish the remoteness of the city from the main centres of population and industry. The nearest airports are both over 45 miles away, for I do not consider Roborough itself as an airport. It is at most an airfield with a very undulating surface. Having landed there I should call it a very bumpy ride when taxing or landing. As has been mentioned, it would have to be regraded, and it could be extended to provide a hard runway of 1,200 yards in length, only at a total cost, including the provision of normal facilities and equipment, of around £295,000. That is a considerable sum when, as has been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Colyton. it would cost approximately half that

795
figure to set up Harrowbeer as a commercial airport; and that airport would have two hard runways of greater length.
Having lived in Yelverton I would agree with what the Dartmoor National Park Handbook has to say:
"Yelverton is a sad note to end upon—it has developed as a dormitory suburb for Plymouth and it is a distressing example of semi-urban growth on a delightful site."
So I do not feel that the setting up of an aerodrome at Harrowbeer—and Harrowbeer and Yelverton are close to each other—would materially affect in any way the beauty or otherwise of Yelverton. On the contrary, I think it would be neater to have a modern airport there, for the area at the moment has three runways, in varying states of repair or disrepair. There are also unattractive bomb-bays and the perimeter tracks and building foundations. I do not think, therefore, one can say that it is a particularly attractive area; for all these tracks, foundations, bomb-bays and so forth take up an area of 50 acres. At week-ends, learner-motorists and enthusiastic motor-cyclists use the perimeter tracks and the runways, so it can hardly be regarded as attractive common land or grazing land.
As for the national park aspect which has been touched upon by all speakers, I agree that this area is within a national park; but in fact it is only on the verge of it, right on the border. It is certainly not within the most attractive part of Dartmoor, which I should say is definitely that from Tavistock towards Exeter. Moreover, the area known as Roborough Down is enclosed by Harrowbeer, Yelverton, Axtown and Crap-stone. So I would respectfully submit to your Lordships that it is not as if we are considering an attractive area of land with miles and miles of beauty. In fact, Yelverton cannot be considered as a town of great attraction.
Finally, my Lords, I should like to draw attention to the Ministry of Aviation's Report of Inspection dated June 14, 1960. This comprehensive Report deals with the suitability of Harrowbeer aerodrome for development as an airfield to serve Plymouth and the surrounding
796
district. I should like to quote briefly from this official Report. It says:
" In summary the aerodrome has effective dimensions which make it suitable for operation of aircraft up to DC.3 standards without extension and as such would be able to cater for the kind of associate service traffic anticipated in such an area for the next 10 years. Extensions to the aerodrome to provide a maximum run of 4,320 feet are within limits of practical engineering, and Viscount type aircraft at reduced weight could then use the aerodrome."
Further on, the Report goes on to say:
" It should be borne in mind that several aircraft manufacturers have turned their resources to the development of a DC.3 replacement aircraft and two British types of replacement, the Handley Page Herald and the AVRO 748 are currently in production for B.E.A. and some independent operators. These, together with other aircraft, such as the Armstrong Whitworth Argosy and the Fokker Friendship, would be able to use Harrowbeer Aerodrome either in its present state or with the possible extensions."
Therefore, my Lords, it would seem that the Ministry of Aviation are not condemning outright the use of this aerodrome. One final point, which speaks for such a scheme and which denotes the wishes of the people is the outcome of the poll that was taken at Plymouth on January 5 of this year. The outcome of this poll was a two-to-one majority in favour of this scheme. For all these reasons I sincerely hope that your Lordships will give this Bill a Second Reading so that it can go upstairs for consideration by a Select Committee, and also in order to facilitate Plymouth Corporation's task of providing alternative and complementary forms of transport to the present not completely adequate road, rail and sea communications.
7.31 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Colyton moved the Second Reading of this Bill with his usual efficiency and persuasiveness. The detail into which he went, and others who subsequently supported him have gone, is a little embarrassing to those like myself who are utterly opposed to this Bill in principle but were, nevertheless, prepared, for reasons which I shall give, to let the Bill go to a Committee for further consideration; in other words, to allow it to have a Second Reading. For it might be thought, as the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, pointed out, that unless we replied in detail or else voted here and now for its rejection, we had

797
not got the overwhelming case which we believe that we have.
Let me say at once, my Lords, that I regard it as a desirable practice of this House, and an almost invariable recent practice, that if we do not wish to allow a Private Bill to have a Second Reading we put a notice on the Order Paper to that effect. I had, I confess, been rather expecting that there would be such a notice on the Order Paper. But there is not, and, in consequence, I myself, if there were a Division at the end of to-day, could not support the rejection. I think that we should observe the practice, he normal practice, of this House; and since there is not a rejection Motion on the Order Paper we should allow the Bill to have a Second Reading. Nevertheless, t think the points of principle against the Bill are so vary strong that they should be stated, and perhaps some of them stated again, even after the admirable statement of my noble and learned friend Lord Birkett.
Much has been said about the area involved being in a national park. That, my Lords, is important. But equally important is the fact that it is common land and a Royal Commission have recently reported on that subject. There was a debate on that Royal Commission's Report in this House on December 7, 1958. and my noble friend Lord Waldegrave gave a very sympathetic reply, treating that Royal Commission's Report with the respect it deserved. And I have never heard that Report of the Royal Commission treated with anything except the greatest respect. May I quote one vital sentence in the chapter of conclusions? This is what the Royal Commission say:
" We have come to the conclusion that, as the last reserve of uncommitted land in England and Wales, common land ought to be preserved in the public interest. The public interest embraces both the creation of wider facilities for public access and an increase in the productivity of the land. Our recommendations are designed to carry out these principles."
That is the statement of the Royal Commission, which has, I think, commanded general acceptance.
Those words and others in the Report have been interpreted by Select Committees of the other place as meaning that a Private Bill which infringed that principle could not be allowed to proceed. My noble friend Lord Colyton has men-
798
tioned the case of 'the Bill of the St. Neots Urban District Council, on which a special Report was made by the Select Committee to the House of Commons. My noble friend Lord Colyton sought to distinguish that case. I would distinguish it by saying it was not nearly as strong as the present case in meriting direct rejection. But that case does not stand alone. In this very Session of Parliament the Tamworth Corporation Bill has been withdrawn after the existence of these objections, I understand, had been brought to the attention of the promoters.
My noble friend Lord Colyton mentioned that the Devon County Council had obtained a compulsory purchase order in certain parts of this land. Quite true. The compulsory purchase order was made to enable highway facilities to be provided in substitution for those disrupted by the aerodrome. But, in any event, the Royal Commission had no objection to compulsory purchase orders in certain cases under General Public Statutes. What the Royal Commission, I should have thought, made clear, if not expressly then by clear implication, was that common land should not be taken as it is sought to take it by this Bill, by a Private Bill. That is the principle to which there has hitherto been no exception at all. Apart altogether from the question of national parks, I think it is an overwhelmingly important principle that, especially after the Report of the Royal Commission, common land should not he taken away by private legislation.
Now I have said that I do not propose to challenge the Second Reading this evening. No Motion for rejection has been placed on the Order Paper and, therefore, in accordance with, at any rate, the recent practice of the House, the Bill should, in my opinion, be allowed to go to a Committee. I wish to make it as clear as it has been made by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and my noble and learned friend Lord Birkett that I hope this Bill will get no further than the Select Committee. I do not disguise that that is my hope and wish.
But the other thing which I wish to make perfectly clear is this. The principle that common land should not be taken away by private legislation is far too important a principle for this House to be committed on it by the view of any

799
Committee whatsoever, no matter how careful and distinguished. In saying that this Bill should now go to a Select Committee, I wish to make it perfectly clear that, in my view, it should not be assumed by anybody that this House has abandoned that principle in any event. My noble friend the Lord Chairman of Committees read out a passage (and here I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Silkin) which would have fully justified us, had there been a Motion on the Order Paper, in voting against this Bill on Second Reading. The fact that I, at any rate, do not mean to do so must not be taken as meaning that it will not be necessary to challenge the matter again, in certain events, if it comes before this House: because that principle—the principle of the immunity of common land from being taken away by Private Bills—is one on which this House will. I think, wish to be consulted, and I am equally confident that that will also be the view of another place. In the case of the other place, there have already been two Bills that have been either rejected or withdrawn.
My Lords, I propose to say nothing more in the matter. Had I wished to traverse the case made for the Plymouth Corporation I could have come armed to do so, but I did not intend to oppose the Second Reading but only to raise that one, as it seems to me, all-important point of principle. Perhaps I might be allowed, before I sit down, to say that I hope I have no less a respect and affection for the City of Plymouth than the other noble Lords who have spoken.
7.43 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, although it is late, I should like to take a few minutes adding my support to those who feel that this Bill is an infraction of national rights. I felt that it was really scandalous that the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, should, in effect, have put the purchase price of the Dartmoor National Park at £150,000 because, really, that is what it came to. The existing aerodrome could be made perfectly useful, as I understand it, for about £300,000, and it would cost £150,000 to put the Harrowbeer Aerodrome into good working order. That is to say, we are asked to sell our birthright, the national park in Devonshire, the Dartmoor National Park, for a paltry sum of that size. It
800
seems to me that this is quite typical of the attitude of many people who come to Parliament and ask for powers (often, Government Departments are among the worst offenders) to take this heritage which my noble and learned friend, Lord Birkett has described in such glowing language, and which I am sure we all feel in our hearts ought not to be further trespassed upon.
I am sorry that we are not going to have a Division, I cannot see the point of a Second Reading on these Bills if we are not to be allowed to vote against them except on the basis of putting down a Motion. It seems to me that, in this particular case, the rejection of this Bill would be well within the principles which the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees read out from Erkine May. There are here two matters of quite obvious national importance; and, surely, matters of national importance ought to take precedence over local interests, however valuable those local interests may be to the inhabitants of even such a fine town, with such a great historic tradition, as Plymouth. We are asked here to make a serious inroad into a national park, which is an heritage of the whole of the people of this country. We are asked here to make a considerable inroad—what would, in fact, be the first inroad that has been made since the Royal Commission on Common Land reported—into an area of valuable common land.
The St. Neots Bill, which is the only occasion since that Royal Commission reported that anybody has had the hardiness to bring a Bill before Parliament which would affect common land, was a much less serious Bill than this one, with all respect to the noble Lord who has moved the Second Reading of this Bill. That Bill did not propose to take away permanently from the people the use of the land covered: whereas in this case we should have an aerodrome, with all the noise, all the clatter, and all the other urban aspects which go with an aerodrome of this particular kind. I should have thought, my Lords, that here we had two quite obvious matters of great national interest which made it essential that this Bill should be defeated. I am sorry that we cannot defeat it now because the general view of your Lordships is that it should go upstairs to be considered there. But if I am the

801
only one in the House who votes against it on Third Reading, I will certainly be here, and I will certainly vote against it.
7.47 p.m.
LORD CARNOCK: My Lords, I venture to rise just to say a very few words, and I hope your Lordships will be indulgent to me. When I entered this House, had no intention of saying anything, but some of the speeches I have heard have, I think, conveyed a rather inaccurate description of this proposed Harrowbeer aerodrome. It has been described as something of an offshoot of Dartmoor, as if it were surrounded by villages and cut off from Dartmoor by these villages. The villages do skirt the aerodrome, but it is only a matter of two miles from Yelverton Aerodrome to Peak Hill—two miles running between marginal farms. Therefore, I think it is definitely part of the national park. Another point that I have not heard emphasised is the tremendous number of people that go to the aerodrome on Sundays and on Saturday afternoons. The place is crowded. It has great attractions. First, it has clear air—much better than muggy Plymouth. Secondly, the turf is very short, and there are many improvised games—cricket, rounders and so on. There are even sailing boats, and there are three riding schools. Therefore, to feel that it is not an important recreational centre of Plymouth would, I think, be entirely false. I am opposed to this Bi11.
7.48 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I should first of all like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, for the very kind words which he said earlier this afternoon and which I greatly appreciate. Having cracked the ice then, I hope not to break through now and get into very cold water with my noble friends Lord Colyton and Lord Conesford. I therefore hope that your Lordships will forgive me if I skate somewhat gingerly over the rather thin ice which is bearing me at the present time. I am sure, too, that you will not wish me to rehearse, on behalf of the Departments which I am representing, all the arguments for and against this Bill which the previous speakers in this debate have already deployed. But I must confess straight away that I thought my noble friend Lord Colyton made out a substantial case, prima facie, for the Bill.
802
His arguments rest, as I see it, mainly on the need for Plymouth to diversify and to expand its industrial base, and on the belief that the poor communications, road and rail, between Plymouth, London and the Midlands are a major obstacle to the attraction of new industry to the area. He and the other proponents of the Bill believe that an accessible aerodrome capable of taking fairly large aircraft would make Plymouth, and indeed the South-West region, more attractive both to the industrialist and to the tourist. And they further believe that Harrowbeer is the only site which really fills this bill.
On the face of it, I must confess there is a lot to be said for this view. Plymouth is certainly rather isolated. In a period when air travel within these islands is expanding fast, I feel it is only natural that the Council and the Corporation of Plymouth should wish to move with the times and to establish an aerodrome at the only site near Plymouth which would, I understand, be capable, if one runway were extended, of handling aircraft up to the size of the Viscount. Again, it is the policy of my right honourable friend the Minister of Aviation to encourage local authorities to develop and operate aerodromes for their areas, and the City Council's proposals are, in this respect, in line with that policy. All in all, some of your Lordships and I say "some" advisedly—may well think that Plymouth should be congratulated rather than condemned for their enterprise in looking to the future and in trying to facilitate contact between their City and the rest of the country—indeed, the Continent.
However—and those who have listened to the debate in your Lordships' House this evening will know it is a pretty big "however"—although it may be for Plymouth Corporation to decide, in the light of local requirements, whether they need a bigger and better aerodrome, it is most certainly for Parliament to decide whether the advantages to the local community outweigh the very strong and serious objections which others have made to this proposal. Those objections are marshalled in the two Petitions to your Lordships' House, and have been very cogently reviewed in this debate by a number of noble Lords. There are, as your Lordships well know by now, numerous objections to this proposal.

803
Nevertheless, it seems quite clear to me that two are fundamental: first, is it tolerable or is it not tolerable to establish an aerodrome in a national park? Secondly, is it right or is it not right to alienate common land in this way and by Private Bill, especially in the light of the Report of the Royal Commission on Common Land?
On the first point I will say only this. I agree that it raises a principle of considerable consequence, and one which has been put with great force and persuasiveness by two noble Lords, Lord Dalton and Lord Silkin, to whom the national parks owe a very great debt. But to return to the principle, the idea of establishing an aerodrome in a national park is certainly, on the face of it, an unattractive one. As has been made clear in your Lordships' House on more than one occasion, there is a presumption here against any development in a national park. These are considerations which cannot, and should not, be lightly dismissed. I trust that your Lordships, by agreeing to the Second Reading of this Bill, will allow them to be properly weighed in the balance by the Select Committee against the other considerations which have been advanced. That Committee would have the benefit of the views not only of the Petitioners but also of the National Parks Commission, whose Chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Strang, sits, more or less muzzled, on the Cross-Benches at the moment. So much for the national parks argument.
My Lords, on the second point, the common land point, I am going to be even briefer. I hope that the noble Viscount, Lord Lambert, will forgive me if I do not make hay with him. I would only say that this is a subject of very great complexity, and I do not pro-
804
pose to follow some of the noble Lords who have spoken in this debate into its labyrinths. But I should like to say this on behalf of my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the provisions of existing legislation, the Minster thinks that common land should be taken for other uses only if a good case is made out. But he would not wish to oppose a Second Reading of this Bill on principle. He would think it right that the Bill should be referred to a Committee where the necessary special considerations should be given to it.
My Lords, to conclude. I feel that all your Lordships will agree that this short debate has shown that there are powerful and cogent arguments for and against this Private Bill, which has already aroused strong local controversy. The most that I would say, though I would say it with all the force at my command—but I hope with the diffidence which becomes a maiden at this Box—is that the Corporation of Plymouth appear to me to have a case which deserves a fair hearing. If your Lordships reject this Bill on Second Reading, the Council and the Corporation of this great City will not get that fair hearing. In the circumstances, I sincerely trust that your Lordships will follow the normal traditions of your Lordships' House, which were so clearly put at the start of the debate by the Lord Chairman, and later by my noble friend Lord Conesford; will reject the advice of the noble, and indeed learned, mutual inciters (if I may so term them); and will leave this matter, for the time being at least, to the dispassionate judgment of the Select Committee.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Select Committee.