Lords Sitting of 26 July 1961

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

LORD ROBENS OF WOLDINGHAM
The Right Honourable Alfred Robens, having been created Baron Robens of Woldingham, of Woldingham in the County of Surrey, for life—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
LORD MARKS OF BROUGHTON
Sir Simon Marks, Knight, having been created Baron Marks of Broughton, of Sunningdale in the Royal County of Berkshire—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.

PARKING METERS AND TRAFFIC WARDENS
2.23 p.m.
BARONESSS SWANBOROUGH: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, who is unavoidably absent, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in his name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied with the working of the parking meter and traffic wardens system, and what plans are in prospect for its extension.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD CHESHAM): My Lords, We are satisfied that the introduction of parking meters and traffic wardens has done much to relieve congestion and to ease the flow of traffic. In London, applications for designation orders now before my right honourable friend should make it possible to authorise a substantial increase in the number of parking meters before Christmas and it is hoped that the whole of central London will soon become a controlled parking zone.
1000
Outside London, there are parking meter schemes in Bristol and Manchester. All provincial authorities are now empowered to apply to my right honourable friend for designation orders, and he hopes that many will be encouraged to do so by the success of these schemes.
The decision whether to employ traffic wardens in a particular area rests with the police authority, or, in the Metropolitan Police District, with the Commissioner. But parking meters and traffic wardens do not necessarily go together. In Leicester and Blackpool, wardens are being employed although there are no parking meters. Conversely, in Marylebone, Holborn, Woolwich and Manchester, there are parking meters but no traffic wardens. Since the use of both parking meters and traffic wardens is still, to some extent, in the experimental stage, these variations are to be welcomed, in that they provide experience which will be helpful to other authorities in deciding what arrangements are best suited to their local needs.
BARONESS SWANBOROUGH: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his Answer.

THE INDUSTRIAL INJURIES FUND
LORD TAYLOR: 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 what is the present balance of money in the Industrial Injuries Fund at the latest available date, how many grants from the fund have been made for research into industrial injuries, under Section 73 of the Industrial Injuries Act, and what is the total amount of money from the fund so far spent on research since the Act was passed in 1946.]
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (THE EARL OF DUNDEE): My Lords, the latest accounts of the Industrial Injuries Fund are those for the financial year ending March, 1960, when the balance held by the Fund was nearly £238 million. As the noble Lord will be aware, the Fund is at present being

1001
built up, with a view to accumulating amounts sufficient, on the advice of the Government Actuary, to meet its ultimate liabilities. Payments have been made towards six projects under Section 73 of the Industrial Injuries Act, and the total amount of money from the Fund spent so far on research is £3,910.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, in view of the very large size of this Fund, and the very small amount of money which so far has been spent from it on research —£3,000 as against nearly £300 million—would the noble Lord consider, in time for the next Session, the possibility of slightly widening Section 73 so that grants can be made from this Fund, even to such a small extent as 1 per cent. of the total fund, towards starting industrial health services, in the areas where they are badly needed, to do exactly what the Fund is aiming to do in terms of monetary compensation?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord has corresponded with my right honourable friend the Minister of Pensions on this subject and my right honourable friend has told him that although he could not hold out any hope of using the Industrial Injuries Fund for research on a large scale, he would do his best, under Section 73 of the Act, to consider any projects which come within its scope—that is to say, research into injuries and diseases which are insured against. He said that he would be glad to consider what he could do under that section—and of course, it is under that section that all these small items of research have been carried out—but I will gladly convey to my right honourable friend what the noble Lord has just suggested.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl very much. This is not strictly research. It is the initiation of industrial health services, for which small sums only are needed but which the Government have no means of granting at the moment. As a result, such services have to rely on the generosity of the Nuffield Foundation, which has given £250,000 to do just this; but I fear that it is not going to prove enough.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, in view of the large sums mentioned this afternoon, would the noble Earl consider asking the Minister if he
1002
will direct some of it to research into rheumatism, which many people believe may be an industrial disease. In view of what we were told last week, about the very small amount directed to this field I think it would be of benefit if same of this huge sum could be used for research.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I will certainly pass on the noble Lady's suggestion. I should not like to say, off-hand, whether rheumatism is a disease which is insured against under the Industrial Injuries Act. Of course, the main agency for research into diseases is the Medical Research Council.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, can the noble Earl say whether doctors who are employed in industry can make application to the Fund for research grants?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I think the noble Lord is aware that the main purpose of the Industrial Injuries Fund is to build up an amount sufficient to pay industrial injuries benefit; and owing to the progress of the Fund some reductions in contributions and increases in benefits, as he will remember, were made last year. I think that under the Industrial injuries Act research into diseases which might be insured against under the Act has always been a very minor purpose of the Fund under Section 73. But I will certainly convey to my right honourable friend what the noble Lord has said.

COVENT GARDEN MARKET
2.32 p.m.
LORD BOSSOM: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government, now that the Covent Garden Market Bill has passed through all its Parliamentary stages, when will (a) the complete and detailed town plan layout he published; and (b) the various official authorities give the scheme the approval required: and whether a timetable has been made, and if not can such a document be prepared, of all the many stages the whole undertaking must pass through so that all the bodies

1003
and persons that will be affected may take any precautions necessary to prevent injury or the undesirable delays etc. which so frequently become associated with such extensive and complicated developments.]
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, I regret that I am not in a position to provide the information for which the noble Lord, Lord Bossom has asked. The preparation of the detailed town plan for the whole Covent Garden Area will be the responsibility of the London County Council. The detailed plan for the new Market will be the responsibility of the Covent Garden Market Authority. All the authorities concerned will be consulted in the preparation of these plans, and the protection afforded by the provisions of the Town and County Planning Acts will be available to all persons likely to be affected. It is not possible for Her Majesty's Government to fix the dates by which all the necessary action will be taken by these independent authorities, but I think I can assure the noble Lord that both the main parties concerned, the London County Council, as the planning authority and the Covent Garden Market Authority will be fully seized of the need for speed.
LORD BOSSOM: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that rather incomplete Answer, may I ask whether he has any idea as to when the information asked for in the Question is likely to be available, no matter who has to provide it?
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, I can tell the noble Lord that there will be very little delay in actually setting up the authority. But, of course, there is bound to be delay between the constitution day, that is to say, the day on which the Mattel Authority is set up, and vesting day, which is the date on which they can go into full action, so to speak. It has always been recognised that the first phase is not that of building the Market (that is the second phase of the operation) but to improve the conditions in and around the existing Market. The planning authority, the London County Council, and the Covent Garden Market Authority will have to co-operate on producing the plans which the noble Lord wishes to have; it is not in the hands of Her Majesty's Govern-
1004
ment. Naturally, under the Town and Country Planning Acts all the necessary notice will be given by publication; the plans will be available for inspection and full operation of the Town and Country Planning Acts will occur when these plans are ready. I am afraid that I cannot give the noble Lord any more definite reply than that.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that the first stage after the Covent Garden Market Authority has been set up is for the Authority to come to a decision whether or not it is going to build the Market in the Covent Garden Area, and, if not, to go to the Minister and tell him so?
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, that supplementary, I must confess, is not altogether unexpected, but I would point out to the noble Lord that this question was debated at every stage of the Bill when it went through your Lordships' House, and, in particular, I would refer the noble Lord to column 281 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Report stage on July 13 and to the words of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor on the subject.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that it is precisely because the words of the noble and learned Viscount are graven on my mind that I asked for his agreement that the first stage is what I said it was?
LORD BOSSOM: My Lords, seeing that so many people will be affected by this situation, and that there is such a liability to injury, financially and otherwise, if this matter is not looked after in a comprehensive way, will the noble Lord make it his business to see that the information is made public as soon as it can be?—because it is rather undesirable that a matter of this comprehensive character should wait and cause injury to so many people.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, I have already said, and I repeat, that the consultations that take place will ensure that everybody will be aware of what is proposed. They will then be able to take such precautions as they think desirable, or to make objections. Furthermore, if land is to be acquired by compulsory purchase, the usual protection available to the owners of such land under the

1005
town and country planning law would be available, and naturally the Minister himself will come into the matter.
LORD BOSSOM: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that information, for I am sure that it will give a lot of advice to many people who have not already got it.

TALL BUILDINGS AND TOWN PLANNING
LORD BOSSOM: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government if they will give consideration to: (a) preparing a binding, overall town plan for London and other cities of Great Britain which will indicate where mammoth tall structures may or may not be built: and (b) calling a conference of appropriately informed individuals to look into the desirability of limiting the construction of such great buildings to the outer reaches of our cities so as to leave the heart of our intensely built-up areas unoccupied by any new buildings above a fixed height.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government is not in favour of rigid plans for our cities which try to lay down where tall buildings may or may not be built. Neither does he consider it right or practicable to try to impose a general limitation on the height of buildings in the heart of our built-up areas. Indeed, higher buildings can give us more room on the ground. So much depends on the details of a particular proposal for a specific site that local planning authorities must consider each proposal most carefully on its merits and in relation to its setting.
LORD BOSSOM: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that comment, I think he is aware that a great many people are particularly worried about the large number of very big buildings being put up, much to the injury of existing monuments of which
1006
we as a nation are proud. Is there any way of giving advice to help this situation?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I am aware of the public concern, the legitimate public concern, about this matter, but my noble friend is, I am sure, aware that in many cases of the sort he has mentioned the advice of the Royal Fine Art Commission is sought; and, indeed, in the cases of the Royal Parks and Palaces, my right honourable friend the Minister of Works is also consulted. These are additional safeguards.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, is not the trouble equally that the more tall office blocks that go up, the greater becomes the congestion of the unfortunate people travelling to and from work in these offices in the centres of our great cities?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I agree that that is a problem, and it is one which the Ministers concerned have very much under consideration.
LORD AMWELL: My Lords, may I repeat a question as a supplementary that I put a few days ago in this House? I did not receive a satisfactory reply, so far as my view was concerned, but I think it is rather an important point. I refer to the view that one gets from the middle of Waterloo Bridge over this particular 'building, the Palace of Westminster. The massive block that is going up just beyond shows right beside the Victoria Tower, dwarfing this building and making an atrocious situation, so far as town planning is concerned. Is there no way of controlling that kind of thing?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I feel that that is slightly another question, but I would remind the noble Lord that the particular building to which he refers (which many people think is rather a good building) was considered and approved by the local planning authority —in that case, the London County Council.
LORD AMWELL: It is a pity.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am sorry to pursue the noble Earl, but the Government are not showing full awareness. I should like to ask him to bear in mind again the implications of

1007
putting up these large buildings in heavily built-up areas, like Oxford Circus, where there is a 22-storey building (which, incidentally, cuts out my own view of St. Paul's, from the seventh floor), are to create absolute chaos at rush hours. Really this is a matter which needs much more urgent consideration than appears to have yet been given to it.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, in answer to the noble Lord, I would only repeat that this is a matter which Ministers have under very close consideration. But I am sorry to hear that the noble Lord has been deprived of ecclesiastical fortification in this way.
LORD BOSSOM: My Lords, I think it is a pity that the Government have not been more clear in their advice on this particular matter. Other countries have had experience similar to this, and they have found it possible to stop the erection of taller buildings in certain places. In fact, in the City of Washington you are not allowed to build one in any case. Cannot we give more consideration to this matter of preserving the beautiful parts we have in England?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I can only repeat once again that careful consideration is given to each building on its merits. I think that one of the important things is to ensure that the tall buildings which are built are as good as possible.
LORD BOSSOM: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that answer, but I hope he will give more consideration to this matter.

GLASGOW CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936) deemed to have been read 2a and reported from the Committee.
BRITISH TRANSPORT COMMISSION (No. 2) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Considered on Report (according to Order).

INSURANCE CONTRACTS (WAR SETTLEMENT) (GERMANY) ORDER, 1961
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (THE EARL OF DUNDEE): My Lords, under the Insurance Contracts (War Settlement) Act, 1952, Her Majesty's Government are empowered by Order in Council to give legal effect to agreements made with foreign Governments in respect of contracts of insurance made between persons in Great Britain and persons in countries who became enemies in the late war. These agreements in practice give effect to agreements which have already been concluded between the insured and the insurers themselves. The Orders have already been passed some years ago for Italy and Finland. The agreement with Federal Germany has taken a little longer, and it is embodied in this Order. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Insurance Contracts (War Settlement) (Germany) Order, 1961, be approved.—(The Earl of Dundee.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

VISITING FORCES (APPLICATION OF LAW) ORDER, 1961
2.43 p.m.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (LORD CARRINGTON): My Lords, I think I should begin by explaining the effect of the Order which the House is being asked to approve. It is to add the Federal German Republic to the list of countries to which the Visiting Forces (Application of Law) Order, 1954, as amended by a similar Order of 1956, apply. Those Orders, made under Section 8 of the Visiting Forces Act, 1952, contain numerous detailed provisions, the effect of which is to put a visiting force and its members in broadly the same legal position as our own forces, in such matters as the provision of training land, the use of firearms and explosives, and the use of military vehicles. These miscellaneous exemptions and privileges which are enjoyed by our own Forces need to be applied to any organised body of troops which is to function efficiently.
There is one thing which the draft Order does not do. It does not apply

1009
the provisions of the Visiting Forces Act itself to German forces; that is done by a separate Order in Council under Section 1 of the Act, designating the Federal German Republic for all the purposes of the Act. That Order does not require Parliamentary approval: as my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has announced, a Designation Order under Section 1 will be submitted to the Privy Council at the same time as this Application Order, if approved by your Lordships. It is the Act and not the Application of Law, which makes provision for a visiting force to exercise discipline arid, in certain circumstances, criminal jurisdiction, over its members in respect of things done when on duty or within the force. Off duty, offences committed by a member of a visiting force are subject to the ordinary process of law, unless they are committed against the person or property of the force or a member of it.
So much for the legal position under the Visiting Forces Act and Application of Law Order. Basically, this is no more than a routine piece of business to extend the powers of a well tried Act to the only N.A.T.O. country not covered by it (except for Iceland, which has no forces). But I know that your Lordships will not wish to pass this Order without careful examination, since the proposal involves having West German troops in uniform in this country. We must recognise that it will disturb a number of people—a minority—who may be resistant to having German forces here for training. There is nothing new about the idea of German troops in uniform coming to this country as individuals. As the Minister of Defence said in another place last week, some 1,200 German officers and men have over the last three years come to this country with other N.A.T.O. visitors on training courses. The Government take the view that this country must give all the help it can to West Germany in playing her full part in the N.A.T.O. Alliance.
The N.A.T.O. Council, which has discussed this matter very fully, has concluded that Germany must look to her N.A.T.O. allies for help in providing logistic and training facilities. Your Lordships will already know from the Minister of Defence's statement in the House of Commons on July 12 that dis
1010
cussions are under way about providing facilities in Britain to enable the Germans to disperse some of their oil, petrol and ammunition stocks. There is, however, an even mare urgent requirement: this is for a range an which the Germans can carry out preliminary and elementary tank training, as opposed to the more complicated and advanced manœuvres. There is a serious shortage of training areas in Germany, and at the request of the N.A.T.O. Council the Government have investigated what could be made available in this country.
As a result, it has been agreed that a German tank battalion should use the Army range at Castlemartin in Pembrokeshire in September. The arrangements will be that one tank regiment, of about 40 tanks and 600 men, will spend three weeks in September at Castlemartin carrying out tank firing and simple tactical exercises. They will make use of the existing range of about 5,000 acres. The tanks will probably be brought by sea, and the troops themselves may come by sea or by air—these arrangements are not yet firm. The Minister of Defence has made it clear that, because of the practical problems involved, the visit of the first tank battalion will be in the nature of a trial: and on the result of this trial the two Governments will decide whether the arrangements are to be continued. My Lords, this is a logical step in the development of the N.A.T.O. Alliance, and the Order does no more than to include Germany with the other N.A.T.O. and Commonwealth countries with whom we have reciprocal arrangements of this kind. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Visiting Forces (Application of Law) Order, 1961, be approved.—(Lord Carrington.)
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I do not think that we ought to let this Order go through on the nod, as it were, because it is an important one. It is a matter upon which people have very strong feelings. The House of Commons discussed it for a number of hours and eventually had a Division upon it—not a well supported Division, but still a Division. As this is the first time, I suppose, in our lifetime, in which German troops have come for training in this country, as I say I think we ought to give it some consideration.

1011
The basis of it is the North Atlantic Treaty, which was signed, as your Lordships will remember, on April 4, 1949. Article 3 of the Treaty says this:
"In order more effectively to achieve the objects of this Treaty, the Parties separately and jointly, by means of continuous and effective self-help and mutual aid, will maintain and develop their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack."
One point which the Minister did not bring out which is important—at any rate, he may have brought it out but I did not notice it—is that the reason why the Germans want this training facility is that it happens to be a range which fires out to sea; and it is rather unique in that way. Usually, of course, ranges fire to the landward and thus are a danger to the community.
Now we have agreed to the participation of Germany in N.A.T.O. This decision was taken in 1950, and I think that, having taken that decision, we must take the consequences too; and one of the consequences is the Order we have before us to-day. There are two points of view, and I think they can be quite sincerely and firmly held. I must say that I have taken my personal decision after much thought—indeed, much anguished thought. You can either say that we should have nothing to do with the Germans, and should not have them here, or you can say that they are members of N.A.T.O. and that if they want these facilities, if they are not available in their own country we must let them have them here. I think what it is not permissible to say is what the official Labour Party has said: that is, "We will sit precariously on the fence and will neither agree nor disagree to this Order." That seems to me deplorable; I see no merit in it whatsoever. Under the Treaty we cannot make differences between one country and another.
I am, in fact, in favour of an even greater pooling of our resources in N.A.T.O. I believe in giving up the independent deterrent, in not having it so far as we are concerned. I have also advocated, both in your Lordships' House and in other places, a far greater pooling of weapons and all that sort of thing. We are far behind in N.A.T.O. in the standardisation of weapons and equipment.
1012
I feel that if we are going to collaborate in this matter then Wales should do so, and I am quite certain about this course. I might point out that we have always been most loyal to the United Kingdom alliance in the two world wars, even from the time of Crécy and Agincourt when our forces formed such an important part of the English King's array. We should like to be loyal to modern alliance, that is, to the N.A.T.O. Alliance. I feel that there is a political reason as well as a military one. We have suffered over the last century from German insecurity and the feeling they have of isolation.
During the war I was talking to an old Frenchman in France who had himself, and his village, been invaded three times in his lifetime. The natural and resultant attitude has led to this feeling of isolation on the part of Germany. I think it is most important to get Germany into the Western family of nations and not in any way to isolate them. The Germans are sensitive people; they are almost neurotic people, and I feel that if we were to exclude them from the facilities we have in this country it would be most unfortunate. However, we are entitled to a quid pro quo with regard to Krupp's, because it is quite a difficult thing for the public here to agree to. It is time Dr. Adenauer realised that we are going a long way to meet him in his requirements, and it is about time he came some way to meet us and dealt with Krupp's and tore to pieces and broke up the great Krupp empire which has been the cause of so much evil in the past.
My Lords, I have little more to say, except one or two local points about the range itself. This range is in the southernmost part of Wales, and I believe that all firing is done practically out to sea. The area covers about 6,000 acres of good agricultural land, but that is not the point becaues the area is already a range and we are not asking for this land to be taken over. All that is going to the Germans are the facilities. But may I ask what the Government propose to do to protect the rights of the civil population in this area? If there are any difficulties with the Germans, will they be liable in a local magistrates' court or will they not? Secondly, will there be any interference

1013
with the amenities of the neighbourhood? I have heard that the tanks coming in will require suitable widening of the roads. Why this should apply to German tanks and not to British tanks I do not know. That has been said by the Minister in another place—at least, he did not say it, but a question was put to him and he did not deny it.
Finally, will this plan interfere in any way with the development of Milford Haven? As we know, the Haven has been the subject of tremendous development and I must take the opportunity to congratulate the noble Lord, Lard Dynevor, and his Harbour Commission, or whatever they are called. In the last three years the registered tonnage in the Haven has gone up from 46,000 tons to 450,000 tons a month and I hope that this handsome increase will not be affected by interference from these German tanks and other equipment.
2.57 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I had not intended to say anything: I was going to agree to this Motion moved by the First Lord of the Admiralty without debate, because the matter has already been debated sufficiently in another place. But the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, had a few comments to say, and perhaps I had better say a word too. It is only recently that he left the Labour Party, but perhaps he has forgotten that he was a Minister of some rank, at any rate in 1950, when the decision was taken by the Government to admit Germany to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. Perhaps he would cast his mind further back; and if so, he might agree that Ernest Bevin and myself had a somewhat more prominent position than most people in setting up the military organisation of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I agreed with it at the time and I agree with it now. I am not arguing about that. All I am saying is: why have the Labour Party departed from their excellent record with regard to N.A.T.O.?
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: What I am suggestion is that we hardly need lecturing at what
1014
may be the particular time in question on this matter.
I found some of the noble Lord's other remarks quite interesting. My Party did not vote against the Motion moved in another place. Members made certain references to some of the matters which have been covered by the noble Lord himself, and which I had not intended to repeat in this House. However, the point is that there is still, of course, latent in this country some anti-German feeling; and it is no use hiding it from ourselves, because it is there. The only matter which makes one look at this particular agreement which has been made, and to which we agree, is that it is described as an experimental one; and if it is experimental then apparently you have to wait and see how the experiment works.
The real fact is, of course, as the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, has fully recognised, that in this matter of mutuality in contributing to the defence of the freedom of the West we all have Liabilities which we must honourably accept. In this particular case I suppose we are almost the last of the prominent original members of N.A.T.O. to offer such facilities as this particular Order requires, and I think it is probably high time that we were not behind other countries in this matter. If we consider, for example, that France, which suffered so heavily in invasion and had such a history of battle controversy with Germany, has actually offered, although under some national criticism, and carried out, co-operation of this kind, it does not seem to me to be unreasonable that we should offer and carry through the same facilities in this country.
We must also remember that, with the peculiar geographical boundaries now existing in Germany, with so much of what would be the natural training grounds of German forces still taken up by occupational forces, there is an additional case to be put up on behalf of this matter. Personally I should have preferred it if it had been possible to arrange that in all training operations of this kind the forces coming for training would be ultimately under British command. In that event, some of the legal questions which might be likely to arise would be subject to a different jurisdiction. But that does not appear

1015
the case here. Where we have had individuals coming here for instruction, consultation and so on, with attachment to individual units of the Army in the last few years since Germany entered N.A.T.O., they have always been under the local British military commander's control. This is somewhat different, and I suppose from that point of view the bringing of Germany into the terms of the Act now has to be looked at perhaps to see the results of this visit on the civil population. In the meantime, I hope that we as a nation, remembering all the difficulties we went through, but also remembering that we now face a common danger together, will do what we can to give all the mutual assistance we can afford to the maintenance of this defence.
3.3 p.m.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, and to the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition for what they have said in support of this Order, and I agree with them, while remaining neutral in the battle practice between the two noble Lords. I am quite sure it is right that we should recognise that, if N.A.T.O. is going to be an effective Alliance, all the N.A.T.O. countries must work together and, as the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore said, pool their resources as much as possible. We have accepted Federal Germany as a member of the Alliance, and it would be quite wrong to deny the assistance which N.A.T.O. has confirmed she needs, and which we can provide. It is obviously in our interests that Germany, as a member of N.A.T.O., should have well-trained and efficient forces.
The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, asked me what was the position of those who might have claims for damage against German troops in this country. The question will be covered under the Status of Forces Agreement, and will be the same as the arrangements for claims against American or other troops already stationed in this country and covered by the Act. Anyone with a claim of this sort should forward it to the Claims
1016
Commission, who will investigate it and assess it as if it were a claim against our own forces. If the damage was caused by an official act of a German soldier on duty, the claim would be met by the Government. If damages were not agreed, It would be open to the claimant to issue a writ against the forces concerned; but it would fall to the Government to pay whatever damages the court awarded. But if the damage was caused by an act of a German soldier off duty, the claim would be referred to the German authorities, who would consider whether or not to offer an ex gratia payment; though it would still be open to the claimant to take court proceedings against members of visiting forces for damages caused off duty. Although it is not possible to enforce the payment of damages awarded in this way, the Government would naturally negotiate with the German Government until satisfactory damages have been arrived at. In point of fact, however, our experience over the last few years has been that the settlement of claims for damage by visiting forces has, generally speaking, been very satisfactory; and, of course, the arrangements have been in force since 1952.
The noble Lord also asked me whether or not the use of the range at Castle-martin by German troops would destroy any of the amenities. Of course the German troops there will not be going outside the boundaries of the existing range; and there is no question that any more of the countryside round about will be affected. In any event, the visit on this occasion is a trial; and we must see that not too much damage is done to the land on the range or to the winter grazing which goes on there. Lastly, the noble Lord asked me about Milford Haven. There will be no danger to Milford Haven from the range, because the danger area lies to the south, and not into the Sound; and there should be absolutely no danger or destruction to the development plans of Milford Haven. My Lords, I hope that I have answered all the questions, and that your Lordships will now approve the Order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LICENSING BILL
3.7 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): My Lords, before I move the Third Reading I would suggest that your Lordships might find it convenient to take the Third Reading formally. We can then discuss the Amendments, and any discussion on the Bill generally can take place on the Motion, That the Bill do now pass. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments.
Clause 8:
Special hours certificates for premises providing music and dancing
(6) The permitted hours on Saturdays under section one hundred and seventeen of the Licensing Act, 1953, shall be the same as on other week-days, and accordingly proviso (a) to subsection (2) of that section (under which on Saturdays those hours end at midnight) shall be omitted, and in that section "week-day" shall include, and be deemed always to have included, Christmas Day, when not a Sunday; but nothing in that section shall affect the permitted hours on Good Friday or shall extend beyond midnight the permitted hours on Maundy Thursday or Easter Eve.
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM moved, in subsection (6), to leave out "or Easter" and insert "Easter Eve or Christmas". The noble Lord said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friends and myself, I beg to move the Amendment standing on the Paper, which has the purpose of adding Christmas Eve to Maundy Thursday, Good Friday and Easter Eve (as decided yesterday in Committee) as days on which licensees may not apply for extended hours facilities. Your Lordships will recall that my noble friends and I yesterday had on the Paper an Amendment which asked your Lordships to agree that Good Friday and Christmas Day were not and should never be deemed to be week-days.
Noble Lords pointed out, I think quite rightly, that Christmas Day itself is for most of us a day when, after those who wish to go to church have attended service, a very happy day, a festive day. It
1018
is not one on which people who at the end of the day, or in the small hours of the next day, wish to go to outside parties should be prevented from doing so. I think the case was made, and you will see that in the Amendment which I am now asking your Lordships to support we are talking about Christmas Eve. We are asking you to say not only that it should not be possible on Christmas Eve to apply for special hours facilities to extend into the small hours of Christmas morning—until 3 a.m. in London, and 2 a.m. in the provinces—but that the facilities which exist at present for extended hours until 1 a.m. shall no longer apply. That would be the effect of the two Amendments on the Paper, if they were accepted.
I think it will help to explain the point of view which I hold on this matter if I make mention of some of the observations which fell from the learned and noble Viscount the Lord Chancellor yesterday. He made clear that there was no wish to offend those who hold extremely religious beliefs. I personally have never regarded myself as an extremely religious person, any more than, until yesterday, I thought I possessed the diabolical ingenuity which the noble and learned Viscount bestowed upon me. I am very much a middle-of-the-road person in most ways. But I must say that, even so, I hold strong views about this particular point of Christmas Eve. I would submit that no one who has in any way been connected in a lay capacity with the Church, as churchwarden, as I have been, could possibly feel otherwise than that it is an extremely and supremely important point of time. I think that represents the views of ordinary people.
Recently I went to a luncheon of the "Saints and Sinners" Club, where they offer you either a white or red carnation when you go in. I had no hesitation in choosing a red carnation, thereby branding myself a "Sinner". Nevertheless, I hold strong views about this matter. I say that because the Lord Chancellor expressed the view that the proposal for the extension of hours on Christmas Eve reflects a large section of modern opinion. I believe that the greater section of modern opinion is in favour of this Amendment. I do not think that any large section of the public goes to outside public functions or parties on

1019
Christmas Eve until the small hours. It is the period when perhaps a greater number of people than at almost any other time go to church, and a vastly greater number than that, mothers and fathers, are making the last preparations, mostly at home, for Christmas.
I do not accept that there is a large section of modern opinion which is in favour of this proposal of extension, and I do not think that we should really inconvenience a large number if they had to have the last dance at midnight instead of at three o'clock, on this particular occasion, on this one night of the year. The Lord Chancellor said that the Government have to consider the general happiness sand comfort of the people of the country. Of course that is right. That is precisely what we ask for in this Amendment, because I think that the happiness and comfort of by far the greater volume of people in the country will be added to if this Amendment is accepted. I would say that on this particular night only a small minority may wish to stay up drinking until two or three in the morning and to dance.
To my mind, there is some deeper reason why this Amendment should be accepted. It may be regarded as a comparatively unimportant matter, but I do not agree: I think it is a most important matter. I think there are some things upon which we have to make a stand. I should like to tell the Lord Chancellor why that is. He knows that I have a considerable amount to do with hundreds and hundreds of the present teenage generation, and I know something of their reactions. He said yesterday that young people of the present generation are not bad people; they are certainly no worse than earlier generations. I entirely agree. It is my considered opinion that most young people to-day are not bad; they are virtually unconscious. That is my considered opinion. They are not conscious of the real things in the world because, in this affluent society, they are apparently able to concentrate upon and to hypnotise themselves with, a small number of things which, in the long run, I think are not very important.
I ventured the opinion yesterday that there is not a single man, woman or
1020
child in this country who does not know that Christmas is the anniversary of the Birth of Christ. A noble friend told me last night that I was quite wrong. He told me of two girls who were looking at Christmas cards, some of which had religious verses or attributes, and one said to the other "I think this is disgraceful. Fancy bringing religion into Christmas". When something like that can be said, then I think it is about time we began to do something. It is my experience that when quite tough young people are given interests and responsibilities—are given, as it were, a framework within which to work—they use them very well indeed. But I think that we have the responsibility of saying what we think is right and the kind of objectives which should be aimed at. We have the responsibility of trying to set standards in our legislation without being bigoted, without being stupidly censorious. If we consider matters to be of great importance, we should stand up and say so, and stick to them. Therefore, I hope that your Lordships will regard this Amendment as important, and that you will feel that we ought to add Christmas Eve to Maundy Thursday, Good Friday and Easter Eve, which we are most grateful to the Government for adding to the Bill yesterday. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 21, leave out ("or Easter") and insert ("Easter Eve or Christmas").—(Lord Stonham.0)
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: My Lords, I should like to express my great gratitude to the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, for putting down this Amendment and to the noble Lord, Lord Stonham for moving it so convincingly. In my opinion, it would be of great help to the family life, as well as to the specifically religious life, of this country if such an Amendment could be accepted. Christmas has come to mean for everybody a family feast, and I am quite sure that it will be an altogether more enjoyable and more perfect family feast if it is not, for some members of the family, "the morning after the night before". In days when people had to work very hard indeed, and when there were fewer opportunities for recreation than there are to-day, no one would have

1021
wished to deprive anyone of the opportunity of a refreshing party. But in these days, when opportunities for recreation and enjoyment are much more usual, we may well consider whether this Amendment would not be in accordance with modern spirit and, above all, calculated to promote the welfare of the family. So, while expressing my deep gratitude for the concessions that have already been made on the Report stage of this Bill, I would express the hope that this, too, may be conceded.
3.20 p.m.
BARONESS RAVENSDALE OF KEDLESTON: My Lords, may I ask the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, while I totally agree with the Amendment of the noble Lord opposite, to consider that we should never have had Good Friday and Easter without Christmas? I cannot see, having got gracious permission to exclude the two former days, why you do not exclude Christmas, because neither of them could occur without the birth of Our Lord. May I say, with great respect, that I am fully aware of the gracious consideration that has been accorded to us already in our pleas. But are we not giving way the whole time to this eternal attitude towards the youth of to-day: they must have fun; they must be allowed to dance; and if it is a weekend of holiday, why should they not be allowed to dance on Friday or Saturday, whichever day Christmas or Christmas Eve falls upon?
We are all the time contending that the huge majority of young people must be kept going and must be kept gay. If we call ourselves a religious, Christian country—I begin To doubt very much Whether we are—4t is time to stand up for Christian principles and the faith we believe in, and to show these young people that we stand for certain principles in our faith. I cannot believe that in the end we should not have more power among them if they knew we stood for certain spiritual things, While Their dancing and dashing about and hours of pleasure can be had on most of the days of the rest of the year.
3.22 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF CHICHESTER: My Lords, I know that your Lordships do not wish to have further repetition of the speeches that were made yester-
1022
day. I would add my own gratitude to the Government for extending the Amendment to include Easter Eve. It is a great encouragement to those who pleaded for it. But what is the real logical reason for attempting to exclude Christmas When the two other days have been agreed upon? There is certainly no theological distinction between them, as was pointed out by the noble Lady; they hang together. If it is argued that Christmastime is a time of greater natural rejoicing, none of us would wish to interfere With the normal and legitimate observance in that way. If the purpose of excluding from the extension of hours any of these days is because of their religious significance, then I would ask, what reason is there for excluding them in two cases and not in the other? I do not believe there would be any sort of hardship if Christmas were included in the Amendment. And, on the other hand, it would be a great relief to a great many people, and would provide some protection against an unnecessary extension of work for others.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I should like to make two points. First, I should like 'to thank the noble and learned Viscount for acceding to the request made by many of us in all parts of the House. Secondly, I should like to support the pleas made to include Christmas Eve. I entirely agree with the noble Lady land with the right reverend Prelate. If you exclude some of the Holy Days from the extension of hours, you should exclude all. I believe that there is so much sanctity in these days that even at this very late stage I would ask the noble and learned Viscount whether he would reconsider the matter.
3.25 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): My Lords, I think your Lordships will agree that in dealing with this question I have not adopted a standfast position in regard to the present law. I have tried to reap the feeling of the House, and the only reason why I feel difficulty in meeting it with regard to this matter is because of what I said and what has been quoted to-day. Members of a Government must consider the whole range and not take a special point of view. What your Lordships must realise, if you accede to this Amendment, is that you are changing the law in the

1023
direction of restriction from what it is at the present time.
I hope your Lordships will bear with me if I just remind you of the history of this matter. In the Act which was produced by the Labour Government in 1949, when the special hours certificate was introduced in broadly its present form, the Labour Government made it clear that this applied to Christmas Day when not a Sunday and also to Good Friday, which I have already conceded should be omitted. I view with veneration the figures of those who were opposite me in 1949: the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, the noble Viscount who leads the Opposition, the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, and the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore. That is a very strong covey of politicians who all acceded to this in 1949. That was the position, as I said, when a slight difficulty arose from the consultation, and that was the only reason why this provision appeared in this Act in a form which has slightly worried your Lordships.
But, my Lords, the purpose of the present clause in the Bill is to preserve the 1949 position. There is no intention to change the law, and the Bill is not introducing something which even those who feel this way should find offensive. In addition, as I have told your Lordships (and I know your Lordships will forgive me for repeating it), it is the London County Council who deal with the music, singing and dancing licence, and they have since 1949 granted the licences for a short extension on Christmas night. Moreover, it is the Commissioner of Police who deals in London with the question of special extensions, subject to the approval of the Home Secretary, who also has allowed it since that date—and that covers a period with Home Secretaries of both Parties including, I must admit, myself.
There undoubtedly was an almost unanimous opinion in your Lordships' House in Committee that Good Friday should be omitted. That, I accepted at once and put down an Amendment. Yesterday I went further and, for the first time, here I changed the law because I was so struck by the feeling and the expression of opinion with regard to the
1024
Saturday before Easter Sunday, and I agreed to that at once and put down an Amendment which has now passed into law. Therefore, I ask you only to consider with reasonable sympathy the point of view which I put to your Lordships with regard to Christmas Day, because it comes from one who has shown himself ready to meet the different points of view. One can hold only one's own point of view, and mine is that there is a very great difference between the Holy Day of Christmastime and Good Friday. I said yesterday that Good Friday must be to all thinking persons a time of sorrow. On the other hand, I believe that Christmas Eve and Christmas Day are recurring periods of great joy. My Lords, I quite agree that it is a reverent joy, but it is for everyone, children and grown-ups, a period of joy.
Now I ask those of your Lordships who are younger than I am—and, although no one would believe it to look at him, the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, is only three years my junior—to consider the position. There are some who are fortunate enough to be able to go to their home, to the home of their parents or to the home of their grandparents, and who would still have enough room for a family party—and we all agree there is nothing better than that. But there is bound to be an enormous number of people who cannot do that—young married people who live in small flats, where a party cannot be given. Furthermore, in the great cities there is bound to be a very large number of people who live in lodgings and "digs" of all sorts who are quite hard up but who have still a few pounds for a party on Christmas Eve or Christmas Day, and who go to a restaurant or an equivalent place in order to have that party. Now I cannot find it in my heart to blame people who are in that position and who want to enjoy it in that way.
As I said yesterday, I do not believe—and here again I must ask your Lordships to cast your minds back 30 or 40 years—that because you have had a party the night before you cannot have the energy to wake up and go to church on Christmas Day morning. I do not think that at all. I ask your Lordships to say that these are people that we

1025
ought to think about; and the fact that they have had a party on Christmas Eve will not, in my view, detract in any way from their feeling on Christmas morning, recognising the solemn side of the Christmas festival.
I put all this to your Lordships yesterday, and your Lordships would rightly feel extremely bored with me if I went in for useless repetition, but I do say to my noble friend Baroness Ravensdale of Kedleston that this is not a question of giving way. This is a question of adding a further concession which has not existed over the years. As I said, the last thing I want to suggest to your Lordships is any spirit of bargaining; it would be foreign to the subject which we are considering. I do not put it in that way; but I do think that your Lordships, as the higher House of Parliament, ought to look at the people of this country as a whole. Having secured, as to two important occasions, very considerable recognition of one paint of view, your Lordships ought not to press too severely a view which, I believe, would not only restrict the present law but would deal hardly with the young and happy, who must also be within your Lordships' consideration.
I would therefore urge noble Lords not to press this Amendment, but to accept the truce which we arrived at yesterday—and I hope noble Lords will not misunderstand me. The noble Viscount is perfectly entitled to raise this point, but I have the feeling—and, after all, I have had the honour to preside over your Lordships' House for seven years—that what we arrived at yesterday was generally acceptable to your Lordships, and I suggest to my noble friend that we leave it there and do not press it further to-day.
3.36 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am sure we are greatly obliged to the noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack for the consideration he has given to this matter. I think he is quite legitimately exercising his proper function when he points out how much he has conceded already in this direction. While, of course, he can point to the Act of 1949, when a political nostalgia favours the Government on this occasion, there is also a growing feeling in the
1026
country that drunkenness has been increasing; and that, perhaps, may be taken as permitting a modification, if not a violent change, of views of Governments during the course of ten or twelve years. As to the joyful nature of Christmas, we are all agreed. As to the pre-eminently family nature of Christmas, we are also all agreed, although Christmas Day is not pre-eminently a day of joy among other Holy Days. In fact, we also sing songs of great joy about Easter morning; so what applies to Christmas Day in this matter applies equally to Easter.
However, I feel—and I hope my noble friend who has moved this Amendment will agree—that we have really ventilated the matter as far as we can, if only to explain our position. Of course, all denominations have a common view on temperance: they have a united view on temperance. Upon the Sacraments of the Church we have different practices; but when, through the Temperance Council of the Christian Churches, all have come together and asked for these things, we felt that we ought to make quite sure that there was no section of the religious view which was kept out of account when dealing with a specific matter like Christmas Day and the proper performance of their Sacraments.
If the other Members of your Lordships' House who have supported this Amendment would agree, I would ask my noble friend Lord Stonham whether, at this stage, he is willing to withdraw the Amendment. I should like to thank him and my noble friend Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, and all other Members of the House who have contributed so much to the discussions on the Bill, which is so difficult in its application that only a Government Whip can be put on. You cannot put a Party Whip on right through this Bill in almost any other Party. In the circumstances we are greatly obliged to all the Members of your Lordships' House who have contributed to what I think are the quite sound and useful Amendments which we have secured in this House.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I join with my noble Leader in thanking the noble and learned Viscount for the consideration he has given to this Amendment to-day, and still more, of course,

1027
for the very considerable way he went to meet us yesterday. However, I must say that the Lord Chancellor's speech was, to me, a very considerable disappointment—quite a bitter disappointment. I am just not able to accept some of the things that he said. I should like to make it perfectly clear that this is not a question of stopping people from enjoying themselves on Christmas Day. The only issue at stake is whether people should or should not be allowed to have special hours certificates going into the early hours of Christmas morning, up till two o'clock in the provinces and three o'clock in London. If I interpret this incorrectly, the noble and learned Viscount will, of course, interrupt me. So it is not a question of just preserving things as they are; it is a question of a further advance, of giving more away.
Secondly, I tried to make it clear when I moved the Amendment that we are asking that the present concession, which allows special hours on Christmas Eve until 1 a.m. Christmas morning in London, should be removed. I tried to make that perfectly clear; that, indeed, would be the purpose of this Amendment. But if this Amendment is withdrawn or defeated, then there will be a further advance into the small hours of Christmas morning. The Lord Chancellor saw a great difference between what he described as the Holy Day at Christmas time and Good Friday. I do not share that difference of view, and the right reverend Prelate, obviously, like my noble friend, Lady Ravensdale of Kedleston, could not see the difference either. Of course, Christmas Day is a day of great joy for millions of people in this country, and indeed all over the world, and we do not blame people who want a party on Christmas Day. The only thing we are saying in this Amendment is that we do not want Christmas Eve carried on in public parties into the small hours of the morning. I always like to do whatever my noble Leader asks me to do, but, my Lords, on this occasion I cannot find it in my heart to withdraw this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: That concludes the Amendments, and therefore we will proceed to the next Motion.
My Lords, in moving that this Bill do now pass, I hope your Lordships will not take it as in any way a discourtesy if I limit my remarks to reiterating—and I do so with all sincerity—what the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, said a moment ago: that we who have been in charge of the Bill are greatly indebted to all members of the House who have given such great study and attention to its terms. It is a Bill, as everyone has said, without any party content at all, and therefore it is preeminently a Bill on which your Lordships' House can render great service. I should personally like to thank the noble Viscount, the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor (I do not think he will be too compromised politically: as I said, he is a very old friend of mine for a generation, and it has been a great pleasure to hear his voice on this Bill) for their help, and also the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, for the great attention and work which he has put into the Bill. We have had long discussions, and, with that expression of gratitude, I hope that your Lordships will allow me to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
3.43 p.m.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, I do not intend to detain the House except for a few moments, but the Temperance Movement have asked me to have a further word before the Bill leaves your Lordships' House. I was rather pleased that some good friend (I do not know who) sent me a cutting of a tribute paid to the Temperance Movement, and that is something so unusual that I think I should read the tribute to your Lordships' House. When I tell your Lordships whose tribute it is, you will be all the more impressed. The tribute is headed:
"The Temperance Movement: Unsurpassed —Incomparable."
It goes on:
"For my own part, I believe that the Temperance Party, the Temperance workers in England during the last 60 or 70 years, have performed services for the benefit of our people which are unsurpassed in the history of philanthropic movements in this country.

1029
"Taking into account the period of time over which these efforts have been extended, the number of persons engaged in them, the area that they have covered and the complete disinterestedness of those participating, the conclusion must be reached that not even the great philanthropic movements of prison reform, not even the movement of Clarkson and Wilberforce and their friends and followers for the abolition of slavery, not even the anti-Corn Law movement itself, can compare with the Temperance Movement in glory."
My Lords, that is a tribute paid by one whom this House holds in very high esteem, Lord Samuel. It is a little more acceptable than some references which I noticed in the other place to "the teetotal lobby".
My Lords, my noble Leader indicated some fortnight ago that I was a lifelong abstainer, and that is quite true. There is no malcredit whatever for that. I have never had the desire, and have never asked myself: should I drink intoxicants? I have no problem at all, but I have spent a lifetime doing my best to keep our nation as sober as possible. If I am allowed to make a personal reference, I was brought up in a mining area. I spent my week-ends very largely watching drunken and half-drunken men fight. They were fights in which almost invariably their families joined. Then on Monday mornings at the coal face, I would hear some of these colliers moaning and groaning, unable to do their work because of the intoxicants they had consumed over the week-end. Also, on the same Monday mornings their wives would be carrying bundles of clothing to the pawn shop to get a few shillings to carry them through to the next pay day. That made an indelible impression on my mind in my youth, and I said that I would spend as much time and energy as I could in trying to prevent this drink traffic from taking control over my fellow citizens; and I have done that. That is the only reason why I have sat on this Bill.
I have asked myself: Will this Bill make drink traffic less an evil in the country's life than the present legislation? Frankly, my Lords, I have come to the conclusion that this Bill is not going to help us. I agree that various pants of the Bill make references to youth. Concern is expressed regarding those under eighteen. What I want is a Bill dealing with drink traffic which will help our young men and young women to develop to their fullest
1030
capacity, physically, intellectually and morally. This Bill, in my opinion, will not do that. That is the reason I have not been able to support it. There are objectionable features, there are less objectionable features, and there are unobjectionable features in this Bill. But taking the Bill as a whole, and thinking of what drink traffic has meant in this country, and has done for centuries now, and what will happen after the Bill becomes law, I am concerned and anxious about the future.
This is a Bill of three parts. I think it ought to have been three separate Bills. Had it been three separate Bills, we should not have spent any more time on them, and we should have been clear in our conception of what is involved. If there were three separate Bills, I should oppose Part I. I should oppose it because it simply increases the number of public-houses under the name of restaurants and cafés. I should oppose Part II, mainly because it increases permitted hours by at least 20 per cent. That, in my opinion, does not help this country. Moreover, Part II contains Clause 6, which, in my opinion, treats Wales in a most shabby way. Part III, as a separate Bill, is one to which I should be sympathetic. It is an attempt to deal with a very difficult and thorny question, that of the clubs. All Governments have fought shy of this problem up to now, but here is a Government which has just nibbled, and to that extent I should be more inclined to support Part III than either Part I or Pant II.
I have tried to look forward five or ten years, and I have wondered what will happen under the Bill. I may say that I am very concerned, too, that this Bill is going to operate at a time when hundreds of applications are being made for batting shops. And when I think of the consequences of this Bill and of the betting shops, I feel very anxious regarding the future of this country. What we need, if we need drink traffic at all, is a drink traffic controlled in such a way that our young people have not all the freedom they want. What we need is young men and women fully developed, physically, intellectually and morally; and this Bill, in my view, does not help in that direction.
3.50 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF CHESTER: My Lords, in the closing stages of this Bill, I should like from these Benches to express the gratitude of those of us who have been watching the Bill for the consideration which we have been given by those who have been in charge of it, both the noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack and the noble Earl, Lord Bathurst, who have been, so understanding in dealing with the points that have been raised. I am sure, also, if it is in order for me to do so, that we should wish to express our gratitude to the right honourable gentleman the Home Secretary and to the right honourable Dennis Vosper, who has taken such a leading part in the creation of this Bill. They have done their utmost to meet the many points that have been raised and we should wish to express our gratitude to them.
After all, the subject of the consumption of alcohol is a heady business in more than one way, and sometimes it leads to very intemperate and irrational expressions of opinion. I believe that on all sides this Bill has been approached in a most reasonable way and it has been accepted as such. I believe that Part I of this Bill is going to do much good in removing many of the stupid anomalies that exist at the present time, though here my chief regret is that more power has not been given to the justices in granting licences under this Part. There is a good deal to be said for the action in Part II in rationalising the hours of opening, though I am not convinced that there is a real need or demand for some of the extensions which have been given. Part III I believe to be the most important and valuable part of this Bill, and I trust that it will do much to remove the very undesirable clubs which have been existing so far under the law. But, as has been pointed out, this will still remain a considerable problem after this Bill has become law, and I trust that the Government will watch the whole question of clubs with the greatest care and, if necessary, act with immediate vehemence, if these terrible clubs continue, apart from the conditions of this Bill.
We are grateful also for the many important Amendments which the Government have accepted after debate. I
1032
am thinking especially of the protection of young people and the forbidding of the sale of intoxicants on motorways. There are just two matters in general to which I would draw attention and which I think will need to be watched carefully as a result of the coming into law of this Bill. The first concerns the result of the Bill on public-houses. As your Lordships will readily understand, I hold no brief for the public-houses, but they are an accepted part of the life of our nation and I believe that the publicans seek to run their establishments as well as they possibly can, often under conditions of great difficulty. This Bill is going to be a great challenge to them, because undoubtedly there will be a greater competition from the new establishments that will have licences. I think that they are also going to find that the extended hours will mean greatly increased costs, both in staff and in heating and lighting their establishments. Therefore, I hope that the assurance that I understand has been given by the brewers, that no undue pressure will be placed upon publicans to keep open, if they do not so desire, will be honoured and that publicans will be protected from any such pressure.
My one disappointment about this Bill is that it has not given, so far as I can see, the encouragement that many of us would have liked to see for the development of public-houses upon more wholesome lines. The Home Secretary, speaking in the general debate in another place in January, 1960, said:
"I hope that the owners will continue to follow an enlightened policy and make the English public-house into a centre of community life."
This Bill, I think, does little to encourage that. At the same time, the Home Secretary pointed out that there are already provisions that can be used for this purpose. I hope that the public-houses will develop that way, so that they may indeed become wholesome centres of community life, in which drinking is not necessarily the central purpose of their existence.
The other matter to which I would draw attention is a general one. It is admitted that the purpose of this Bill is to extend the opportunities for the consumption of intoxicants, and that is a matter which we must accept as a

1033
result of this Bill. On Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, asked a very pertinent question, as to whether this was the right time to extend these facilities, when we know that the whole temper of life is providing opportunities where the over-indulgence of alcohol will lead to ever more terrible effects. We must recognise that this Bill will come into law against the background of certain facts: first, against the background of the increase of drunkenness. The noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, mentioned that. The figures for convictions for drunkenness have been wavering from year to year and the figures for 1960 have not yet been officially published, but I am told that the Christian Economic and Social Research Foundation, which has usually been right, has made some estimate and reckon that in 1960 there were 68,500 convictions for drunkenness. That will be the highest figure since 1925.
The second factor against which this Bill will come into law is the undoubted fact of the increase in juvenile drinking. Again, the figures for 1960 have not been published, but there has been a steady increase in convictions for juvenile drunkenness. In 1953, they were 3,096, and in 1959 they were 6,500—over double the number. And one must relate these figures to the knowledge that we have of sexual licence and of general hooliganism. Thirdly, we must relate these figures to the state of accidents upon the roads, of which your Lordships are too well aware.
Therefore, this Bill is going to lay a great responsibility upon all people. The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, who has made such a signal contribution to these discussions, has reminded us of the great responsibilities that are going to be laid upon the magistrates by this Bill, but let us also think of the responsibility which is going to be laid upon the whole people, because it would be a most serious and tragic thing if the impression were to be created—I know that the Government have no such intention—that this Bill is an encouragement to further drinking. For I am sure that all noble Lords would agree that it is only in sobriety and temperate behaviour that people's true happiness can be found. This Bill has been referred to on more than one occasion
1034
as an adult Bill for an adult people. Let it then be so; and let it be our hope that these new freedoms which are given will be exercised in a truly responsible manner.
4.0 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor for this continuous courtesy during our discussions on the Bill and the great care and patience with which he has listened to our points, and, in particular, for the concessions he was able to make yesterday, which I think are considerable; and they are greatly appreciated. I personally believe that this is a good Bill. I am hoping that the easement of restrictions, many of them difficult to justify, will not, as my noble friend Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor and the right reverend Prelate feel, add to drinking and drunkenness, but will merely add to people's reasonable enjoyment of leisure. I think there is reasonable justification for that hope.
I strongly support what the Government have done with regard to clubs, and I am compensated for one of the disappointments by the valuable assurance which the Lord Chancellor was able to give yesterday: that his right honourable friend the Home Secretary will bear these points mind and, if necessary, take steps to deal with them. I think the Government and your Lordships' House have done a worthwhile job on this Bill, and I wish it well.
4.2 p.m.
LORD AUCKLAND: My Lords, I apologise to your Lordships for the fact that I did not put my name down to speak on the Motion that this Bill do now pass, but I feel that perhaps a few words from the Government Benches may be welcomed, especially as I have taken part in the Bill through all its stages and followed it closely. It is to young people to whom this Bill is largely directed, and I still regard myself as a reasonably young Member of your Lordships' House. I should like to pay a warm tribute to the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack for his great courtesy in dealing not only with my own Amendments, but those of my noble friend Lord Grenfell (we scored two out of three; it was a good effort, and we

1035
are extremely grateful to the Lord Chancellor) and to my noble friend Lord Bathurst, in particular, regarding his letter on Clause 20, dealing with the sale of liquor, where he completely met my point. I should also like to pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor. I personally do not share his views, but he has put them in a moderate and sincere manner.
Whatever may be said for or against this Bill, it has had a great deal of democratic discussion. After all, this is a major Bill and the repercussions will be felt in the years to come. I am not too happy about the restrictions on the sale of alcohol in off-licences to persons under 18. I know that the word "knowingly" is used, but it is likely that the licensee will have difficulty in making a decision there. Also, it is not entirely in keeping with the licence to sell alcohol to persons under 18 in clubs. I agree, as I said yesterday, that persons in clubs under the age of 18 should at least be served with beer and cider. At any rate, we shall note with interest how this works. I would again say how grateful we are to the three Government speakers, and also for the very reasoned way in which noble Lords opposite have dealt with this Bill, and I hope that its results will be profitable.
4.7 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I want only to thank all those who have spoken for the extremely kind things they have said about my noble friend Lord Bathurst and myself. When we look back over nearly 61 years of this century, and at the difficulties that have always met licensing legislation, I think the Government can be satisfied, but not for one moment complacent, about the reception of this Bill.
I should like to say three things. I am glad that the right reverend Prelate stressed the importance of a high standard in licensed premises. I am sure that he had in mind, as I have, a standard which is not only in relation to' the actual supply of drink indoors, but the combination of drink and food and, if necessary, outdoor surroundings which make the place pleasant. If your Lordships will allow a note of levity, some years ago I remember reading an essay of Mr. G. K. Chesterton, when he said:
1036
"Mr. Cadbury and I would have no dispute about the bad public house. It is in regard to the good public house that the unfortunate fracas between us would occur."
I think that in the past 50 years most people have gathered the view that it is worth trying to get public houses and licensed premises of good quality and good amenities. I hope (though I think this is something we have to watch) that longer hours need not necessarily mean a greater consumption. I am not going to elaborate on the point, but there is a real danger in quick consumption which one must always have in mind.
I should like to comment on what has been said to-day in regard to the responsibilities of the licensing justices. I said yesterday that I have myself spoken to them several times, in view of this important additional responsibility which Parliament has put upon them of considering at the same time the comfort and convenience and the moral standards of our people. I am sure that they will respond to the new task, and I am glad to think that your Lordships wish them well. I again express my gratitude and hope that your Lordships will now allow the Bill to pass.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

ARMY AND AIR FORCE BILL
Read 3a (according to Order) and passed.

NORTH ATLANTIC SHIPPING BILL
4.10 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, as we come to the Third Reading of this Bill, I would think that in its earlier stages, we have discussed almost every facet of the matter quite fully—indeed, almost exhaustively. I do not therefore think it is necessary for me to go into any detail again now. No one would pretend for a moment that the agreement between the Cunard Company and the Government, as set out in the White Paper, gives either side the best of all possible worlds. It could not, of its nature, possibly do so, and is certainly

1037
not special in that sense, although the whole venture is something rather special.
The agreement is not, and cannot pretend to be, a truly commercial one, because this is not a truly commercial venture either. If it were, the Cunard Company would never have approached the Government, and the Government would never have considered giving help. But we have considered the circumstances of the North Atlantic express passenger service to be quite unique because of its nature and also because of the degree and extent of the subsidised competition. The plain fact was that if the Government had not been prepared to help, the British express passenger service would have disappeared before very long. This was something, as I have said before, which the Government felt that the country as a whole would not, and could not, wish to see happen.
Within these limitations, the Government have driven a hard bargain with Cunard, and although a lot has been said, both here and in another place, about ways in which it was thought the bargain might have been made better, it is the Government's firm view that, by and large, they have secured the best possible terms and that the real interests of the taxpayer in this venture have been looked after.
Shortly, my Lords—very shortly—the tenders for the construction of the ship will be returned. All British yards who were capable of doing the job were invited to tender and, as has been said so many times already, it will not necessarily be the yard which offers the lowest price which will succeed, but that which offers the best all-round value for money. I am sure the competition is going to prove very keen, and I can only say that it is the firm intention, both of Cunard and of the Government, to make Kin that when this ship enters service she will truly represent the finest achievement of British crafts and skills which go into the construction of a passenger ship. I think one thing only now remains for me to say, and that is to express my appreciation and thanks to all noble Lords who have taken part in the various stages of this Bill, which has now come to the point at which I
1038
am asking your Lordships to give it a Third Reading. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a. —(Lord Chesham.)
4.13 p.m.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, the situation to-day, when this Bill comes up for Third Reading, is different from that which existed during the earlier Stages of the Bill in another place, and, indeed, in your Lordships' House. It is true, as the Parliamentary Secretary said, that the Bill has had a good deal of discussion. It was bound to, because it is a somewhat controversial measure. But we now must examine this Bill in the light of the statement made in another place yesterday by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He took the view that the Government, on the one hand, must encourage capital investment which led to increased productivity, but discourage it where it did not lead to increased productivity.
In relation to these great ships which cross the Atlantic—and I have crossed with the "Queens" on a number of occasions, and have enjoyed myself—the question is whether this additional capital expenditure will be so remunerative to the country that the Government are warranted in giving several million pounds of the taxpayer's money to the company—or at any rate advancing it. I must say that I am very doubtful about it. I doubt whether the Government can show that, in the existing circumstances, the amount of remuneration or "came-back" from this investment, either on the part of the Cunard Company, or on the part of the State, is going to be sufficient in the light of the circumstances mentioned and dealt with at length by the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday to warrant our doing this.
The Government may say, "Well, we cannot look backwards; we are committed to this; we let it happen." But they have looked backwards in relation to the teachers. The teachers reached an agreement with the Burnham Committee. The Government have looked backwards on that, and they are going to cancel their agreement or, at any rate, modify it. Therefore, if the Government were legitimate in the case of the teachers (and I am doubtful) why cannot the Government look back in relation to this, because in the light of the

1039
Chancellor's statement yesterday this Bill is not justified. It really is not justified sufficiently to warrant this subsidy being put into it by the State. Therefore, we are very doubtful whether this Bill ought to pass.
The other point is this—and there was discussion about this on Amendments which were moved in Committee and on Report. What is the relationship between this public money, either invested or guaranteed, in relation to the Cunard Shipping Company, and the projected emergence of a new privately owned civil aviation concern to be fathered by the Cunard Company? Let us examine this question in the light of the statement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday. Surely, in the light of that, if you have an efficient concern—it happens to be a public concern, the British Overseas Airways Corporation—which is handling trans-Atlantic traffic by air, what is the sense in the Government encouraging (as in principle they are doing, unless the Minister of Civil Aviation turns it down, as I hope he will, because that is his plain duty) another air line to come into competition with the people's air line, an air line owned by the community and an asset to the nation? It is duplicating capital expenditure. It is duplicating services, and the duplication must be wasteful in relation to the national economy. But that is what is contemplated, although it has yet to be shown that the Minister of Aviation will grant the licence to this new concern to compete with the publicly owned concern.
The Government may say, "Well, we like competition; indeed, we want to promote competition by private enterprise against publicly-owned concerns". The Government will say to themselves, if they do not say in public, "We have a prejudice against public concerns, and we want private enterprise to cut their throats if it can" as, indeed, the Minister of Transport is deliberately doing vis-à-vis the railways from the point of view of commercial transport. Indeed, his latest effort is to widen buses so that they can carry more people in competition with the railways, and to increase their speed so as to increase their competition with the railways. Now we find the possibility that the Government will be promoting competition against a very
1040
great and successful public concern, British Overseas Airways Corporation, by a private undertaking.
I freely confess that I had a hand behind the scenes, and in Parliament, in the passing of the Civil Aviation Acts which built up the public concerns, B.O.A.C., B.E.A. and British South-American Airways, which was subsequently merged in B.O.A.C. I thought at the time that they might have to be subsidised for quite a long time to come. And be it remembered that Conservative Governments had subsidised Imperial Airways earlier on and they thought they would have to go on for a long time. I was very pleasantly surprised to find that B.O.A.C. and British European Airways had found it possible, broadly and roughly, to pay their way within the number of years that that happened. It was a great achievement. But I suspect this makes the Government jealous; that their Conservative principles lead them to think that there is something wrong about a publicly-owned concern paying its way, and therefore they like to do something about its paying its way—to cut its throat, if they can, if it be the case that some of this money is going into the Cunard Company, or is guaranteed to the Cunard Company; if it be the case that directly or indirectly some of this money can be used to help out a civil aviation line, privately owned, over the Atlantic, then we ought to be told; and if it is so, it is a wicked thing to do. That is why we are doubtful about this Bill.
I know we have had some sort of answer, but we have not yet had a clear answer whether any of this money can be directly or indirectly used as financial aid to the proposed civil aviation airline across the Atlantic. Surely it is madness, when you have the eminently successful British Overseas Airways Corporation, with a great reputation here and among American citizens, to permit cut-throat competition with it, and still more so to permit public funds, directly or indirectly, to be used to aid a privately-owned undertaking as against a publicly-owned undertaking. On both those grounds we think this is a doubtful Bill.
Of course, the Government has to catch up with itself, or try to, in relation to the statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday, and I am

1041
sure it will find itself going backwards on a number of issues which will arise. It will find itself in an illogical situation because of the situation made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement yesterday, which we shall debate to-morrow, and which I mention to-day only because of its relationship to this Bill. For these reasons, my Lords, while we do not propose to divide against the Third Reading of the Bill, we think it is a doubtful measure and in conflict with the current financial situation as described by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in another place yesterday.
BARONESS HORSBRUGH: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask him a question? He referred to teachers' salaries and the Burnham Committee, and I thought he said—but perhaps I did not understand him—that the Government have gone back on an arrangement with the teachers. Is it not a fact that the Burnham Committee put in a provisional scheme to the Government that has to be approved by the Minister, and the Minister has not yet approved it, and the Government therefore are not going back on it but are going to discuss it?
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, I am almost getting accustomed to being cross-examined by the noble Lady at the end of every little speech that I make in your Lordships' House, but I have no objection to that, because it is nice to meet her across the Floor or otherwise. She is right, in a sense; the Government were not committed. It is a fact that negotiations have gone on 'between the local authorities and the Burnham Committee and they have reached an agreement, and normally the Government do not upset those agreements. I think I am right—the noble Lady has been a Minister of Education and would know better than I—that the Government do not normally upset the agreements; but this time they are going out of their way to upset them. Mind you, at the time—to be fair—the N.U.T. itself, pushed by some of its Left-wing elements (that is putting it mildly), declined to accept the Burnham award, and to this extent they would have been better off to have said "Yes" right away, in which case Her Majesty's Government could not have
1042
got out of it. There is a point in what the noble Lady says.
4.26 p.m.
LORD BOOTHBY: I have no intention, and indeed have had no opportunity, of voting against this Bill, and would not do so even if there were a Division, but I should like just to go on record as saying, having regard to the present economic situation of this country as incisively dealt with by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in another place yesterday, and to the future prospects of the express passenger services by sea across the Atlantic in the years that lie immediately ahead, that I sincerely believe that this particular subvention on the part of the Government is quite unjustified. I should like further to say that it is quite wrong that any Government should subsidise any private shipping line as against other shipping lines who are carrying on work of equal importance. I believe that it will not pay them in the long run and I am bound to say that I bitterly regret it; and I am afraid that before very long Her Majesty's Government will bitterly regret it, too.
4.28 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: In case silence be taken to betoken consent, I think I must say a word on this Bill. I have been against it from the start, when it was first mooted at the very beginning of this Parliament in your Lordships' House. The reason that the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth gave is a very valid one. Much as I was against it before, I am even more against it if it is passed now, in view of the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday. It is complete nonsense, to my mind, that we should be giving this subvention of £18 million to a private shipping line.
From the very beginning this whole affair has, in my opinion, had an unsavoury odour about it, to use a Parliamentary expression—if it is one. First of all, we had the suppression of the D.S.T.R. Report on shipbuilding, and secondly we had the virtual suppression of the Chandos Committee's report on this proposal. I have no doubt the noble Lord, if he is going to make another speech, will reiterate the arguments he has already put up, and if he does it is

1043
not good enough at all. What we, as Parliamentarians, want to know is what Lord Chandos said and what his Committee said, and not what the Government allow us to know they said. We were recently told by a Conservative Member, by Lord Simon, a director of the P. and O. Company, that Lord Chandos was never asked whether this was a good idea or not. What Lord Chandos was asked was, if the Government decided to do this, what was the best way of doing it. This is a very important point, and it had never before been revealed to Parliament, so I do not think that the Government in this particular regard have been really fair with Parliament. They have not given us the facts to which we are entitled and which we need to make a decision on a matter of this kind.
I hope now, even at this very late stage, that the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, will go back to his right honourable friend and, if necessary, postpone the next stage of the Bill, and ask him whether it is not possible to withdraw the Bill. Having regard to the financial situation of the country, how can we ask all those other people, as the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, has indicated, to forgo what they were expecting in the way of increases and emoluments in order, apparently at all events, to give a subvention to a private shipping company—not to an industry, but to a private shipping company—for a venture which, in the public interest, is highly doubtful, to say the least. I am against this Bill.
4.30 p.m.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I had felt all through the stages through which this Bill has passed that there was something missing, and I now realise what it was: it was the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, and the contribution which I had been expecting from him and have now received. I am very glad that his work and other engagements have enabled him to be here. If I may be allowed a very small remark (I hope that it will not be taken as a gibe), it has occurred to me that he is the only person who can give, as a perfectly valid reason for being absent, that he has gone to the cinema. It occurred to me that he is
1044
about the only person in this country for whom that is a valid reason. He did range, of course, quite wide; and I was not particularly surprised by what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore. In fact, I might almost say I had anticipated that something of the kind might be said, because from the Benches on which both the noble Lords sit no opportunity has been lost of any point which can be used as criticism against this Bill, of which both noble Lords have so clearly demonstrated their dislike right from the beginning.
The noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, in criticising the proposition in relation to the economic situation and yesterday's statement, made a passing reference to what my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said. I think that we need to look at his words—at any rate, so far as they are applicable to this Bill—a little more closely, and with your Lordships' leave I will quote them. He said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 645 [No. 1551 Col. 219]:
"In my view, therefore, our aims art the present time should be as follows: First, we should maintain investment in productive industry with a view to the long-term growth of the economy. At the same time, we must make ourselves more competitive. Both are vital for a long-term improvement in the balance of payments."
My Lords, what does that do if it does not describe the situation regarding the building of this ship? It certainly maintains an investment which is likely to be productive, because otherwise the investment would never have been helped by the Government. It is a worthwhile investment: that has been the position all along. I am going to give some figures; they are not conclusive, I know, bat they are at least indicative of what are the contributory possibilities of this service.
These are figures that I have obtained from the Cunard Company. I understand that in each of the years 1958 and 1959 the two "Queens" together earned the equivalent of some 25 million dollars; that is, in foreign currency, the net contribution being 19½ million dollars. Their estimates for the "Q.3." indicate that she should earn gross some 15½ million dollars, the net receipt being about 12½ million dollars; and of course there are other rather less visible and perhaps unassessable benefits from the

1045
service. That, surely, is not "chicken-feed". Surely that is worth the investment now or at any other time. Surely it is not thought that the Government are simply going blindly to support with capital a proposition which is not worth doing at this time, or very much less worth doing than at any other time.
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, do I understand the noble Lord to say that the "Queens" earn net 12½ million dollars a year? What happens to it then, because they reduced their dividend? Has it gone to subsidise the other traffic? The other point is if the "Queens" are so profitable where is the need for this subvention from State funds?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, it may conceivably have come to the noble Lord's attention that the "Queen Mary" is wearing out and has to be replaced. That is, of course, the abject of this Bill.
LORD LATHAM: Surely the depreciation allowances are available to replace her. If not, what kind of accountancy system has this company?
LORD CHESHAM: I think the noble Lord is drawing something very strange from the figures I have given.
LORD LATHAM: They are such odd figures.
LORD CHESHAM: I do not think they are odd at all. I do not think the noble Lord has any right or justification for drawing the conclusions that he has drawn immediately from the figures I have given without seeing a lot more figures as well. I am simply trying to indicate to your Lordship what is the foreign currency earning capacity, largely in dollars, of these ships.
LORD LATHAM: If there are other relevant figures, can we have them; then we can consider them in relation to the figures the noble Lord has already given.
LORD CHESHAM: That is entirely another matter, about which we are not talking at the present time; at least I did not think we were. I was trying to indicate the amount of foreign currency earnings. That is what I have indicated, and I do not think I am going to allow myself to be led off by the noble Lord on a discussion of that kind.
I want to go to the other point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of
1046
Lambeth, about air services. He has had, as he always 'has, quite a bit of fun having a "crack" at the Government and gat my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport about attacking the people's airlines, or something of that kind. He ended up somehow on a long discussion about the Burnham Committee. I cannot follow him into those realm's, because I do not see how, within the rather tenuous Rules of Order we have in this House, the Burnham Committee and how to run nationalised airlines, and that sort of thing, really come within the framework of the Third Reading discussion of this Bill.
On his other point, about whether the money which was being loaned to Cunard (I think this was the gist of his point) made it easier for them to buy aeroplanes, I think he said that there had been no answer. But the noble Lord was not here. I have dealt with this business fully twice, on Second Reading and in Committee—and I am extraordinarily surprised that anyone could say that no answer had been produced, because it has. I stood at this Box and argued it. I have said that the loan and the grant to Cunard did not make it any easier, and I do not know whether anything could be clearer than that. I do not know Whether your Lordships would like me to argue the Whole thing again, 'because no point has come up this afternoon that has not come up at previous stages and which I, or my noble friend, Lord Mills, have not fully argued.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: I um sorry to interrupt the noble Lord. I admit that I was not here. I meant to be here, because I wanted to have a go. That is why I am here this afternoon, to have a go this time. But I read the OFFICIAL REPORT, and the point I am not satisfied about is whether any of these financial assets can be, directly or indirectly, of advantage to the concern it is proposed to promote if the Government permit them to run trans-Atlantic airways as a private concern. Can it happen?
LORD CHESHAM: I must not be too short about this. As I tried to explain, there was not any connection; there is certainly no direct connection. If the noble Lord means, can any of this money

1047
be used, obviously it cannot. The Bill says right as the beginning that it is:
"For the purpose of the construction of a large vessel for the North Atlantic shipping trade…"
That is quite clear; money cannot be advanced by the Government for any other purpose whatsoever.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: I am sorry to intervene again. If the Government advance money to enable a shipping line to do this and that, will the noble Lord tell me whether or not that may enable the shipping company to use for the airline assets which could not have been so used if the shipping line had not received this assistance?
LORD CHESHAM: I was just corning to that when the noble Lord interrupted me. The answer to that is: No; it will not. The reason, as I have explained before, is that the money for the purchase of these aircraft is coming from collateral provided by certain Cunard property in America. Instantly, someone may say, "Why do not they put the money into the ship?" But nobody has ever said at any time that Cunard had not got £30 million, if that is the sum that proves to be necessary. They could raise money on various assets that they have. They could rob the depreciation fund they have collected in respect of their other ships. They can, in a variety of ways, raise £30 million to build a ship. I am trying to sum up a Second Reading debate as briefly as I can. But nobody could reasonably expect them to do that, faced with the heavily subsidised foreign competition on this route. To raise the money they need, which is somewhere in the neighbourhood of £5 million or £6 million for these aircraft, is much easier than raising money for a ship. The noble Lord, Lord Latham, does not think so—he said so before; but it is in fact so. The collateral required is not so great; the length of the loan is not so great, and in any case at any given time the aircraft can be sold, if need be. So the two are not the same at all.
I would ask the noble Lord to remember this point, too. It is quite possible (I have no authority to say this, but it is my own personal view) that if they felt like it, and if a "Queen" was not going to be replaced, they might well
1048
decide to put into the air as well the £12 million which Cunard have available for replacement of a "Queen". Therefore, on balance, I think the answer is that the making of this loan and grant only to build this ship is probably making it less rather than more easy for them to go into the air.
I should like now to come to the final point. The noble Lord made a number of points which, quite frankly, I am not going to follow because they were rather outside the confines of the Bill. I would only just say this to the noble Lord. Lord Ogmore, who has uttered a violent protest about the Chandos Report, a protest which has been echoed from the Benches opposite. I am not going into it all again; but I would say—this is a point which noble Lords opposite are ignoring—that when the Chandos Committee were appointed it was recognised that many things needed inquiring into which carried with them a considerable degree of commercial security and confidence; and a pledge was given at the time that the report would not be published. That pledge was given to people who gave evidence before the Committee. Under a pledge of confidence they expressed themselves very freely indeed, and the Committee were able to gather a great deal more of the information they needed than they would have obtained if it had been known that their report was to be published. That is why they were able to do such a thorough and exhaustive job. Without that confidence they would not have obtained the information. It was most necessary to get it, and I, for one, would certainly not stand here and advocate the breaking of a pledge of confidence in the circumstances. I hope that is not what the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, would have anything to do with either.
LORD OGMORE: No; I would agree with that. But I cannot see, first of all, what they have to hide. Why should it have been necessary to give this information under the great seal of secrecy? That is the first point. Secondly, I cannot really think why it was not possible for the Chandos Committee to have given us their views, or for us to have their views, without giving the evidence upon which they based them. I do not want the evidence. All I want to know

1049
is the actual report of the Committee, so far as its conclusions and that sort of thing are concerned, in their own words.
LORD CHESHAM: I was under the impression that the noble Lord had had that in the summary which was published.
LORD OGMORE: Yes, but I do not accept the summary. That is the point. We must get this clear, because there is an important Parliamentary issue here. I take advice from the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, who has a far greater Parliamentary experience than most of us. If you set up a Committee and that Committee reports, in the normal way it is expected, and indeed intended, that the report should be laid before Parliament which is asked to vote a large sum of money in consequence. Repeatedly in this House Ministers have referred to that report.
LORD CHESHAM: No.
LORD OGMORE: You have referred to the summary of the report.
LORD CHESHAM: Exactly. Perhaps I may interrupt the noble Lord, in my turn —it is about time I had a turn at it. That summary was published, laid before Parliament, or whatever the right term is, on June 1, I think; and therefore there is no reason why we should not quote from that. That we have done freely, but we have not quoted from the Chandos Report, which has not been published.
LORD OGMORE: That begs the question. I shall be guided by old Parliamentarians on this matter, but I understand that there is involved a matter of Parliamentary principle if Ministers constantly refer to something which in the beginning we believe is the Chandos Report, and then afterwards we are told is a summary of it. Surely the whole point of the Parliamentary rule is that if a Minister refers to a public document he has to lay it. That is the rule. I myself challenged the Minister to lay it. He said "I am not quoting from the report; I am quoting from a summary of the report". But who
1050
made the summary?—he did. At all events, this is possibly a dangerous innovation because we, as Members of Parliament, shall never know what is the true report and what is the gloss put upon it by a Minister, if he so desires.
LORD CHESHAM: I am sorry to say this. The noble Lord would be completely justified and quite correct in what he has said, were it not for one thing about which he is completely wrong, and I am delighted to tell him. This is not a summary that the Minister has picked out. This summary was prepared and published by Lord Chandos and his Committee themselves. Your Lordships may say that that does not matter; gloss that off! But I think I must say this rather seriously. If reports are to be prepared by Committees under the pledge of confidence, that pledge must not be broken. It does not seem that there is quite the respect for a pledge of confidence that one would expect. I think it should be carefully watched, and no doubt it will be.
The other point is that if the pledge of confidence had not been given I do not think the main report could have been prepared. That was recognised ahead. And, my Lords, I think there is every justification for sticking to the non-publication and publishing, by arrangement with the committee and its chairman, who produced the summary, a summary of their conclusions without all the detailed and confidential evidence upon which they came to those conclusions. I stick to that point, and I think it was perfectly right. I will certainly tell the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, that we have been particularly careful for those reasons to refer to the summary and not to the main report itself. To sum up, so far as I am concerned, despite the criticism of the noble Lord opposite, I think that this is a Bill which should proceed and a project which should earn the support of your Lordships; and I believe that the Bill should go ahead and receive its Third Reading at this time.
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed.

HUMAN TISSUE BILL
4.52 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Newton.)
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, may I, on this stage of the Bill, just ask the noble Lord one question? This has been a very interesting Bill and, in my opinion, of much more importance than any Bill that has been discussed this afternoon. But it relies upon two things: that is, on the generosity of mind of the person who is prepared to bequeath his body, and on the family of that person being prepared to initiate the business which has to be done at the death. Your Lordships will agree that on the death of an individual the family generally feel that to deviate from the norm is almost a little improper. I expect the noble Lord has had some letters on the subject during the course of this Bill. I have had three from people who want to bequeath their body, but who, on approaching their doctor and discussing it with their family, have been a little obstructed. The family have said, "This is a little complicated and I should not do this."
As this matter is of such profound importance to medical science, and, indeed, to the health and welfare of the country, would he consider giving it more publicity? It is known that the British public, and I presume publics in other countries, rather like looking at television pictures of hospital life and medical problems. Surely this is a subject which could be dealt with, perhaps by the noble Lord himself or by a Minister bringing the provisions of the Bill to the attention of the country and telling people precisely what they have to do in order to be assured that their bodies will be bequeathed to the hospital and that the bequest will be observed by the parents Or relatives or the doctor. If he would consider publicity of that nature, and not just leave any publicity to the National Association of the Blind or any ad hoc body, I think it would be better.
LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, I should like to support what the noble Lady has just said. I would also add one word. I myself have made one of these provisions in my own will, and I am happy to inform the House that my lawyer informed me that nothing in the world is simpler than the arrangements for the disposition of a body left in this way. I understand there is an official who is called Her Majesty's Master in Anatomy, and if he or his officer is informed, the body is collected with the minimum of trouble and there is no difficulty whatever about the operation of a bequest such as this. I support the noble Lady in her suggestion that this Bill should be given the greatest possible publicity. Many people may be deterred if they think the process is complicated or difficult. It is neither.
4.55 p.m.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Faringdon, has read the OFFICIAL REPORT of our proceedings on the Second Reading of this Bill. If he has not done so, might I respectfully suggest to him that he does?
LORD FARINGDON: I did.
LORD NEWTON: I took some pains to try to explain clearly the legal position about these matters, and I explained why it is you cannot make a legal bequest of a dead body.
LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, I beg the noble Lord's pardon. I was not questioning at all the adequacy of his explanation, but was trying to support my noble friend Lady Summerskill in her request that the greatest possible publicity should be given, on the particular grounds that the thing is not complicated but is in fact quite easy.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I appreciate that. I was going on to say that it is perfectly true that it need not be difficult where people wish their body or parts of it to be used for the benefit of their fellow human beings after their death.
I entirely agree with the noble Baroness: this is an important Bill, and it certainly has given me a great deal of interest to study the history of these remarkable and wonderful advances in operative techniques which have largely

1053
given rise to this Bill. We discussed publicity and propaganda a little on Second Reading. I agree that we should consider how widely information should be spread about what it will be possible for people to do after this Bill is enacted. But I still think, as I slid on Second Reading, that it is essential that propaganda and publicity be handled with care and with tact and taste, because if that is not done, then I think there is a risk that popular sentiment will be offended, and that might defeat our whole purpose. One must not forget that it was not so very many years ago that there was in this country very real opposition to any dissection of the human body. However, subject to that, I agree with the noble Baroness that we should consider this, and I can assure her that what she said whose be carefully observed by those whose business it is to consider these matters.
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed.

TRUSTS (SCOTLAND) BILL
4.59 p.m.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of July 13), Bill read 3a, and passed.

CROWN ESTATE BILL
5.0 p.m.
Order of the Day read for the Bill to be considered on Report.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received. Your Lordships will remember that on Committee stage a considerable discussion arose between the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, and the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, on the one hand, who put down an Amendment, and myself, on the other hand, as to the precise legal interpretation of Clause 1 (3), of this Bill, with particular reference.to its possible effects on the powers of direction given to the appropriate Minister under Clause 1 (4), especially if Commissioners, in the course of their management of the Crown Estate, were to act contrary to the
1054
requirements or wishes of a planning authority.
My Lords, the brief answer is that the appropriate Minister can give directions in such a case; but as the matter is rather complicated, I think I had better set it out in some detail. Before doing so, however, I should like to assure the two noble Lords opposite that I have carried out my promise, and have ensured that most careful consideration has been given to this matter by the legal experts. By that, I do not mean only the legal experts of the Crown Estate Office itself—in fact, I have the permission of the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor to say that the legal interpretation which I am about to give the House has met with his full approval and agreement.
Now Clause 1 (3) of this Bill imposes upon the Crown Estate Commissioners a general duty to maintain and enhance the value of and return from the Crown Estate "with due regard to the requirements of good management", while Clause 1 (4) provides that the appropriate Minister, in giving directions to the Commissioners as to the discharge of their functions, shall have regard to this general duty. The noble Lords opposite have criticised subsection (3) because, they have suggested, it puts upon the Crown Estate Commissioners a duty only to get the greatest possible financial profit from the Crown Estate, and therefore precludes them from taking into consideration the general amenities of the neighbourhood and the proposals of the planning authorities. The noble Lords opposite have suggested, further, that if the Commissioners were to disregard amenities and planning they could not be given a direction to take such considerations into account if, by doing so, they would be prevented from getting the best financial return from the Crown Estate.
My reply to this criticism was that the reference in Clause 1 (3) to the "requirements of good management" must surely enable the Commissioners to consider such matters, but this answer did not entirely satisfy the noble Lords opposite, who felt that perhaps it did not cover some cases which they had in mind. For instance, it might be that a particular development of land in the Crown Estate could not be regarded as being prejudicial to the Crown Estate, either because

1055
there was no other Crown Estate land in the neighbourhood or because the particular development proposed was most beneficial for the land in question, though such development might still be injurious to the neighbourhood as a whole or to the overall planning of the neighbourhood.
Although this is true, I am advised that Clause 1 (3) does not require the Commissioners, in a case of this sort, necessarily to put their own financial interests before the interests of their neighbours, but gives them a discretion as to which they shall prefer. If this were not the meaning, there would be no place at all in the Bill for Clause 3 (1), since it would merely be repetitious to add an express provision (as Clause 3 (1) does) that the Commissioners cannot lease or otherwise dispose of land except for the best consideration they can get. Furthermore, I must point out that in Clause 3, subsections (6) and (7), and in Clause 4, subsection (3), there are express provisions which take away from the strictness of Clause 3 (1) but without modifying the general duty. If, as the noble Lords opposite have said, the Commissioners are required by Clause 1 (3) to get all they can on every occasion, these latter provisions would be meaningless and, in fact, would not be necessary.
In considering this question we must look at the Bill as a whole. If we do so, the proper interpretation to put on Clause 1 (3) is that it does no mare than lay down 'a general aim which the Commissioners are to pursue in their management of the Crown Estate as a whole; and that it does nothing to preclude them, in dealing with particular parts of the Crown Estate, from taking account of matters other than financial considerations. From this it must follow that the Minister can likewise take account of them, in considering whether or not he should issue any direction to the Commissioners under Clause 1 (4).
I do not think the noble Lords opposite need be alarmed—if, indeed, they are—because nothing like Clause 1 (3) is contained in the Statutes under which the Commissioners and their predecessors have hitherto operated. Nor need they feel that this is a new duty which would require the Commissioners to
1056
change their practice. I can assure them that this is not a new duty, although it is the first time it has been given statutory form. The Crown Estate is, of its nature, that pant of the possession of the Crown which is kept to produce revenue for the Crown. It was precisely for this reason that the division was made in 1851 between this land and the land used for functional Government purposes, when the Commissioners of Works were set up to take over the latter. Before the predecessors of the Crown Estate Commissioners took over, the hereditary possessions were managed by the Barons of the Exchequer. Thus your Lordships will see that the general duty to use the land to produce revenue has always existed. The only change produced by this Bill is that that duty is now set out. The real question to be considered to-day is whether the wording in the Bill is such as to make that duty too stringent. I hope that noble Lords will agree that, taking the Bill as a whole, the duty is not too stringently expressed.
If I may return to the position of the Minister—for this is the crux of the matter—the noble Lords opposite were concerned about how the power to give directions under Clause 1 (4), ties in with the general duty under Clause 1 (3), and whether, in particular, it is open to the appropriate Minister to take a different view from the Commissioners as to what are the requirements of good management. Since Clause 1 (3) does not of itself require the Commissioners to look to nothing but money on each occasion, equally there is nothing in it to prevent the Minister in a particular case from telling the Commissioners that they are not paying enough attention to the neighbourhood as a whole but are concentrating too much on the financial aspect. The Commissioners would be bound under the Statute to carry out such a direction because the act which it would require them to perform would be something that they were empowered to do by the Statute.
My Lords, it is the official, legal opinion that I have just given noble Lords, of course; not my own at all—it is much better than that. I hope very much that the noble Lords opposite will feel satisfied, and that they will not feel it necessary to press their point any further. Of course, I do not wish to rush

1057
them, if they wish to consider the matter and discuss it again on Third Reading, but if they do not wish to do so, perhaps they would signify their consent to proceeding with the remaining stages of the Bill. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Lord Hastings.)
5.10 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, it has required a very long, detailed and complicated explanation to tell us why a few simple words, which we suggested should be incorporated into the Bill, are not to he included. Those words were that, while the Crown Commissioners are to have regard to the requirements of good management, and to maintain and enhance the value of the property, they should also take into consideration the requirements of good own planning. If the noble Lord had Seen his way to accepting those few words—and I have not heard a single word of objection to those words being incorporated in the Bill—all this explanation would have been wholly unnecessary.
What he has told us is that as good landlords they will have regard to these things, and that, if they do not, the Government, or the Chancellor of the Exchequer, can give a direction that they should. I am still in some doubt whether the Chancellor can give a direction to require the Crown Commissioners to do something which in terms they are not obliged to do under tie Bill. They may do it, and no doubt, so long as the Crown Commissioners are directed by the spirit of good public relations, they will. But if they decided in a particular case that the stakes were so high that the interests of good management and the return that they could not superseded the interests of good planning, they would be in a position to consider the profit rather than the interest of the amenities of the neighbourhood. In that case, I still say that the Chancellor could not require them to exercise their functions in the way he would wish it.
However, having said hat, I am prepared to admit that the point is, to a great extent perhaps, somewhat academic, because I cannot imagine that the Crown Commissioners would, in fact, wish to challenge a direction if the Minister felt disposed to issue one. If I have the assurance, and if my noble
1058
friend is satisfied with the assurance, that in practice the Chancellor will have regard to town planning considerations if, by some chance, the Commissioners should omit them, I shall be content.
This might arise in specific cases of great public interest and controversy. For instance, I do not know who is the owner of Piccadilly Circus, about which there has been a good deal of fuss; but in that case it is no doubt the fact that the interest of getting good value has dominated the interests of good town planning. In such a case (and this is purely hypothetical, because I have no idea who are the owners of Piccadilly Circus),if the owners do happen to be the Crown Commissioners, and if the Chancellor would be prepared to step in and say, "You must have regard to good town planning, even if your return is slightly less", then, as I have said, I do not imagine the Crown Commissioners would want to dispute that, or to go to the courts and say that, under subsection (4) of Clause 1 of the Bill, the Minister has no right to issue such a direction. I cannot conceive of that. So I am content if it is clearly understood that they will have regard to town planning considerations, and that, if necessary, the Chancellor would exercise his power of issuing a direction under subsection (4) of Clause 1. In those circumstances, subject to the agreement of my noble friends, I should not wish to impede the business of the House, and I would agree to the Bill's receiving a Third Reading to-day.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for what he has said, and I am sorry that. I have not been able to satisfy him entirely by getting the inclusion of the additional words in this subsection. I do not think it would be the wish of the House that I should again go over the ground which we covered on Second Reading and on Committee stage, as to the precise difference between good management and town planning, and as to the precise duties and the nature of the Crown Estate Commissioners' Office.
As for the assurance for which he has asked me, I do not on my own authority, of course, give such an assurance, but I cannot help feeling that really such an assurance is implicit in this legal opinion which I have given, and which,

1059
as I said, has been approved by my noble and learned friend who sits on the Woolsack. I cannot believe that the Law Officers of the Crown, and therefore the Chancellor of the Exchequer, would in any way differ from this interpretation. I hope that the noble Lord will consider that a satisfactory reply; and I really feel that there is nothing to worry about. I think that he himself is fairly confident that the Crown Estate Commissioners will comply with any such direction, and would not argue the case in a matter of town planning where the Minister became involved. I thank noble Lords very much for their consent and agreement.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Then Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of July 13):
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be read 3a.—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed.

CROFTERS (SCOTLAND) BILL
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of July 13):
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (LORD CRAIGTON): My Lords, I have it in Command from Her Majesty the Queen to signify to the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Crofters (Scotland) Bill, has consented to place Her Majesty's interest, so far as it is concerned on behalf of the Crown, at the disposal of Parliament for the purpose of the Bill. My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Craigton.)
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed.

CREDIT-SALE AGREEMENTS (SCOTLAND) BILL
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of July 13), Bill read 3a, and passed.

JOMO KENYATTA
5.20 p.m.
THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE rose to ask Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are aware that the release of Jomo Kenyatta, a leader vowed to intimidatory practices, would be as disastrous to the other tribes of Kenya as to those of the Kikuyu tribe who proved their loyalty to the cause of law and order during and since the period of rebellion, and what steps they propose to take to avoid such consequences.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I rise to ask the Unstarred Question in my name on the Order Paper. The reason is because the Recess is close upon us and there have been various statements in the Press and rumours that we are within a short time of hearing the announcement of the release of the man who was convicted because of his management of the Mau Mau organisation. I feel that it is necessary to make a protest on behalf of those who feel bitter about it, not only in this country but also in Kenya. Therefore, I wish to put forward certain reasons why it appears to me that Kenyatta is not the man who should be given control of that Colony in some sort of high-up appointment, as is widely advertised.
The position is that his own people are solidly behind him, not only the so-called strong Government of K.A.D.U., the democratic side, representing the loyal tribes, but also K.A.N.U., the national side, representing chiefly the tribe of the Kikuyu, who were in opposition and refused to form a Government. That did not last long. Very soon both sides joined together and went in a deputation to Kenyatta and took his advice. Shortly after that, a delegation of both Parties was received. Altogether it is not a democracy; it is a coalition

1061
of people overwhelmingly supporting this curious man: an educated man, a travelled man, a man who has written a book and who has been given this extraordinary build-up, not only by his own people but by the Government.
There are many examples of this. One wonders whether the Colonial Office is really still in command in Kenya, because a group of foreign consuls were sent to visit this man. That is a most extraordinary thing, when you think that this country is supposed to be in command. By whose acquiesence or instigation did these foreign consuls go and interview this man, an ordinary man, without any special status? Another example is that Mr. Blundell, as was disclosed in part of the Press, went to see Kenyatta and then to a meeting of Africans, 2,000 of them, and is reported to have said, "I asked him whether he would like to be President" This man was a Minister and he told those 2,000 Africans, before any of u; here learned anything about it, that he had asked Kenyatta whether he would like to be President. It seems to me that that was certainly irregular and I should have thought perhaps unconstitutional.
Is it conceivable, I ask, that this man, with his background, which is certainly one of intimidation, can g ye Kenya any confidence of a happy future between all races? Some of the Africans are white, and look at the effect on the "high-ups". About three months ago, we heard that the senior civil servants were so averse to the proposal for the release of Kenyatta that they said that they could not go on if that were to happen. Now we know that 300 of them have given in their remission, have been promised a scale of compensation, and are coming home. Does it look likely that they, who know the country and have been interested in their work, feel that there is a happy future in store there?
We have also to protect those who were loyal to us in most difficult circumstances, the Kikuyu and other tribesmen in the employment of white men who went about their tasks and remained loyal. And there are the moderate, men, because not all Africans are wildly, frantically nationalistic. There are moderate men, who have had fine relations with the white people and like them, and the white people like them, too. But there is this
1062
dominant tribe. There are 11 tribes in Kenya, but there is a dominant one—the Kikuyu, a million and a quarter of them, who are more intelligent than the others and who are disliked by most of them I cannot help thinking that it will fare hardly for the other 10 tribes on the fringes of the country, remote from the capital Nairobi, which is also the centre of Kikuyudom, if such a man as Kenyatta, strongly supported by his tribesmen, were put in the chief power in that State.
There is also the question of land titles. Some of them were granted under a misunderstanding. When I first went there, the whole set-up of the country was as from India. The officials were from India. The rupee was the currency. The foremen on the railways, which after all were what made the country, were Indians. The set-up was from India and what our white people knew about English administration probably did not work there. The means of communication was the Swahili language, which is not the language of the tribes. Therefore, misunderstandings arose, and it is not surprising. In 1933 the Carter Commission reported, among other things, that the extravagant demands of the Kikuyu race were embittering relations between the races. The Carter Commission took an infinity of evidence; they produced a wonderful Report and made recommendations, many of which were carried out and which it was hoped would solve the bitterness of feeling in those who thought that What they had always regarded as their lands had been taken away from them.
Our chief hope, as I see it, is the suggestion emanating from Julius Nyerere, the African Chief Minister—that Heaven-sent man of common sense and imagination, surely shaping into the stature of a statesman—of retaining the services of the High Commission Territories, which are the three Governments working over a wonderful organisation embracing 2,000 White people and administering 21 services which are common between the three countries. Nyerere suggested that as we are going in for giving independence in other directions, why not give independence to the great block of those three countries under the High Commission?
I fear that Kenyatta, the leader of that wedge of Kikuyu, might not make for happy relations with the Buganda and Uganda States, and with Nyerere's country, Tanganyika. I find unthinkable the possibility of the hand of one of our Royal Family having to be put into the hand of such a man.
5.32 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I apologise to your Lordships for speaking on two or three occasions this afternoon, but it so happens that, by coincidence, the Government have put down a number of matters in which I am interested. That is the reason, and not any undue tendency to inflict my views on your Lordships. On this Question of the noble Earl, Lord Albemarle, I should like, first of all, to raise a point of form. We have recently had the matter of what things can be put in a Question brought to our attention. I know that in this House we have nothing laid down, as it were, but the noble and learned Viscount who leads the House gave an indication about a month ago that tendentious matter should not appear in a Question. I feel that this Question as framed by the noble Earl, as I am sure he will agree on consideration, is rather tendentious, when it refers to a man as
"a leader vowed to intimidatory practices"
and then goes on about these other matters.
TILE EARL OF ALBEMARLE: My Lords, may I say that I made research, but I could not find the noble Lord's interpretation?
LORD OGMORE: I have said that I do not think it is clearly laid down, but we did have an indication from the noble and learned Viscount the Leader of the House, when the noble Lard, Lord Boothby, made what I considered a rude comment about London Airport. I understand that there is a Committee sitting at the moment, or about to sit, and I think they might well look into this matter, as it would be a help to us all in framing our Questions. As I say, I do not think there is any rule about it, but, in my view—I may be in a minority on it—tendentious matter should not appear in a Question.
As to the merits of this Question, I think the noble Earl has himself indi-
1064
cated in the course of his speech what the difficulty is. He has used the words (I took a note of them) that "Jomo Kenyatta has the overwhelming support of his people". I think the noble Earl said that twice. If a man has the overwhelming support of his people, then he is a difficult man for the Government—both Her Majesty's and the Government of Kenya—to ignore, when, as is the case, Kenya is approaching self-government. How can you ignore the views of such a man who has the overwhelming support of his people (if he has it; and I daresay he has a good deal, although I do not think he has the overwhelming support) at this stage, especially when he is still detained by the Government of Kenya?
The noble Earl has told us, quite frankly, that consuls have been to see Jomo Kenyatta. There are no embassies in Kenya, because it is a Crown Colony, and they have consuls; they are sort of embryo ambassadors. The Minister, Mr. Blundell, has also been to see him. Why do these people go to see Jomo Kenyatta? They do not go to see the ordinary detainee. There have been scores of thousands of detainees in Kenya, but this is the only one they have been to see. Why is that? Is it not an indication of the fact that this is a highly important detainee, and a man with whom the Government will have to deal in one way or another, and will, I believe, quite shortly, have to consider in other ways?
In my view—I make no Party point about this; it is not a Party point, because all sorts of Governments have been been concerned—we mishandled Jomo Kenyatta from the beginning. I bold no brief for him: he was convicted of a crime and served his sentence of imprisonment, and ever since he has been detained. I am not here to defend his character or anything else, but I believe that early on he was wrongly treated. When Jomo Kenyatta came back to Africa, he was one of the first intellectual nationalists, of whom in recent years since the war we have seen so many. The Government at that time, instead of bringing him in and making him share some of the responsibilities of Government, failed to do so, they kept him out. They suggested to him that, if be wanted to get experience in government he

1065
should go to the local native authority of the place from which he came and learn it there. That my have been good or bad advice, but it was not enough for a man who, as.he noble Earl has indicated, had been over here and written a book, At The Foot of Mount Kenya—
THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE: He had been to Russia, too.
LORD OGMORE: Yes, he had been to Russia, but a lot of people have been to Russia, both before and since, and it does not mean that they are Communists. I need not go through the people of the noble Earl's Party who have recently been to Russia. The point is that this was a special kind of man, who had been educated here, who knew and had met politicians here, who had travelled in Europe, and who had even been to Russia. I think it was a great mistake to say to a man like that when he came home: "You cannot come into the Legislative Council. You must go back to Gthunguri", or somewhere, and there join the local authority. They were, of Bourse, dealing with minor matters; they had no financial responsibility and very few other responsibilities at that time.
Be that as it may, that went on, and there arose a complete breach between Jomo Kenyatta and the Government. I first met him in 1948, I think it was. I was asked to go and address a large number of Kikuyu—thousands upon thousands of them—in Kikuyuland, in a sort of Roman amphitheatre, where the speaker stood down at the bottom, and there was range upon range of Africans going up the sides, almost as high as this Chamber, and there was Jomo in the middle of them. It was obvious then to anybody who had eyes in his head that Jomo Kenyatta had enormous power and influence among the Kikuyu. At that time the Kikuyu were an intelligent, active tribe. They were the most political tribe in East Africa. They were quite different from the others, and they were one of the original agricultural tribes in East Africa; most of the others were pastoral.
Jomo Kenyatta formed a training college and a series of schools. The Government's view at that time was that these were subversive, and they did everything they possibly could to decry
1066
them. My own view at that time—and I expressed it then; I am not looking through the telescope the wrong way—was that either you had to support these schools and the work they were doing or you closed them down. My view was that you should support them and give them a certain amount of funds, inspect them, and turn them into a really good educational system, or close them down. It was no good doing nothing about subscribing towards them and grumbling all the time that they were subversive. In other words, the Kenya Government got the worst of both worlds in their attitude. That is the background to much of this. Eventually, as we know, Jomo Kenyatta was very much implicated in the Mau Mau movement, or at any rate in the movement that led up to Mall Mau. I do not know how much actual implication in that movement or in the movements that led up to it was proved against him, but he went to gaol and ever since has been in detention.
If I may say so, I think the Colonial Secretary is right over this question, and I hope it will not embarrass him for me to say so. I believe the Colonial Office are taking the right course—in other words, they are being neither too hasty nor too dilatory. You have to consider opinion in Kenya and here. You cannot rush these things. On the other hand, you do not Want to be too dilatory. They brought Kenyatta down quite near to Nairobi where he could be seen by people who wanted to see him, and little by little they are giving the opportunity to people to see him. I have no doubt at all that, quite soon, perhaps in a few months, he will be released. I think he should be, and I will tell your Lordships why. 1[t is pretty obvious that the Government have the view that, by the end of 1962, in all probability Kenya will get self-government. It will not necessarily be independent at that time. The Government have never stated that, but I think that is the sort of period they have in mind—either the end of 1962 or the middle of 1963. It is essential, to my mind, that they release Jomo Kenyatta while the British still have control in Kenya. I think it would be most unfortunate in every possible way if we handed over to the young African Government, who will have full power

1067
and control, this enormous problem of Jomo Kenyatta. We put him into detention, and we should take him out.
I do not argue with the Government, because I have not the knowledge which they have, of the right timing as to when Jomo should be released. That is a matter for them, and I should not interfere. I never have interfered with the rights of a Governor to dictate policy of that sort. I would only say, as a matter of principle, that whatever we do we should release him before we hand over our power to the African Government which is to take over. If we do not, we may involve that African Government in very grave difficulties indeed. The recent statements of Jomo Kenyatta have shown that he is anxious to play his full part in the new Kenya. After all, a good many years have gone by, and while he has been in detention he may well have changed his mind on many points. I hope he will play his part—and a very important part it will be, do not let us forget, in the new Kenya. But there is just the chance that he, being a Kikuyu, will have difficulties with the Nandi, the Masai and the Coast Tribes. There is just that chance, and I do not think it is a chance we should leave to the new, inexperienced African Government that will take over from us. It is a difficulty we should face and which we should overcome while we still have responsibility.
5.45 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, in his opening words, did not wish in any way to mislead the House, but I think he himself misapprehends the character of an Unstarred Question in your Lordships' House. An Unstarred Question, if I understand it aright, is just a Motion like any other in this House, except that the mover has no right of reply. In every other respect there are no differences between the two. Therefore, I believe that the noble Earl, Lord Albemarle, was entirely within the Rules of Order in tabling his Question. Indeed, I am sure that we should all be grateful to him for raising this matter this afternoon.
I must confess, if I may say so, that I was a little shocked by some things in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore. There can, of course, be very
1068
few of us whose susceptibilities have not been sadly blunted in these days by all we have been through in the last few decades, and who are not rather less fastidious than we used to be. There are all too many of us, I am afraid, whose tendency is to acquiese without a murmur in things which would have led almost to a political crisis in earlier times. But it is surely salutary (and I would say this particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore) that we should sometimes he pulled up sharply and made to realise how far our standards have been deteriorating, and that we should be asked to consider whether, even now, a halt could not be called to that deterioration. This, I suggest, is a classic case when we may fairly ask the Government for reassurance, just when Parliament is separating for the long Summer Recess.
As I understand it, up to now—and no doubt the noble Earl, Lord Perth, will correct me if I am wrong—Her Majesty's Government have continued to reiterate, whenever questioned, that they have no intention of releasing Jomo Kenyatta; and I sincerely hope that there is no intention of altering that decision now. But we all equally know that the Government are under steadily increasing pressure to release him, not only from nationalist African leaders in Kenya itself, but also from certain quarters in this country. The case for doing so was deployed, I think, with admirable clarity in a leading article in The Times as far back as April 10 of this year. If I refer rather extensively to that article, it is not for the purpose of making an attack upon The Times, but merely because the article in question is, I think, the strongest and most detailed exposition that I have yet read of the case for releasing him.
First of all, the article pointed out—rather. I think, on the lines on which the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, spoke this afternoon—that the fact that Kenyatta, who was a dominant African figure in the public life of Kenya, was still segregated or detained, or whatever you like to call it, was causing increased tension and bitterness, and seriously prejudicing the healthy advance of that country towards independence. It was admitted that his release would be unwelcome in both official and unofficial quarters,

1069
European and African, in Kenya, and also among wide sections of opinion here in l3ritain. But these people the article said are gradually becoming accustomed to the idea that Kenyatta's release is inevitable. After all, it claimed with some satisfaction, British Governments always do give 'way to violence.
What, it asked, about Archbishop Makarios? He was responsible for (to use the euphemistic phrase of The Times) "a campaign of armed violence against British rule"—Iwhich meant, in other words, that he was responsible for a terrorist organisation which led to the killing, not only of British soldiers, but of unarmed civilians, men and women, bath British and Cypriot, in circumstances of great brutality Yet,it was pointed out that he was entirely accepted, and to-day sits it the table in the odour of sanctity with other representatives of the British Commonwealth. If that is possible, so runs the argument, in the case of the Archbishop, why not in the case of Kenyatta? Why cannot he, too, join the company of leaders of this new British Commonwealtih, of which the Prime Minister has such high hopes that it will be much better than the old?
Of course there is that complication of the bestial oaths and practices connected with Mau Mau, but it is fair to say—and I understood this to be the view of The Times, and also, I take it, of the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore—that Kenyatta's responsibility for these excesses, and I quote again,
"was at most indirect,"
whatever that may mean; and indeed the article goes on to say.:
"…it is open to assume,"—
on grounds not stated: of course it is open to assume anything on grounds not Stated—
"that Kenyatta never intended such excesses".
That is very much the wane type of argument that has been advanced to us to-day. In any case, it was said—and this was the conclusive argument:
"…it hardly seems right that a man who has … served his sentence for actions for which he was directly responsible should be held in restraint for ever fcr their indirect consequences."
That is to absolve him a together from what I can only call the flimsy assumptions of responsibility for all the more
1070
horrid manifestations of Mau Mau. That is something which I simply cannot believe, and it also ignores, I think, one essential consideration. It is one thing to say that man has paid the penalty for his offences; it is quite a different thing to say that that man is suitable to be Prime Minister.
Why! my Lords, in this country, or indeed in any other decent country, a man who had been guilty of such offences as those for which Kenyatta was convicted would be hounded permanently from public life and would probably have had to leave the country altogether. Yet in this case, as we know, it is admitted by everyone that a primary purpose of releasing him would be to enable him to play a leading part in guiding the future destinies of his country. How is it possible to defend that? It could lead only, I should think, to a further steady degradation.of public life.
If we accepted Jomo Kenyatta, after all that has happened, as political leader of Kenya, then the large majority of decent citizens, Africans and Europeans, in that country could come to only one conclusion: that there was absolutely no point act which Her Majesty's Government were prepared to make a stand. Even The Times itself, in the leading article which I have already quoted, says this:
"Kenyatta … is not a leader on a par with other leaders who have made their peace and been received into the community of the Cornmonwealth.… The other African leaders of contemporary times have concentrated on leading their people towards the light. Kenyatta's movement was preoccupied with the darkness, and it was consciously recidivist and atavistic".
And the article concludes
"… Were Kenya to become independent, with Kenyatta as Chief Minister … one clear consequence is that Kenya could not be a member of the Commonwealth…"
And yet, my Lords, if I understand aright, it is the declared policy of Her Majesty's Government to give independence to Kenya act a very early date.
My Lords, for these reasons which I have stated, I urge Her Majesty's Government, before it is too late, to give some consideration to the arguments which some of us have urged on them this afternoon. One thing more, if I may say so with very great deference: I hope

1071
that we shall not be told that the release is ultimately a matter for the Governor of Kenya and not for Her Majesty's Government here. No one, at any rate no one with Cabinet experience, could swallow that: he would know, and know certainly, that any decision of that importance must require and receive approval of the Colonial Secretary and the Cabinet. I hope very much that the Government will tell us in their reply that we who have spoken this afternoon are banging at an open door. I hope we shall be told clearly and unequivocally that there is no intention of changing the Government policy over Kenyatta. Indeed, I appeal most earnestly to them to give such a reply. But—and this is the last thing I want to say—if, in fact, there has been a change in Government policy, I hope equally that we shall be told this now, before Parliament rises, in order that we may immediately seek absolute assurances as to the security not only of Europeans in Kenya but of the many thousands of loyal Kikuyus against new perils and anxieties which these unhappy people must already most certainly see looming ahead.
5.57 p.m.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, I wish to intervene for a few moments as we are on the eve of a long adjournment, and matters may happen during the Recess which we shall have no opportunity of considering. May I say immediately that I am in full agreement with my noble friend who has just spoken, that of course all this is entirely in order upon an Unstarred Question. I wish to emphasise that, because there has been a great deal of consideration lately on what is or is not the right procedure in your Lordships' House.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I was not querying for one moment that it was in order on an Unstarred Question; I was asking whether the form of the Question, that is to say, what might be regarded as tendentious statements in the Question, was in order; and I was suggesting that this is the sort of thing—because the Orders of the House do not help us very much—that the Procedure Committee might consider.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: I see; it was the manner on which the noble Lord was lecturing my noble friend, and
1072
not the matter. In that case, I think I can leave it and say—
LORD OGMORE: That is very offensive. I have been a Member of this House for eleven years, and I do not "lecture" anybody. I asked what I thought was a perfectly reasonable question, and the noble Earl, Lord Albemarle, made no bones about it. He did not think I was "lecturing" him. I asked whether the form of the Question was in accord with the practice of the House. I asked a question, and I should like the Procedure Committee to look at it. Tendentious statements in a Question are not desirable in my view.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: I do not know why the noble Lord is so sensitive; I have often heard him very critical of persons. I was saying—and I gather it is quite true—that what the noble Lord was criticising was the manner of my noble friend and not the matter of the Question.
My comment is that we have here a Question which raises the future of Kenya. It has been said, I think, many times, both by the Government here and in Kenya, that the release of Jomo Kenyatta is a matter which must depend upon security in Kenya. Now I entirely agree with my noble friend that that, of course, is a matter which is primarily one for the Governor of Kenya. But the ultimate responsibility—and in a grave matter like this no action would be taken by the Governor without the fullest consultation with the Secretary of State—for Kenyatta's release must therefore be a primary and very important matter of Government policy for which the Government here would take the fullest responsibility. Any of us who has held office as Secretary of State would treat that as a matter of course.
I do not quarrel with the statement that this must depend upon security. I think it is very odd that to-day it is said punishment wipes all out. To some extent that is true, but in this particular instance I do not think one can fail to remember what was the whole attitude of this man as found in a court of law. It may be quite true, as the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, said, that he is a man with great influence in Kenya. Influence is exercised in African countries not as it is here, just by argument and by influence and by leadership; it is exercised

1073
through more sinister channels, very often by intimidation, by witchcraft, and by those strange appeals to what lies below the surface.
All that surely has to be taken fully into account, and I would say, let this matter depend on security. But what do we mean by security? It is a pretty wide question, and on that the life of Kenya depends. Of course, in the first place, security means the maintenance of law and order, which is the primary duty of any Government in any country. I would say to the Government, if I may, you are fully justified, in a country where for some years masses of British troops were employed and large numbers of Africans—much larger numbers of Africans than Et ropeans—were killed, in holding the man unless you are satisfied that security, in the.sense of the maintenance of law and order, will be maintained.
My Lords, I make no apology for travelling a little wide on this Question which my noble friend has asked. Security is not only the maintenance of law and order. Security, as surely we should know to-day in the economic situation of this country, is a matter of the country being viable, the country being prosperous, the country being able to pay its way. That is relevant to this matter for this reason: if in Kenya a situation is allowed to arise where people are uncertain of the whole of their future, then the security, in the sense of the economic security of the country, is jeopardised.
I do not think I have ever been a retrogressive person in the: administration of colonial territories, but one thing is quite certain in Kenya: the viability of that country depends upon the success of the farming of the White Highlands. Nobody who knows Kenya will deny that for a moment; it all depends upon that. The people there are anxious to-day. If the farmers do not farm, and farm in the efficient way in which they are doing to-day—and on their work I suppose 80 per cent. of the exports of that country, as well as its internal supplies, depend—if they are driven into expediency farming of cash crops and the whole rotation goes down, then, at a time when they can least afford it, the whole economy will go. Successful farming is equally in the interests of the natives,
1074
whether they be Kikuyu or Masai or Meru or whoever they are, as it is in the interests of the limited number of white settlers.
It so happens that I had to take responsibility for the whole delimitation of the White Highlands. I appointed an extremely able Committee under Sir Joseph Carter, the great Chief Justice, with two other members. That Committee made a Report (it is all in a Blue Book which was published) in which they delimited the White Highlands. They gave to the native tribes, the Kikuyu and to a certain extent the Meru as well, a larger area than had been expected, and they said that ought to be put into an Order in Council. But they said, "Although we have delimited it in this way, we should be failing if while we are giving this complete security for now and the future to the natives, we did not, or Her Majesty's Government did not, at the same time give an equal security to the white settlers." One can call them settlers; they are people some of whom have been in the White Highlands now for two or three generations. The Committee recommended that the area of the White Highlands in the occupation of the settlers should be given this complete security by being put into a British Order in Council, and that was done by an Order in Council which I think was passed in 1939.
I raise this matter because I believe it is vital to maintain with certainty and integrity the title of these men upon whom the whole economic life of Kenya depends, whether you do it by a new Order in Council here, or whether you do it by assuming a financial liability. It will fall upon you anyhow if the Colony goes bankrupt; I have had, as my noble friend has had, to administer Colonies when half of them were on the dole and had to be kept by the British Treasury. I have said what I have said because I think it is just as important to give that security of tenure, and not only of tenure but of viability and prosperity to Kenya, as it is to give a security of law and order. I do not ask the Minister of State to answer that point offhand, but, having myself had a rather peculiar responsibility in this matter in the past, some time before the war, I feel I should be doing less than justice to the whole of Kenya unless I

1075
took this opportunity of putting that upon record.
6.8 p.m.
LORD MILVERTON: My Lords, in rising to make what I hope will be a very brief contribution to this debate, I propose to keep closely to the wording and, I think, the meaning of the Question which was asked by the noble Earl. It would be easy to dilate on the Administration in Kenya, and so on, but I have no intention of wasting your Lordships' time on that. Before I say what I want to say, I should like, with reference to what the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore said, to remind your Lordships that the influence of Kenyatta in Kenya—and it has been immense in the past, and doubtless is immense to-day—is not based on affection; it is not a case of following a great leader. The man is a man of great magnetic personality, but he rules by fear. That has been proved over and over again. The documents about Kenya are many, and I have read quite a number of them. I also had the advantage, if it was an advantage, of spending a month in Kenya, an intensive month at the height of Mau Mau troubles. I was invited to go there by the European Settlers Association to see for myself what it was like. I am sorry to say that I did see what it was like. I spent a most intensive month studying, so far as I could, and coming to some conclusions as to its causes. I do not propose to weary your Lordships with reflections on the past, as the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, did. With respect, I do not think that the hypothetical mistakes of the past have any real relevance to the future of Kenya. It is too late to do anything about that. I want to take the facts as they are to-day.
One thing we have to remember about Jomo Kenyatta is that he was the leader of the Mau Mau, that it was only after the return of Kenyatta to Kenya in 1946 that K.C.A. and all his other friends in the central organisation turned (and there is plenty of documentary evidence about this) to the venomous idea of Mau Mau; and slowly that appallingly vicious movement began. Again, it has been hinted at, if not actually stated, to-night, that Mau Mau, in its worst debaucheries and atrocities, started only after the arrest
1076
of Kenyatta. That is not true. It has been amply proved to be not true.
It is only two or three months ago that Mr. Norman Harris delivered a public address in London. He is a man who had been for ten years a member of the Legislative Council. He was until recently Minister for Information in Kenya. He knew Kenyatta in the earlier days and latterly, and he points out that in the earlier days of 1952, when Kenyatta was still dominant there, that case after case about Mau Mau and the oathing ceremonies were brought to the courts and it was impossible to get witnesses. Witnesses who had promised to come disappeared, and, as Mr. Harris pointed out in his lecture, over the next few years the graves of 6,000 witnesses were slowly identified throughout Kikuyuland, and all of them bore the marks of the familiar Kikuyu strangling cord. Those were the men that Kenyatta could not afford to have coming to court. If he had been a popular leader, that could not have happened. I say that only in passing.
Let us remember that he was convicted of being the leader of Mau Mau; that he appealed to the Supreme Court of Kenya; he appealed from there to the Appeal Court of East Africa, and from there to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. In each case the conviction was upheld. As the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, said, one must remember the sort of man we are dealing with and talking about. As noble Lords may not place much value on my view of certain individuals, perhaps they will accept the view of a man whose friendship and concern for the African, whatever else one may think about some of his views, is unquestioned—I refer to Father Trevor Huddleston. In December, 1952, shortly after the arrest of Kenyatta, Father Huddleston wrote this:
"Mau Mau is a movement which in its origins and in its development is wholly evil. It is the worst enemy of African progress in Kenya. It has about it all the horror of the powers of darkness: of spiritual wickedness in high places. There can be no compromise, no common ground, between Mau Mau and the rest of the civilised world. It must be utterly destroyed if the peoples of Kenya are to live together and build up their country."
My Lords, it is the originator and the leader of that movement whom certain

1077
people say they would like to see released and made the Prime Minister of an independent Kenya. I think the facts speak for themselves.
The other suggestion which is made, and has been hinted at to-day, is that Jomo Kenyatta has mellowed and changed in his outlook. All the evidence of those who are qualified to judge is quite the reverse of that. We are told by people who have seen him recently that today he is full of mental and physical power, and possesses in a high degree this almost mesmeric power, the magnetic personality which he has always possessed. But here again perhaps the comment of somebody who speaks with more authority than I do would be better. The Governor of Kenya on May 9, 1960, said this:
"In the light of my studies I should be compelled to receive with the greatest reserve any statements from Jomo Kenyatta of changed outlook or new intentions."
We know very well what his old outlook was, and what his old intentions were.
In conclusion, my Lords, I should like to quote a sentence or two from an impressive address delivered by the noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack to the National Liberal Forum on "Liberty and the Rule of Law". I was present and had the privilege of listening to that most impressive address. One of the statements of the noble and learned Viscount that I should like to quote is this:
"Some people argue that modern trends make liberty under the law archaic. There are many reasons why it is important to stand by convictions that liberty and the rule of law matter. We must not allow ourselves to drift with the stream of events and tendencies."
My Lords, as a bewildered Back-Bencher who is a great supporter of Her Majesty's present Government, I ask the noble Earl who is to reply to this Question to put our misgivings and our bewilderment at rest by giving us some definite answer about what is being repeatedly stated in the papers: that Jomo Kenyatta's release is imminent, and that the British Government are going to agree to alter the Constitution of Kenya so as to eliminate the clause which says that no person who has been convicted and served more than a two-year sentence in prison can become a member of the Legislative Council. It seems to me quite unbelievable that that
1078
could be done, but it shows the extent of my bewilderment that I ask the Government to say that it is not and could not be so.
6.19 p.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, and the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, both former Colonial Secretaries to whom the House listens with special interest when a Colony is being discussed, and the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, and the noble Earl, Lord Albemarle—four out of five speakers in the debate this afternoon—have taken the view that Kenyatta should not be released, and have urged the Government by means of the arguments that they have used to support this view, to say that this is a policy to which they adhere. The opposite view has been expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore. It is a view which I think deserves the consideration of the House and of the Government, and a view which I shall endeavour to support in my few remarks this afternoon.
I am sure everyone appreciates that the opinion which is so widely held, that Jomo Kenyatta should have the restrictions which still prevent him from taking part in the political life of Kenya removed, is not confined to any Party or any race. I read with some interest the Hansard Report of a debate in another place yesterday on East and Central Africa. I noted that there were two Conservative Back-Benchers, Mr. Berkeley and Mr. Fisher, both of whom know a great deal about Africa, who took the view that it was in the interests of Kenya that Kenyatta should be released from confinement. This view, of course, is also shared by some Europeans in Kenya, by Mr. Blundell, whom all of us who know him respect, and by the members of his Party. So it is not a view confined, either here or in Africa, to any one Party or any race; it is a view held by many persons of many different Parties and of different races.
I think it is fair to say that in Africa, certainly the bulk of African opinion, the overwhelming bulk of African opinion in Kenya, is in favour of release; and that was the view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, with which I think the noble Earl, Lord

1079
Albemarle, agreed—I thought he did. If not, I am sorry; I misunderstood him. But if that view is correct—and I think it is—then surely the very great volume of opinion, both here and in Africa, is a factor that should be taken into consideration by the Government in deciding whether or not to adhere to their present policy.
If Kenyatta were released, then obviously one of two things would happen: he could use his influence either for good or for ill. The assumption of all the noble Lords who have spoken against his release has been that he would use his influence for ill. But, my Lords, on this assumption, if this were to happen—and no one can be certain that it would happen, although nobody could be certain that it might not happen—surely Kenyatta could be detained again, and those of us who thought the risk was worth taking would then be convinced that it was a bad risk. I think there is a tremendous amount of force in the argument used by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore: that if Kenyatta is going to be released he should be released while British authority in Kenya can still be enforced, while he cannot do any serious harm; and that this release should not be deferred until an African Government comes into power and we are no longer in a position to restrain them—because released he will be sooner or later, whether it is by us or by the Africans. I am sure that the lesser risk is for us to do it.
But now let us look at the opposite possibility. I do not think that even the noble Lords opposite could deny that there is a possibility that Kenyatta might use his influence for good. If he were to do so, there is no individual in Kenya who could do more for that Colony and for the whole of East Africa. In Kenya he would bring about political stability by bringing K.A.N.U., the biggest African Party, into support of the Government; and the Government of Kenya will continue to be unstable until it can secure the support of African opinion, which is mainly represented by K.A.N.U. with the largest number of African-elected members of the Legislature. He could do much more than that for Kenya. He could do more than anyone else to secure a fair deal for all the races, which is what all of
1080
us on both sides of this House desire. This would be the greatest service he could render to his own country.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, thinks that Kenyatta has not changed his attitude during his time in prison. On the other hand, he has made statements which suggest that his attitude may have changed. Those statements were referred to, quite rightly, by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore. I myself believe that there is no good reason to suppose, from what we have heard of Kenyatta's views in the last few months, that he will not behave in a reasonable and sensible way and try to do what is best for his people and his country. He could do an immense amount for East Africa. He could take up the lead given by Mr. Nyerere for an East African Federation and put the weight of Kenya behind it. It is surely in a federal relationship between the East African territories that British East Africa would find the closest political co-operation and the best chance of economic progress and prosperity.
I know that the noble Earl, Lord Albemarle, took the view that this was a man we could not trust; that we could not take the risk of giving him political power. But, after all, my Lords, this is a risk we have often taken in the past, and a risk that has been taken with success. No fewer than three of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers at the present time have served terms of imprisonment owing to their instigation of violence or participation in violence against British rule. So a man cannot be ruled out simply for the reason that he has been involved in resistance or violence towards the British Government.
What I should like to ask the Government to do is this. I am not expecting the Government, and I would not ask the Government, to change their policy at the present time—I know that that would be a vain hope. But I do ask the Government to refuse to accept the suggestion of the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, that the door should be closed. I hope that the Government will not fetter their action in the future; that they will be free to change their mind, as I hope their mind will change at the appropriate moment. And I believe that it would be very reassuring to many of us if the noble Earl who is to reply could

1081
tell us that there is no rigid position in the Government's attitude to Kenyatta and that the Government are still entirely free to do what they think right in the circumstances and as they develop in time to come. But I hope very much—because I am sure that the sooner these things are done tie better—that the release of Kenyatta will not be postponed for any considerable time.
6.30 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COLONIAL AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF PERTFE): My Lords, I do not believe the noble Earl, Lord Albermarle, would expect me to answer his Question in specific terms; nor do I think other noble Lords would expect me so to do. Before I try to deal with the debate as it has gone, I would just say to the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, that it is not for me, I think, to comment on the point that he has raised about the form of Question. In what I say, therefore, I am in no way judging what may or may not be in that point.
I will start by saying I understand very well the reasons which dictated the Question of the noble Earl, Lord Albermarle—and, indeed, the background or the reasons which all noble Lords have had when they spoke this afternoon as they did. I can assure him and all those noble Lords who have spoken this afternoon that I will draw to the attention of my right honourable friend and of the Governor of Kenya what they have said. It is perhaps worth recalling how, in his statement of May 10, 1960, and more particularly in his statement of a few months ago, in March of this year, the Governor asked everyone in Kenya to work actively to bring to an end the divisions and personal fears among the Kiku3u peoples and other people in Kenya, and to produce an atmosphere of stable political achievement on the Lancaster House pattern. Views may vary on just how far this has already been achieved, but I would join with my r gilt honourable friend in paying high tribute to the Kenya Government for the way they have operated the new Constitution and have tackled the complex day-to-day questions in Kenya. I feel, with him, that, on the whole, it is fair to say that Kenya has moved forward through the
1082
months since the Election with remarkable calm.
All the same, the noble Earl, in his Question, fears the consequences of Mr. Kenyatta's release, and on this I do not think that I can do more than refer him to the debate in another place yesterday, to which the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, has referred, and in particular to quote what my right honourable friend said during that debate in reply to a question about Kenyatta's release from restriction. He said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 645 (No. 155), col 262]:
"I have a duty to fulfil and so has the Governor. We shall discharge that duty in the best way we can, and I shall inform the House as soon as possible of any decision. I assure the hon. Gentleman that nothing except the proper considerations of law and order and the well-being of Kenya will enter into the considerations of either the Governor or myself."
My Lords, I think that this answers the point raised by the noble Marquess: that the Government are not going to Shelter behind The Governor in this respect. This, of course, is something on which the Governor has his responsibility; so has the Secretary of State, and so have the Government. I believe that not only is this the right and proper form to be followed, but also that it bears out what has been consistently our policy in regard to this question of the release of Kenyatta or any other of the detainees. We are under obligation to review from time to time the restriction orders. Indeed, a little while ago the Governor said—and I quote him:
"It is not my view that Jomo Kenyatta should be kept in restriction indefinitely".
But What are the considerations which come into this decision? As I have quoted, the considerations of law and order are paramount. However, as the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, said, there is something further, which again was included in the statement of my right honourable friend—namely, the wellbeing of Kenya. In such considerations the Governor will be taking into account the sort of anxieties and views that have been expressed by your Lordships this afternoon, as well, of course, as the views of those out in Kenya, whether they are concerned with security, the Administration, the Government, the loyalists, as referred to in the noble Earl's Question, or what I would term the general opinion of those in Kenya.

1083
My Lords, I do not believe that it is useful for me to try to deal in detail with the various individual points that have been raised this afternoon, with one or two exceptions. Frankly, I should be afraid lest, in expressing, perhaps, personal opinions in certain respects with regard to other views which have been raised, they could be misunderstood and misread. I would, however, touch on two points, the first being that raised by the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, on the question of the disqualification of those who have served two years in prison in Kenya. As the noble Lord may know, there was a debate in the Kenya House a week or two ago, the outcome of which was a Motion calling for this law to be reviewed. My right honourable friend, being asked about what he was going to do—because it concerns him as well as the Governor—replied as follows in another place [OFFICIAL RFPORT, Commons, Vol. 644 (No. 152), col. 1443]:
"The Governor has forwarded the resolution in question for the consideration of Her Majesty's Government. I will examine the record of the debate on it in the Kenya Legislative Council when available. Thereafter I shall consider, in consultation with the Governor, what action, if any, should be taken."
The report has in fact just been received, and there is nothing more I can add to that to-day.
I would turn to the important point made by the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, on the question of title to land. This was something which was touched upon yesterday in Question and Answer, and it is something as to which the Government are both aware of the anxieties of the
1084
settlers and are very much concerned. The position at the present time is, I think, rather encouraging. I say encouraging because when both Parties—that is K.A.D.U., the Government Party and K.A.N.U.—were over here a short while ago for the East African High Commission discussions, we took the opportunity of talking with them both about Kenya matters in general. The outcome of those talks was a joint statement in which they said that they would discuss, under the chairmanship of the Governor, questions concerning the Constitution and questions concerning the rights of property. Now I think that it is an extremely important thing that both these African Parties should be ready to go into this question of the rights of property, and it has also been said that all those concerned will, of course, be called in to the discussions at the right time. I therefore think we can hope that there is light on that question—when you get general recognition that this is something which must be dealt with.
My Lords, I must confess that when I saw this Question I was rather worried at the prospect of having to reply, but I think that the points of view that have been put forward from all sides of the House are of great importance and of great value. I think the best thing that I can do is to undertake to your Lordships what I have already said I would do—namely, that I will draw the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, and that of the Governor, to the debate in detail, and tell them all that has passed here this afternoon.
House adjourned at twenty minutes before seven o'clock.