Lords Sitting of 31 July 1961

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of St. Edmundsbury and Ipswich

WEEDS ON COMMON LAND
2.35 p.m.
LORD BARNBY: 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 if they will state the obligations of local authorities seized with responsibility for common lands (other than woodlands) to keep such lands reasonably free from noxious weeds whose seed when neglected can be freely dispersed over neighbouring lands.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (EARL WALDEGRAVE): My Lords, I know of no statutory obligation on any occupier of land to keep it free from weeds, unless my right honourable friend has served a notice on him under the Weeds Act,
2
1959, which relates only to five specified weeds. A local planning authority has power to serve a notice under Section 33 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, to require the abating of a serious injury to amenity. However, there are complicated legal problems involved, and perhaps the noble Lord would send me details of any case that may be causing him concern.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his reply—I recognise the complexity of the position—and also for his courtesy in telling me in advance of the limited reply which he could give. With regard to the Report of the Royal Commission on Common Lands, I would ask a supplementary question of which I have given the noble Earl notice. Since a good deal of time has passed since the Report was published is he able to give any indication when he may expect some legislation arising out of that Report?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, I am afraid that I am not yet in a position to make a statement on the Government's proposals. As noble Lords know, the law relating to commons is extremely complex and obscure, and we are considering very carefully the recommendations of the Royal Commission.
LORD LATHAM: Would the noble Earl not agree that the whole problem of the commons is overgrown with weeds?

NEW BUILDING AND PALACE OF WESTMINSTER
LORD AMWELL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether it can be arranged to have a photograph taken from the middle of Waterloo Bridge and exhibited in the Library, or some other suitable place, depicting the architectural effect of the high building now in course of construction near to the Palace of Westminster.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (EARL JELLICOE): Yes, my Lords. I will let the noble Lord know when the photograph is available in the Library.
LORD AMWELL: I thank the noble Earl.

IRAQI DETENTION OF BRITISH SOLDIERS
2.38 p.m.
LORD HENDERSON: 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 if they will make a statement regarding the arrest of three British soldiers by the Iraqi authorities.]
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF HOME): My Lords on the morning of Sunday, July 23, two non-commissioned officers and a sapper of the 34th Field Squadron Royal Engineers set out in a Ferret scout car on a routine road check in the northern part of Kuwait. Scout cars carry armour for the protection of their occupants but this one was unarmed and the only weapons it contained were the personal ones of the crew. The party had instructions to stop at a check point twelve miles from the frontier but failed to do so and passed through it in the direction of the border. The country between the check post and the border is flat, featureless desert and the border is undemarcated.
4
It is now evident that the men lost their way, inquired it of an Arab boy, and were directed to the Iraqi post at Safwan, where they were arrested.
According to the latest reports, the men are at Baghdad, where our information is that they are being well treated, although no member of the staff of our Embassy at Baghdad has yet been allowed access to them. On July 25, Her Majesty's Embassy addressed a note to the Iraqi Ministry of Foreign Affairs asking for an assurance that the men and the vehicle would be returned to Kuwait and that in the meanwhile the Embassy should be permitted immediate access to the men. The Ambassador repeated these requests when he saw the Iraqi Foreign Minister on July 29. The only communication received as yet from the Iraqi Ministry of Foreign Affairs is a Note protesting at this incident, which it describes as a
"provocative, aggressive action, a breach of the sovereignty of Iraq and a violation of international law."
The Iraqi Government has also addressed a similar letter to the Security Council. The Iraqi Note said that the
"decision in the case had been entrusted to the investigating and judicial authorities."
We have not yet been informed of the results of this investigation.
The Iraqi authorities seem to be making rather heavy weather of an unfortunate human error; their investigation can reveal only that the men were guilty only of getting themselves lost.
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, I beg to thank the noble Earl for his reply. Arising out of it, may I ask him three supplementaries? First, has the noble Earl seen the report in the Press that a Baghdad newspaper has alleged that the three men have confessed to having been on a sabotage mission; and would he make a comment on that allegation, which is quite a serious, if not a sinister, one? Secondly, will the noble Earl continue to demand either the release of the men and the vehicle or, at any rate, that the Ambassador or a member of his staff should be allowed to see these men, in view of the fact that they are not prisoners of war but merely accidental trespassers into Iraqi territory? Thirdly, if the men are to undergo what seems to be little more than a propagandist demonstration for internal

5
purposes, if they are tried will the noble Earl see that they have a proper defence, both of their legal and other rights that may be involved?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I have seen the Press report from Iraq that these men have confessed that they were on a sabotage mission. That allegation is ridiculous—that is the only word I can use about it—and it can only be cheap propaganda. As we are not in a state of war with Iraq, certainly these men ought to be allowed to see a representative from the Embassy, and the Ambassador will continue to press that they should be allowed to do so. The answer to the noble Lord's third question is: Yes. Should this come to a trial, we shall certainly see that the men have proper representation; but I hope it will not. We have friendly relations with the Iraqi Government, in spite of what has happened, and I hope they will treat this matter, as I indicated in the last sentence of my original Answer, as one in which the men made a genuine mistake and there was no military intervention in Iraqi territory of any kind.
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble Earl.

BRITAIN AND THE COMMON MARKET
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I should like to inform the House that at a suitable moment after 3.30 my noble friend the Leader of the House will be making a statement on the Common Market.
RIVER RAVENSBOURNE &c. (IMPROVEMENT AND FLOOD PREVENTION) BILL
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed and returned to the Commons.
NEWPORT CORPORATION BILL
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed and returned to the Commons.
SUICIDE BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
LICENSING BILL
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.

PUBLIC HEALTH BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, it has been arranged through the usual channels that consideration of these Amendments should be taken to-morrow, Tuesday, as Wednesday will be occupied with the first day of the Common Market debate. It has been arranged that these Amendments should be printed, and they are now available in the Printed Paper Office.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES LORD MERTHYR): I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, that leave be given to advance the consideration of the First Report from the Procedure of the House Committee (which stands appointed for Wednesday next) to to-morrow.—(Lord Merthyr.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

GLASGOW CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Considered on Report (according to Order).

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (EARL BATHURST): My Lords, I beg to move the Order standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, that the order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Urban District of Dalton-in-Furness, be approved.—(Earl Bathurst.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COTTON WEAVING REORGANISATION SCHEME No. 2 (CONFIRMATION) ORDER, 1961
COTTON DOUBLING REORGANISATION SCHEME No. 2 (CONFIRMATION) ORDER, 1961
COTTON FINISHING (WOVEN CLOTH) REORGANISATION SCHEME No. 2 (CONFIRMATION) ORDER, 1961
COTTON SPINNING REORGANISATION SCHEME No. 2 (CONFIRMATION) ORDER, 1961
COTTON FINISHING (YARN PROCESSING) REORGANISATION SCHEME No. 2 (CONFIRMATION) ORDER, 1961
2.49 p.m.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORT-FOLIO (THE EARL OF DUNDEE): My Lords, these five Cotton Orders make an identical drafting Amendment to each of the five main Orders which were approved in 1959 and in 1960. Under subsection (4) of Section 1 of the Cotton Industry Act, 1959, the Cotton Board, which acts as the agent of the Board of Trade, is entitled to have its expenses with regard to reorganisation schemes reimbursed by the industry; and the original five Orders provide for that. The Cotton Board has been informed that reorganisation schemes do not necessarily include re-equipment schemes which are not specifically mentioned in the original Order, and these five amending Orders repair that omission. As provided for in the Act these Orders have been drafted after consultation with employers and employed, or their representatives, and they have agreed to them. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Cotton Weaving Reorganisation Scheme No. 2 (Confirmation) Order, 1961; the Draft Cotton Doubling Reorganisation Scheme No. 2 (Confirmation) Order, 1961; the Draft Cotton Finishing (Woven Cloth) Reorganisation Scheme No. 2 (Confirmation) Order, 1961; the Draft Cotton Spinning Reorganisation Scheme No. 2 (Confirmation) Order, 1961; and the Draft Cotton Finishing (Yarn
8
Processing) Reorganisation Scheme No. 2 (Confirmation) Order, 1961, be approved—(The Earl of Dundee.)
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, while reeognisine, that the noble Earl has just said, that in substance these are merely drafting matters, I feel it right to remind your Lordships that Parliament, in its wisdom, voted a substantial sum of money for the reorganisation of the cotton industry. That necessarily has taken time and has involved much negotiation, but I think it right that a voice be raised on this matter, because there are in process to-day negotiations of a very important character having a great bearing on this whole subject. It is known that these matters in connection with G.A.T.T. in Geneva are of importance to the textile industries of the country. I need not remind your Lordships that if you aggregate all the textile industries of this country, the subsequent making up industries that follow from them and the machinery industry that precedes them, employment involved is very great. The importance to the economy is great also, and while it is perhaps popular momentarily to regard the textile and some other light industries as expendable, the effect on the country's economy cannot be treated lightly. The spirit of nationalism in developing countries stimulates competing industries.
My Lords, I have been associated with the textile industry all my life. I know it intimately. I regard this question as of profound importance. The basic feature is that sooner or later there must be recognition that the import of products from countries with a low Asiatic wage content will require statesmen to develop treatment different from that hitherto.
To return particularly to Lancashire, there is great alarm at the present moment in connection with the negotiations currently taking place, and the reported proposals with regard to imports cause the concern. I am told that the base period of June, 1960, to June, 1961, saw cotton textile imports, concerned with these Orders, rise to 770 million square yards, the highest ever. It will be within the knowledge of all Members of the House that recently the President of the United States admitted the importance of this matter and

9
instructed his Ambassador at large to formulate plans for meeting it. In the case of the United States the imports for the chosen period were less serious, because owing to special circumstances they did not attain the proportionate amount which applied to this country.
The basic fact with regard to the cotton textile industry is that these large imports from all quarters, mostly from the Asiatic low-wage countries, coupled with the productive capacity of this country, will mean total supplies in excess of consumption here, and that surplus production would then endanger the whole cotton scheme. In the amounts voted by Parliament there was a sum which was to be applied to the re-equipment of the industry, but with this menace facing them the heads of these big corporations responsible for shareholders money cannot be expected lightly to embark upon these expenditures with the grim prospect which I have ventured to report to your Lordships.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, may 1 ask the noble Lord why it should be a grim prospect for people to be able to buy cheaper cotton goods than they are able to buy at present?
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, perhaps I did not express myself well. Perhaps the noble Lord will give those thoughts in regard to agriculture and the Common Market. I understand that if we threw the whole of this country's agriculture open to imports without restriction, as some recommend, that would produce a similar situation. I was thinking of employment in this country, because excessive imports from abroad will not help employment in the textile industries in this country. It is that to which I venture to draw your Lordships' attention in connection with what has been voted by Parliament; indeed, I am told by those familiar with the cotton textile industry that the whole scheme may well be in jeopardy.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I am most interested in what your Lordships have to say on these subjects, which are very important. But I do not know whether your Lordships really want on a draft Amendment Order to a cotton reorganisation scheme to have a debate upon the whole question of
10
cotton imports and the cotton trade. Although it is not for me to say that it is out of order, I should have thought it was entirely inappropriate on an Order of this kind.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, perhaps I may address a question to the noble Earl without in any way dealing with the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Barnby.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: Perhaps before my noble friend continues I might say this. I am not quite following the noble Earl in his suggestion as to what the rule is. I am interested in paragraph 3 of the Schedule, and I think my noble friend Lord Latham will perhaps be speaking on it; that is the paragraph headed,"Variation of the Principal Scheme". I should have thought when that appears on the paper the debate can go fairly wide by way of question as to what the particular effect of this will be and what possible other circumstances may arise.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, my understanding of these Orders is that they are concerned with one single narrow point. The Government have provided sums of money for re-equipment of cotton mills. That money is being expended by the Cotton Board on behalf of the Government. The Board will incur certain administrative expenses in paying out this money, and the existing Orders do not provide for the Cotton Board to be reimbursed for any money it may spend in disbursing these grants. I believe it also to be the case that it is not yet known, and cannot be known for quite some time, what those expenses of administration will be—indeed, it may be that at the end of the day no further amounts will be required from employers in the industry; and they might even get a refund. Perhaps the noble Earl will confirm whether that is a correct interpretation of these Orders.
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, before the noble Earl answers that question may I put a related one? That is, whether the variation proposed, if enacted, would cast any additional burden on the Exchequer, and if so of what amount.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, is quite

11
right in his interpretation. In case there is any doubt, perhaps I may explain exactly what is done by these draft Orders. The Act of 1959 provides, in Section 1 (4), that:
"the amounts required by the Cotton Board to defray … any other expenses.… incurred by them under this Act in relation to any section of the industry for which a reorganisation scheme is brought into force, shall be raised by means of charges to be imposed under the reorganisation scheme relating to that section on persons registered with the Cotton Board as carrying on business in the section …"
Each of the five cotton reorganisation schemes which we approved—the spinning, weaving and doubling ones in July, 1959, and the finishing sections about a year later—provides that the Cotton Board
"shall raise by means of an annual charge imposed on all persons for the time being carrying on business in the (relevant) section of the industry … the amounts required by the Board to defray … that proportion of the total expenses incurred by the Board in connection with the preparation and administration of all schemes under the Act as in the opinion of the Board is attributable to this Scheme."
When, subsequent to the coming into operation of these Schemes, the Board of Trade were advised that the specific authority so conveyed by each Scheme for the apportionment of expenses did not include those incurred in relation to re-equipment grants, as distinct from reorganisation schemes as such, it was agreed that the omission should be corrected, and that is all that these Orders do, as your Lordships will see from the Schedules which in all five Orders are identical in wording. They provide that these expenses shall be similarly reimbursed in relation to the re-equipment schemes which it has been held are not part of the reorganisation schemes. I cannot give the noble Lord, Lord Latham, any precise figure as to the amount of the expenses of the Board which will be reimbursed under these Orders either concerning reorganisation or concerning re-equipment, but they are all being paid under the Cotton Act, 1959, which is intended to cover all of them. It is simply a technical omission that the original Orders did not specify re-equipment, as distinct from reorganisation.
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, I am obliged for the information which the
12
noble Earl has been good enough to give the House; but does it not mean that, although the proportions may remain unaltered, the sum which the Exchequer will have to pay will be larger by bringing in this expenditure which formerly was not, I gather, within the sum which was apportioned between the Fund and the Exchequer? Is that so?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: No, my Lords it is all provided for under the Act. So far I do not think anything has been paid out under the re-equipment schemes. It would have been had it not been for the omission. The people who drew up the schemes were probably under the impression that "reorganisation" included "re-equipment". When the schemes came into operation we were legally advised that it would put the matter beyond doubt if "re-equipment" were separately provided for in the schemes.
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, do I apprehend that not a single farthing will have to be provided by the Exchequer as the result of this new reorganisation?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I do not quite follow the noble Lord's point"as a result of this variation". They are not variations; they are simply the full implementation of what is provided for in Section 1(4) of the Act, which had not been properly provided for, according to our legal advice, under the original Order.
LORD LATHAM: Is it not the case that the former Order is now being varied, therefore there is a variation?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: There is a variation, in the sense that an unfortunate omission is being corrected; but that is all.
LORD LATHAM: Will that cost the Exchequer anything?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I should have thought it would cost the Exchequer the amount of the Cotton Board's expenses specifically related to the re-equipment schemes.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, at the time we were discussing the Bill I understood that there was a global maximum figure.

13
May I take it that that global maximum will not be exceeded?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, no Order of this kind could cause a maximum laid down by an Act of Parliament to be exceeded.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

TRUSTEE INVESTMENTS BILL [H.L.]
3.3 p.m.
Order of the Day for the consideration of Commons Amendments read.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments be now considered. I understand that there is a general desire on the part of your Lordships that we should discus's all these Commons Amendments together. In any case, it is my intention to invite your Lordships to agree with them all. I think the majority of them, or at least the majority which have a great deal of substance in them, arise from various matters which were raised by your Lordships while the Bill, which was introduced in this House, was before us. The Bill left us in the early part of the Session on December 20, and it is seven months since we parted company with it.
The first Amendment on Clause 1 is drafting. The Amendments on Clause 2 are all either drafting or consequential, except for Amendment No. 6, which is a major Amendment permitting the trustees at their discretion to make withdrawals from either part of the fund. This was a matter about which your Lordships were greatly exercised in our debates. The noble Lord, Lord Hawke, moved an Amendment on the subject on December 12, pointing out that it was unfair that when withdrawals were made from the trust fund for certain purposes, those withdrawals would have to be in the same proportion between the narrower range and the wider range investments as the rest of the trust fund. He advanced strong arguments in support of his case; and I replied that, while I entirely sympathised with his feelings and those of 'others of your Lordships who wished to give more latitude in this respect, I found it difficult to see how we could accept the Amendment without destroying the fifty-fifty basis of the Bill. We have since reconsidered the
14
matter, and we have now amended the Bill so as to give the trustees full discretion as to how they deal with withdrawals from the fund. That should ease the lot of trustees, and I think your Lordships will agree that it fully compensates for any breach of principle in the 'original proposals of the Bill which it entails.
Clause 3 deals particularly with the subject of special powers, another matter on which many of your Lordships expressed anxieties both on Second Reading and during the Committee stage of the Bill. On December 13 again my noble friend Lord Hawke expressed dissatisfaction with the position of special powers under the Bill, and I think my noble friend Lord Conesford was also worried about it. The position under the Bill was that it did not put the trustees who had special powers in a more favourable position than they are now. It could not raise the permitted proportions to any more favourable ratio than fifty-fifty. The Amendment which has now been agreed to in another place permits trustees to segregate certain investments which they hold under special powers, and the fifty-fifty ratio under the Bill will apply only to the remainder of their funds. That is a substantial change which will give trustees not wholly reliant on the powers conferred by the general law greater latitude which will be welcome. It has also, incidentally, made it possible to re-draft Clause 3 in a slightly less complicated manner than its original form, which gave us all some slight difficulty in our discussions on the Committee stage of the Bill.
On Clause 4 the only Amendment not consequential is No. 11, which is designed to give a trustee more latitude in allocating property to each part of the fund when he is creating a new trust fund on appropriation of property from an existing trust fund which has already been divided. That, again, was a matter which was raised by many of your Lordships on both sides of the House. The new clause after Clause 4 is Amendment No. 14 which assures the trustee that he is making a proper division of the fund by giving him protection if he obtains advice from a qualified valuer.
Then we come to Clause 5, which I think in the new printed Bill is Clause 6

15
because the new clause after Clause 4 is printed. That deals with the present rigid wording of paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of Clause 5 with regard to diversification. This was another matter, I remember, on which my noble friend Lord Conesford was not wholly satisfied. During the Committee stage of the Bill he asked me particularly whether the words in the Bill as it then stood correctly gave effect to the intentions which both the Government and my noble friend agreed were the right intentions. He wanted to know, among other things, whether it allowed a unit trust to be regarded as providing sufficient diversity although it was only one investment. I assured my noble friend that I thought the wording of the Bill was adequate, and he accordingly withdrew his Amendment. But we have now endeavoured to make it plainer by this Amendment, No. 15, which provides that on page 6, line 3, there should be left out the words from "for" to the end of line 7 and to insert in their place:
"diversification of investments of the trust, in so far as is appropriate to the circumstances of the trust".
I think the only other Amendments to which I need refer specifically are Nos. 25 and 26. No. 25 is a proposed new clause after Clause 9, which provides that the Government shall have power to vary the general principle of 50–50, but their powers do not go beyond the proportion of 75–25. It has been decided that an Order to create a proportion of 3 to 1 would be going far enough without fresh legislation, but it is felt that it is a good thing to make the ratio a little more flexible than it is now. I ought to make it clear that at the moment the Government do not intend to alter the ratio, but I think your Lordships will agree that, from the point of view of many of your Lordships, it is a good thing to give them the power to do so if circumstances and the general pattern of investment in the country should seem to warrant it.
Amendment 26, concerning the powers of the court under the Variation of Trusts Act, 1958, which proceeded originally from the Trustee Act, 1925, is a question that gave us a considerable amount of trouble in Committee stage of the Bill. My noble friend Lord Conesford
16
raised it twice, first of all in Committee upon an Amendment which was also spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cohen. The point was brought in question whether, after we had laid down this new ratio in the Bill, courts of law would feel morally bound, even though they were not legally bound, in their variations of trusts under the 1958 Act not to go beyond this new limit which Parliament had prescribed. I said to my noble friend Lord Conesford [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 227, col. 283]:
"it is not our intention that the practice of the courts should in any way be made uniform or changed or modified by the provisions of this Bill."
And I added:
"I hope the Court of Chancery will continue to judge the merits of each case without regard to this Bill as they have done before."
My noble friend returned to the matter on Report stage. He moved an Amendment on which there was a long discussion, my noble friend expressing the view that, although according to the strict wording of the Bill the powers of the court were not affected, the judges might feel they ought to modify their decisions in the light of the general ratio which was being laid down in this Bill. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor told Lord Conesford that he was very anxious to meet the point which had been put with such clarity and he gave an undertaking that before the Bill went to another place he would consult the Judges of the Chancery Division about this matter. He said (col. 951):
"If they see no objection to the proposed new clause, even though it is not, strictly speaking, necessary, we will consider moving an Amendment on similar lines."
With that assurance Lord Conesford withdrew his Amendment, and after the consideration promised by the Lord Chancellor the Amendment which is now No. 26 on the Paper was introduced and agreed to in another place. I hope that those of your Lordships who were interested in the matter will agree that that is satisfactory from the point of view of those who had doubts on the subject.
I think, my Lords, that all the other Amendments are either concerned with definition or clarification, or else are drafting or consequential. I am moving now that the Commons Amendments

17
be considered, after which, if your Lordships are agreeable, I will move without further discussion that the House agrees with the Commons in these Amendments.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered.—(The Earl of Dundee.)
3.16 p.m.
LORD NATHAN: My Lords, those of your Lordships who know, as most of you do, the past history of this Bill will realise that I have a very special personal interest in it, as I expressed on the Second Reading. I am glad that to-day I am able to take part in this discussion in which your Lordships will say farewell to this Bill. The next stage will be its enactment. My interest arises out of the fact that as long ago as 1949 I was appointed by my noble friend Lord Attlee, then Prime Minister, Chairman of the Charitable Trusts Committee. It is as long ago as 1952 that that Committee presented its Report. Nine years is a very long time for any individual to wait to see the result of his labours. But I regard myself fortunate in the fact that the proposals set forth in my Committee's Report should now have reached the stage at which we are about to see them passed into law.
If your Lordships recall the Report made by the Charitable Trusts Committee, you will know that there was imported into it a chapter on the range of trust investments. I have just been looking at the Report and I see that in it the subject covered four pages. Here in this Bill 17 pages are required to do what we did in 4. However, I do not complain of that. It is very natural and very proper that this Bill should elaborate in precise terms the more general propositions which were set forth in the Report to which I have referred.
As to what the noble Earl has said, this Bill left your Lordships' House a good many months ago. During that period of time in another place a great deal of care has been taken—I say "during that time", not "throughout that time"—to dot "is" and cross "is". That inevitably involves the importation of a good many ifs and buts; and there is no doubt that, in consequence, the document, as a document, is far more complex than when it left your Lordships' House. It is equally the case
18
that, as the result of those activities in another place, with these Amendments which we are considering to-day, the Bill as a piece of machinery is far more workable, and perhaps even more understandable, than it was before. For my part, with my noble friends on these Benches I concur, if that is not too bold a phrase, in these Amendments. I think they are an improvement to the Bill.
Your Lordships' House is indebted to the noble Earl opposite for the care which he has taken in presenting to your Lordships the substance of the main Amendments comprised in these papers which are before us here to-day. I believe that the scheme which has been adopted in this Bill is a common-sense scheme, and one which should work appropriately and achieve the object for which the Bill was designed. That is not to say that there are not some Amendments which one might have wished to import, or some other Amendments which one might, perhaps, have wished to see phrased differently. In particular, there is one matter which I regret does not appear in the Bill at all.
In the chapter on the range of investments contained in the Report to which I have referred, there was a reference to power being given to trustees to invest in land. I am bound to say that the trustees then in mind were trustees of charitable funds, rather than the general body of trustees. When Her Majesty's Government came to consider that Report and issued a White Paper upon the subject setting out their views, they included an adoption of the recommendation that land should be comprised in the power of trustees for investment purposes. That has now gone. The noble and learned Viscount sitting on the Woolsack, speaking in your Lordships' House on December 13, stated why it had gone, adopting as his reason (from which I should not wish to differ) that such a wide provision relating to trustees at large—and it is to them that this Bill refers.-might not be appropriate, although it was wholly appropriate for the more limited purpose of charitable trusts, to which my Committee's Report referred.
I know that among charitable trustees There is to-day some anxiety upon the range and extent of their powers in this respect. I therefore put forward the

19
opinion—I cannot put it forward any higher than as an opinion—that, as the noble Earl opposite has pointed out today, the powers of the Chancery Division of the High Court are left unaffected, and it is open to charitable trustees to apply to the Court for permission to invest in land; but since the powers of the High Court are exercisable by the Charity Commission, a simpler course open to the trustees would be to adopt the Cheap, simple and relatively swift course of putting their case to the Charity Commission, who may thereby be induced to extend to trustees in particular cases the power to include the right to invest in land. That does not appear in the Bill. I offer this obiter (if I may use that term) because I know that there are large numbers of Charity trustees—particularly, perhaps, the City Livery Companies—who hold large amounts of land and who wish to know how they stand. I believe that what I have said is 'a sound proposition in point of law and practice; that they can invest in land by taking, the proper steps, although they cannot do so under the provisions of this Bill. If I should be mistaken in that, there might perhaps be an opportunity, if the noble and learned Viscount should think fit, to correct me; but I have taken some care in the matter, and I hope and believe that I am correct in that general statement.
Now, my Lords, there are other matters to which these Amendments refer and upon which I will delay your Lordships but a moment. I think it very right—though perhaps a little surprising—that Her Majesty's Government should have taken power to extend the list of wider-range investments up to 75 per cent. of the fund. I looked with some care to see whether the Treasury were equally to have power to reduce or diminish the range. I am glad to know that that power does not exist in the Bill, and that the only power in that respect which the Treasury has is, by order, to enlarge the wider-range investments. I think that is all to the good, although I note, and I quite understand, that the Government do not intend at any immediate moment to exercise that right.
There is one matter to which I referred on Second Reading and to which much regard has been given in the Press. I
20
know that there exists a general feeling of agitation among large bodies of the public as to the position of undated securities. I had myself rather hoped that Her Majesty's Government might have thought it proper to exclude from the narrower range of investments Government undated securities. Whilst they are in the list there is a suggestion implicit in that fact that undated securities are sound securities in which trustees may invest. Practice and experience, however, show that that is far from the fact. Undated securities have indeed been a lamentable disaster for very large parts of the population, both trustees and private persons.
I do not know whether your Lordships fully appreciate (I did not myself until I looked into this matter again not long ago) that when 3½ per cent. Conversion Loan came into existence it was not dated but was stated to be 3½ per cent. War Loan "1952 or after". I think that the ordinary, uninstructed people were entitled to believe that if there was going to be no repayment, no redemption, in 1952, then there was at least going to be a repayment not long after; or, if not not long after, at least at some time. To ask people to invest in securities repayable in "1952 or after" and then to say that "after" means never is not, I think, a very frank way of dealing with investors from all classes of the population, whether trustees or otherwise.
There can be no doubt that great numbers were deceived by this, and great numbers have suffered very great losses. I have a table in front of me which shows that, whereas this security was in 1948 standing at its highest at 10411/16 in 1961 it has been as low as 527/16 That means an enormous loss, even within that limited period of time. I have referred to this subject before, and I now most earnestly suggest to Her Majesty's Government that, in order to keep faith with the people who have subscribed, and the people who will now be asked to subscribe to securities in future, the term "or after" should be given some real meaning. "After" does not necessarily mean to-morrow; but it does mean some time. It does not mean a future so indefinite as to imply never. It means a time to which those who invest may reasonably look

21
forward, if not within their own lifetime, at all events to some period of time when the money which they have invested will come back to them or their successors.
It must be borne in mind that the origin of this security was the perils of the war of 1914. I very well remember, when I was in the trenches in Gallipoli, receiving The Times newspaper containing the prospectus for 5 per cent. War Loan. Every possible inducement and every possible phrase was used to activate the feelings of patriotism of those who received and read that prospectus. I was one of them. I was then a young officer, arid I signalled to Cox's in London to put £50 into this Loan, which at that time was pretty well all the money I had. I have kept the security ever since because it was the first investment I ever made. I still have it to-day, and I reflect upon the emotions with which I read the prospectus, and the sentiment which induced me at once to signal to the agents in London to put my only £50 into this Loan. And now, what do I, like so many others, find? We were told that we should be repaid at a certain period of time or after; it is now 1961, and we are still told that there is no likelihood of repayment.
My experience is only one instance, a very small instance. And I give it to your Lordships as an example of the emotions which were stirred up by all the resources of advertisement and other appeals for patriotism, and to show that the response received has not been dealt with in the way in which I think it should. There are large groups of people, both trustees of charitable trusts, family trusts, and private persons, who invested at that time, and who, like myself, still hold the security but find the Government's appeal, to which they responded, resulting in a devastating loss to them.
There are many thousands of families, almost innumerable over the country, who suffered disaster, crippling disaster, because of their investment in this undated security—and other undated securities, too—on the faith that
22
the Governments would see to it that their money would always be worth, or in time would be worth, what it was when they pat their money in. I do not speak here of the reduction in the value of money, but it should at least have the same nominal value as it had when the money was put in. The Government cannot rely or depend upon people responding to such appeals in future unless they show willingness to treat differently from the way they have done hitherto those who subscribe to the loans now existing under the influence of patriotic feelings, consciously and intentionally stirred by the Government so as to induce that result.
I do not mind whether it is within a short period of time or a longer time. Supposing the Government were to adopt the same procedure as for premium bonds, and do something in the way of drawings; or supposing they were to give a date, even if it were 25 years ahead, that would at least show, I would say, a proper mind toward honourable dealing on the part of the Government. And at the same time it would bring a certain measure of confidence to many people who have been so hard hit. While I address myself to noble Lords opposite, because they represent Her Majesty's Government today, no responsibility for this matter attaches to them for what has been done in the past. All Governments since 1915 are, I think, equally blameworthy in this matter, which I believe has influenced the minds of the public of this country, especially at this difficult time, beyond what is readily understood. It is not wise to destroy people's confidence in the Government, whether it be the Government of the day or of a past day.
I hope that, in saying farewell to this Bill, the Government will not feel that there is not still something further to be done as regards trusts, and in particular undated securities, and that they will direct their minds to what I regard as a matter of importance far beyond what might appear on the surface.

BRITAIN AND THE COMMON MARKET
3.38 p.m.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, I think it would be for the convenience of the House if 1 chose this moment to repeat in your Lordships' House a statement which has just been made in another place by the Prime Minister on the policy of Her Majesty's Government towards the European Economic Community. The statement is as follows:
"The future relations between the European Economic Community, the United Kingdom, the Commonwealth, and the rest of Europe, are clearly matters of capital importance in the life of our country, and, indeed, of all the countries of the Free World.
"This is a political, as well as an economic, issue. Although the Treaty of Rome is concerned with economic matters, it has an important political objective—namely, to promote unity and stability in Europe, which is so essential a factor in the struggle for freedom and progress throughout the world. In this modern world the tendency towards larger groups of nations acting together in the common interest leads to greater unity, and thus adds to our strength in the struggle for freedom. I believe it is both our duty and our interest to contribute towards that strength by securing the closest possible unity within Europe. At the same time, if a loser relationship between the United Kingdom and the countries of the European Economic Community were to disrupt the longstanding and historic ties between the United Kingdom and the other nations of the Commonwealth, the loss would be greater than the gain. The Commonwealth is a great source of stability and strength both to Western Europe and to the world as a whale, and I am sure that its value is fully appreciated by the member Governments of the European Economic Community. I do not think that Britain's contribution to the Commonwealth will be reduced if Europe unites. On the contrary, I think its value will be enhanced.
24
"On the economic side, a community comprising, as members or in association, the countries of Free Europe could have a very rapidly expanding economy supplying, as eventually it would, a single market of approaching 300 million people. This rapidly expanding economy could, in turn, lead to increased demand for the products of other parts of the world, and so help to expand world trade and improve the prospects of the less developed areas of the world.
"No British Government could join the European Economic Community without prior negotiation with a view to meeting the needs of the Commonwealth countries, of our European Free Trade Association partners and of British agriculture, consistently with the broad principles and purpose which have inspired the concept of European unity and which are embodied in the Rome Treaty.
"As the House knows, Ministers have recently visited Commonwealth countries to discuss the problems which would arise, if the British Government decided to negotiate for membership of the European Economic Community. We have explained to Commonwealth Governments the broad political and economic considerations which we have to take into account. They, for their part, told us their views and in some cases their anxieties about their essential interests. We have assured Commonwealth Governments that we shall keep in close consultation with them throughout any negotiations which might take place. Secondly, there is the European Free Trade Association. We have treaty and other obligations to our partners in this Association and my right honourable friends have just returned from a meeting of the European Free Trade Association Ministerial Council in Geneva, where all were agreed that they should work closely together throughout any negotiations. Finally, we are determined to continue to protect the standard of living of our agricultural community.
"During the past nine months, we have had useful and frank discussions with the European Economic Community Governments. We have now

25
reached the stage where we cannot make further progress without entering into formal negotiations. I believe that the great majority in the House and in the country will feel that they cannot fairly judge whether it is possible for the United Kingdom to join the European Economic Community until there is a clearer picture before them of the conditions on which we could join and the extent to which these would meet our special needs.
"Article 237 of the Treaty of Rome envisages that the conditions of admission of a new member and the changes in the Treaty necessitated thereby should be the subject of an agreement. Negotiations must therefore be held in order to establish the conditions on which we might join. And in order to enter into these negotiations, it is necessary, under the Treaty, to make formal application to join the Community, although the ultimate decision whether to join or not must depend on the result of the negotiations. Therefore, after long and earnest consideration, Her Majesty's Government have come to the conclusion that it would be right for Britain to make a formal application under Article 237 of the Treaty for negotiations with a view to joining the Community, if satisfactory arrangements can be made to meet the special needs of the United Kingdom, of the Commonwealth and of the European Free Trade Association.
"If, as I earnestly hope, our offer to enter into negotiations with the European Economic Community is accepted, we shall spare no efforts to reach a satisfactory agreement. These negotiations must inevitably be of a detailed and technical character, covering a very large number of the most delicate and difficult matters. They may therefore be protracted and there can, of course, be no guarantee of success. When any negotiations are brought to a conclusion, then it will be the duty of the Government to recommend to the House what course we should pursue. No agreement will be entered into until it has been approved by the House after full consultation with other Commonwealth countries, by whatever procedure they may generally agree."
26
That is the conclusion of the statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister.
3.46 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, we are obliged to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House for giving us the Prime Minister's statement, which is now being made in another place. It is not easy to do much to-day, because we have agreed to have a full debate on Wednesday and Thursday. On the other hand, the statement clearly indicates that two decisions will be lying ahead of us: a decision by Parliament on whether the Government is to make this application to enter for the purpose of negotiation, and exactly the circumstances in which a final decision will be taken 'by Parliament, in conjunction with our associates in the European Free Trade Association and in the Commonwealth in particular.
Having these two things in mind, I should dike to ask the noble Viscount two questions, to see whether he can help me in this matter. From time to time, we have asked for a White Paper on this subject. I should particularly have liked to have a White Paper before the debate on Wednesday and Thursday, giving at least a summary of the views of all the constituent members of the Commonwealth, which we do not know. The passage in the statement referring to the Commonwealth is in very general language, though it is only fair to say that the Government have made it clear that some Commonwealth countries have anxieties about this matter. I think it would be better if we could have some more information before the debate takes place. In particular, we ought to know—if it cannot be stated to-day surely it should be stated at the opening of the debate—whether all the countries in the Commonwealth which have been consulted by Ministers have agreed to the course of action which the Government now propose to take. I do not know whether the noble Viscount could 'answer that straight away, without consultation with his colleagues; but we ought to have that information quite clearly on Wednesday, when the debate opens on the general proposition of the Government.
Secondly, the Government know that we have often pressed that, before we

27
went so far as, according to the statement, we are apparently intending to go, there should be a Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference. This has never arrived. Therefore, I am a little unhappy about the final paragraph in the statement, which says:
"No agreement will be entered into until it has been approved by the House after full consultation with other Commonwealth countries, by whatever procedure they may generally agree."
Should we not know what the procedure is going to be before we give final authority to the Government to make application for negotiation? At any rate, would it be possible to have an undertaking that the Government have offered to the whole Commonwealth the basis of a Prime Ministers' Conference to consider the recommendations they want to make when negotiations are begun? Perhaps the noble Viscount the Leader of the House will consider whether he can answer these questions now.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, we are to have a full debate on Wednesday and Thursday and naturally I do not want to go too far into details to-day. I have always had the greatest sympathy with demands for a White Paper, but I must say that I should not like to have the drafting of one. The more one thinks on this subject, the more difficult it is to put forward in objective language a summary of the issue on both sides. Indeed, when one states the issue, one is in the end taking some kind of side in the matter. A White Paper has to be purely factual and objective, and I rather question whether one is possible; and I do not think that one is anticipated for Wednesday or Thursday. I say that with some regret, because my sympathies, to some extent, are on the other side. But I think I am driven to the conclusion that, in a matter of this complexity, we should inevitably lose that objectivity which the public has a right to expect of a White Paper; and also it would be impossible to summarise, without losing accuracy, many of the questions which would have to be explored.
The negotiations with the Commonwealth were, of course, confidential. I know the noble Viscount would not expect us to attempt to state for indi-
28
vidual members of the Commonwealth what they stated confidentially to us: that would be both a breach of confidence and to assume to ourselves a right to summarise their views, which they really can only summarise themselves. There will, of course, be day-to-day consultation with the Commonwealth throughout any negotiations, and there will also be many opportunities for discussion with Commonwealth Ministers while the negotiations continue. The noble Viscount, not unnaturally, raised the question of a Prime Ministers' Conference. All I can say to the noble Viscount on that subject to-day is that the question whether there should be a special conference of Commonwealth Prime Ministers before any agreement with the Six is entered into will be one which my right honourable friend will wish to discuss with the Commonwealth Prime Ministers themselves. Obviously, and as your Lordships will recognise, this is a matter which does not rest with us alone and must rest, among other things, upon the consensus of opinion.
The noble Viscount asked me also about the extent to which the Commonwealth Governments have accepted that the United Kingdom should apply to join the Community. The answer is that all Commonwealth and E.F.T.A. Governments accept that the decision to apply is one which ultimately must be made by the United Kingdom alone. In reaching it, as we have, we have had very much in mind the views both of our Commonwealth partners and of our partners in the European Free Trade Association. It is always a little difficult to know if one has covered the ground, but I think that answers all the questions put by the noble Viscount.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, am I quite clear on the last point: that in fact we have no assurances at this moment that all the Commonwealth countries consulted concurred in the application being made on the basis which is now submitted in this statement?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, what the noble Viscount is assured of is that they all agreed that that is a matter which we have to decide for ourselves.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I should like to welcome the Government's

29
expressed intention of making a formal application under Article 237 of the Rome Treaty, because, in my view, it is absolutely the right thing to do. May I ask the noble Viscount whether in the negotiations the Government will bear in mind the special needs of the colonial territories and, in particular, those territories like Mauritius which have a one-crop economy and are particularly dependent upon the market in this country?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore. I do not know that I ought to give any special assurances, but I know that my right honourable friend would very much wish me to say that, we have in mind the position of the Colonies. The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, will not have failed to notice that the Treaty itself provides for the original signatories a special position for their dependent territories, and naturally that is also something which we will have a mind to when we enter into negotiations ourselves.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, may I, in order to demonstrate in a friendly fashion that there may be some difference of opinion in the various Parties on this subject, and in order to bring the views of Commonwealth Ministers up to date, ask the noble Viscount the Leader of the House whether he has seen the statement (which, with the permission of the House, I will read) made by Mr. Menzies on July 26, in which he said:
"Negotiations with Britain as a separate independent, uninhibited Power would be impossible if she joins the Common Market."
He went on:
"A decision on Common Market membership would be the most remarkable and crucial event in Commonwealth and Britain's history—outside war—this century."
And, indeed, in The Times this morning come reports from Ministers in Ottawa and Adelaide bearing out in large measure what Mr. Menzies has said.
I subscribe warmly to those views. I would add that we should be loosening our ties with our Commonwealth friends, who have stood by us in the hours of our greatest perils, and creating inflexible bonds with nations who have been against us whenever it suited their purpose so to be. And national characteristics do not change overnight, as some people
30
seem to think. This is the specific question which I should like to put to the Government. Seeing that no Minister at any election or at any time Chas foreshadowed the vast constitutional changes that entry into the Common Market would entail, will the Government give an assurance that before taking any active steps which would involve entry into the Common Market they will refer the issue to the country at a General Election?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I think the noble Viscount was really anticipating the speech to which we all greatly look forward in the debate and which I am sure he will deliver once again to our great pleasure. He need not have assured us that there was a possibility of disagreement inside the Liberal Party on this issue, although we had hoped that this was one issue on which they spoke with one voice. With regard to his specific question, if the noble Viscount would look at the assurances my right honourable friend has made in his statement which I have read to the House he will see exactly how far I am prepared to go.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, while welcoming the very important statement which the noble Viscount has given in repeating the Prime Minister in another place, may I ask him one supplementary question which arises, I think, directly out of the question which the Leader of the Opposition has put to the Leader of the House? While fully appreciating the difficulties involved in producing a White Paper, would the noble Viscount consider also the difficulties which face the ordinary man in the street in making up his mind on this vastly important question, on which we are to have a debate in Parliament in the near future? Would the Government consider over the vacation issuing some form of popular White Paper, or some easily understood digest, of what is afoot, so that the man in the street might have an easier opportunity of making up his mind than he has at the moment, confused as he is with the mass of conflicting, difficult but vastly important data?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I think I have already said to the House, and I say it again to my noble friend, that I have the greatest sympathy concerning these difficulties. I can assure

31
him that the difficulties of the man in the street are nothing to my own in understanding this complex matter. I would add, with all sincerity, that I think the noble Lord underestimates the difficulties here. More than one of the popular newspapers have produced in their own way quite admirable summaries, but it would be idle to pretend that they are not controversial. The first thing to understand on this problem is that some of the Community itself has not yet been fully brought into being. It is provided by the Treaty that it should come into being over a transitional period of twelve years, which may or may not be extended slightly, from the signing of it, and the result is that the thing we are discussing is not entirely formulated and is changing and developing even as we discuss it.
The second thing is that it is impossible to understand some, at any rate, of the crucial matters until the negotiations have been brought to a conclusion, because the purpose of these negotiations is to discover exactly what it is we shall be putting our hands to. The question which the House and the country will have to make up their minds about at this stage is not what we shall agree to, but whether we shall try to agree to becoming a loyal member of this Community on any terms. For that purpose, I rather question—however attractive it may be to produce a popular White Paper—whether it is not really an impossibility that my noble friend is asking for. These are great issues of principle. White Papers cannot determine great issues of policy, and if there is any information which the noble Lord wants, or the country wants, I trust that the Ministers during the debate will be able to give it. It is my present intention that the debate should be opened by the Foreign Secretary and wound up by the Lord Chancellor, which means that we shall have very heavy metal to deal with any difficulties so far as they can be dealt with.
4.2 p.m.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, I hope that the Leader of the House will not mind if I intervene, as I raised this matter last time and asked far a more limited White Paper. I understood from what was said, I think, by the Foreign
32
Secretary and by the Prime Minister in another place, that the publication of a White Paper of the kind I had suggested—and I think noble Lords in ail quarters of the House feel it would be helpful—was a matter to which he had not closed his mind, while pointing out, as the Leader of the House has done to-day (and I feel the force of his argument), the almost impossibility of presenting in a White Paper all the arguments for and against the proposal.
The point I should like to put to the noble Viscount is this. Questions are put in debate—we shall all, I hope, contribute what we can to the debate—end answers are given. But debates are not reported in the popular Press; and in any event people do not read them. The Leader of the House has said to-day that the European Community is rather in a state of flux; that it has not yet achieved the form and powers which it ultimately may achieve. I hope the -House will forgive me if I put this matter in a little detail, because it is so important. What we could have would be a summary farm—and I think they would get it reasonably accurate—of what the Treaty of Rome provides; what are the powers, and how far the parties to the Rome Treaty can go. I think that is very important.
Frankly, I do not know the answer to that question, and I have become more puzzled as a result of the debates. For instance, in a very lucid speech by the Foreign Secretary in this House, we were told that we need not worry too much—I paraphrase—about the constitutional obligations we should undertake if we went in. He said that whenever you make a treaty it is a contract, and it is to that extent a derogation from sovereignty; that is not at all a frightening position, and if we are really making a treaty, that is one thing.
On the other hand, we have the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, who is a great protagonist on the other side, who has said and written that we undertake the most formidable and far-reaching obligations if we go into it, and that the Treaty of Rome obliges us, whether the parties to the Treaty want it or not, to enforce upon anybody who enters the Treaty the most complete abdication of sovereignty. It is of very great importance to know which of those views is

33
right. I am not asking the noble Viscount to anticipate what will be done—that we can find out only by negotiation. But we surely ought to know before this debate whether the Foreign Secretary, as I would shrewdly suspect, is right, or whether Lord Gladwyn is right and that we are making these colossal commitments in advance. Could we not have a White Paper which would at least clear up that sort of point?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I should like to make it plain to my noble friend that this is a field in which I have laboured hard and long with the utmost goodwill. I did convey to my right honourable friend, as I promised to do, my noble friend's request which he made on the former occasion; he was, in fact, most sympathetic towards it. I can only say that I have not yet been successful in obtaining from the Government machine the promise of a White Paper, but I have been given a number of arguments, which personally I find formidable, about the difficulties of providing a White Paper within the limits of what is expected from a Government.
We used our Party organisation, which is much freer, of course—although we tried to make everything it said as accurate as possible, as I know all responsible Party organisations do—and not limited by the degree of objectivity that one must expect of a Government White Paper. We have tried to provide accurate information through that channel. There are two popular guides, both of which are accurate within their limits, issued by daily newspapers. On the question of sovereignty, it was precisely because of that issue, and because of its difficulty, that I was hoping to ask my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack to play a prominent part in the debate on Thursday. Personally, I think it is a very difficult question to make up one's mind about. I have read the Treaty, and I still should find it very difficult to answer this kind of question in answer to a debate. But I have noticed, for instance, that President de Gaulle, whose country is a prominent member of the Community, has a very strong idea of the sovereignty which it still retains.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am a little
34
anxious about another point. I should like to say to the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, that I have great sympathy with the background of his question, but I do not want to go into the detail to-day. I am more anxious about the community such as was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft. We understand from the statement that these negotiations are likely to be quite protracted.
There is the point raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, as to whether there is sufficient mandate in the Government for the purpose of this very far-reaching change—perhaps constitutional—and its effects upon us, without reference to the country. May we have an assurance that the public, as well as Parliament—Parliament first, but the public at large—will he kept in touch with the essential points which come up in the negotiations that the Government will go into if they make this application as a result of Parliamentary decision this week? We really ought to be kept in touch. It may go on for months; things may get overlooked and forgotten, and all the rest of it.
This is so vital an issue on which you are asking the country to make a decision that if it is going the wrong way, in their view—and the trade unions are now beginning to give appearance of that in the motions put down for the Trades Union Congress next month—then I think it is essential that we should be given, as you go along, information as to what is going on. When we ask for information about what has happened with the Commonwealth all we are told is, "It is confidential ". I do not think the community can be left for month after month, with all these things being done which will tie them up in one way or the other, on the ground that it is completely confidential. I hope something can be done to keep them in touch.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, this is just title sort of question which I think can be explored in the debate on Wednesday and Thursday. I cannot, of course, say how long these negotiations are likely to last. I myself was thinking of them—perhaps this has leaked out in what I said—as somewhat protracted; but they may go better or worse than I was thinking. I was not intending to give any picture of what they

35
would be. It is true that I myself think of them as being somewhat lengthy.
As regards the question of mandate, that is precisely What Parliament is here to protect and consider. My right honourable friend has given the assurance which I read out, and Parliament must be deemed to act in a responsible manner towards its constituents, particularly the other place to whom the assurance was given. As regards keeping the public informed, naturally we are most anxious to keep the public informed in every way. One of the main functions of the two Houses of Parliament is to extract information from the Government, but of course it is not necessarily the best way of conducting conversations, either with Commonwealth partners or with the Community with whom we are in negotiation, to tell the public from time to time how we are getting on and inviting public reaction to each stage in the negotiations. This is one method of diplomacy, but I am not sure it is the best.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, will the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack in his speech deal with the point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, as to whether the popular Foreign Secretary, Lord Home, is in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I am sure that my noble and learned friend has heard the noble Viscount's question and will pay to it the attention which he always does to suggestions by Members of this House.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, while welcoming the statement of the noble Viscount the Leader of the House but regretting the fact that it has not been possible to produce even what can be called a popular White Paper, and appreciating the difficulties in producing such a White Paper, could I make one suggestion to my noble Leader? He referred, I believe, to two publications on this complex matter, and I am wondering whether they would be of an exploratory or explanatory nature which would assist Members of your Lordships' House to understand the difficulties involved and whether these publications could be placed in the Library
36
of the House. The only two I am aware of, (there are probably many others) is one which was produced by the Financial Times in November last year, called The Six and the Seven, and one more recently produced by the Daily Telegraph, called Britain, and the Common Market. But I wonder whether there may be others and whether these publications, which would assist many of us, could be placed in the Library.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I am not sure what my position is in regard to the Library of the House, but I will take note of my noble friend's suggestion. I believe that the Foreign Secretary would like to add a word.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I should not like it to be thought that there is necessarily a difference of opinion between the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, and myself. I am not at all sure that the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, is not right in a way and that I am not right in a way. But perhaps we can explore that a little later.

TRUSTEE INVESTMENTS BILL [H.L.]
4.15 p.m.
Consideration of Commons Amendments continued.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, when the Trustee Investments Bill was before this House I was somewhat critical of its provisions. When it went to another place my criticisms were taken up energetically by various Members, and the result is a considerable body of Amendments which I think has considerably improved the Bill. This afternoon we are undertaking a somewhat novel though, I think, very useful procedure in having a general discussion after which we shall be invited, and I have no doubt agree, to approve the Amendments en bloc. Because the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, delivered some general observations I want to say a few words not completely confined to the Amendments. First, I should like to thank either the Government or other authorities of this House, for having adopted the extremely convenient course of having the Bill printed as amended by the Commons. Thus it is possible for all of us to see what the measure will be, if all these Amendments are approved.

37
My main criticism of the Bill remains and will be understood by anybody who reads that document—namely, that it is as nearly incomprehensible to a layman as an Act of Parliament can be. I regret that result, but in drawing attention to it I am not criticising the admirable work of the Parliamentary draftsman. The whole of this complexity arises from the compulsory division of the trust fund and, as the House may be aware, I believe that that compulsory division is wrong both in theory and in practice. Nevertheless, I think it would be quite improper to resume a debate on that topic this afternoon, because it was raised as much in another place as it was raised by me here, and we now know that the Government have gone as far as they are prepared to go and that our choice, therefore, is to have this Bill as now improved or to have nothing; and as between those alternatives I have no hesitation in greatly welcoming the Bill.
I would only add one other point, since the undertakings given to me personally on some points of criticism which I made when the matter was before this House have been so excellently met by Her Majesty's Government in another place. Amendment No. 15, which deals with diversification, meets a point of criticism which I ventured to make in this House and on which I wrote once or twice to my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack. I thank the Government for the great improvement which I think they have made in the drafting of that passage of the Bill. My noble friend Lord Dundee made one small slip in alluding to my attitude, when he thought I was troubled about the position of the unit trust. I know very little about unit trusts. What I mentioned was an investment trust, but the point is largely the same.
The other matter in which an undertaking to me has been met is the introduction of a clause saving the powers of the court. My noble and learned friend on the Woolsack invited me to withdraw the Amendment Which I had put down, on his undertaking to consult the Judges of the Chancery Division and, if he had their approval, to introduce the necessary Amendments in another place. All that has been done, and I am very grateful to the Government for it. The result is that, though
38
my main two criticisms of the Bill still remain—namely, its complexity, which will make it very difficult to get any layman to consent to become a trustee of any trust to Which this Bill applies, and the division of the trust fund, which I believe to be wrong in theory and in practice—all the 'arguments on that matter have been developed both in this House and in another place. So far as the Amendments which are now before us are concerned, I think they greatly improve the Bill, and for my part I have no hesitation in approving them en bloc.
4.20 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I am grateful to both the noble Lords who have spoken, the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, and the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, who have supported the Amendments. It was particularly interesting to hear what Lord Nathan had to say on this subject, in view of the fact that he was Chairman of the Committee which made certain recommendations on these matters, some of which have been adopted. The only one he regretted was not adopted was that trustees should have power to invest in land. I think it has generally been assumed, however, that if the creator of a trust, the testator or whoever sets up the trust, wishes the trust to have power to invest in land he wall say so in the trust. This Bill never gave any power to invest in land, and of course none of the Commons Amendments bears on that question.
The noble Lord also expressed his own view that dates ought to be given to Government undated securities. He will agree, of course, that it would not be possible to achieve that objective by disagreeing with any of the Commons Amendments to this Bill. The only point I should like to comment on in his observations on that matter is the right which the Government have to repay the 3½ per cent. War Loan in 1952 or after. The noble Lord thought that had been taken to mean by some people 1952 or soon after. But, of course, a Government stipulation to this effect is common form in undated stocks. It applies to a great many of them. For instance, the 2½ per cent. Consols for a long time had a date of 1923 "or after", and they have never been repaid. I think the Dalton Loan had a date, "or after".

39
The reason for putting in those words is not for the benefit of the public but for the benefit of the Government, that if it were to their advantage to repay at a certain date or after they should have the right to do so. It has never been taken to mean, so far as I know, by anybody who has any understanding of the facts, that that implied any obligation on the Government's side ever to repay an undated stock simply because they have put in this common stipulation, which I think applies to a great many undated stocks and has done so for at least 100 years or so. They have the power to repay them at a certain time if it suits them to do so.
I am glad that bath my noble friends and the noble Lord opposite think the Bill has been improved by these Amendments, and that they are at least partly satisfied with the efforts which the Government have made to meet the views which they expressed to your Lordships and which have been repeated by their friends in another place. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered.—(The Earl of Dundee.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[The references are to Bill [60] as first printed for the House of Commons]
Clause 1, page 1, line 19, leave out ("so relating which is passed or") and insert ("made under an enactment, whenever passed or made, and so relating or in any other instrument so relating which is")
Clause 2, page 2, Clause 2, page 2, line 9, leave out ("section") and insert ("Act")
Clause 2, page 2, line 16, at end insert ("at the same time")
Clause 2, page 2, line 29, leave out from ("accrues") to ("of") in line 30 and insert ("to the trustee as owner or former owner")
Clause 2, page 2, line 37, at end insert—
("Where a trustee acquires property in consideration of a money payment the acquisition of the property shall be treated for the purposes of this section as investment and not as the accrual of property to the trust fund, notwithstanding that the amount of the consideration is less than the value of the property acquired; and paragraph (a) of this subsection shall not include the case of a dividend or interest becoming part of a trust fund.")
Clause 2, page 2, line 38, leave out subsection
(4) and insert—
("(4) Where in the exercise of any power or duty of a trustee property falls to be taken out
40
of the trust fund, nothing in this section shall restrict his discretion as to the choice of property to be taken out.")
Clause 3, page 3, line 30, leave out subsection (2).
Clause 3, page 3, line 42, at end insert—
("(3) In relation to property, including wider-range but not including narrower-range investments—

(a) which a trustee is authorised to hold apart from—

(i) the provisions of section one of this Act or any of the provisions of Part I of the Trustee Act, 1925, or any of the provisions of the Trusts (Scotland) Act, 1921, or

(ii) any such power to invest in authorised investments as is mentioned in the foregoing subsection, or

(b) which became part of a trust fund in consequence of the exercise by the trustee, as owner of property falling within this subsection, of any power conferred by subsection (3) or (4) of section ten of the Trustee Act, 1925, or paragraph (o) or (p) of subsection (1) of section four of the Trusts (Scotland) Act, 1921,

the foregoing section shall have effect subject to the modifications set out in the Schedule (Modification of s. 2 in relation to property falling within s. 3 (3)) to this Act.
(4) The foregoing subsection shall not apply where the powers of the trustee to invest or postpone conversion have been conferred or varied—

(a) by an order of any court made within the period of ten years ending with the passing of this Act, or

(b) by any enactment passed, or instrument having effect under an enactment made, within that period, being an enactment or instrument relating specifically to the trusts in question; or

(c) by an enactment contained in a local Act of the present Session;

but the provisions of the Schedule (Provisions supplementary to s. 3 (4)) to this Act shall have effect in a case falling within this subsection.")
Clause 3, page 3, line 43, leave out subsections (4) to (6).
Clause 4, page 4, line 44, leave out from beginning to ("so")
Clause 4, page 4, line 5, at end insert—
("(3) Where property is taken out of a trust fund by way of appropriation so as to form a separate fund, and at the time of the appropriation the trust fund had (as to the whole or a part thereof) been divided in pursuance of subsection (1) of section two of this Act, or that subsection as modified by the Schedule (Modification of s. 2 in relation to property falling within s. 3 (3)) to this Act, then if the separate fund is so divided the narrow-range and wider-range parts of the separate fund may be constituted so as either to be equal, or to bear to each other the same proportion as the two corresponding parts of the fund out of

41
which it was so appropriated (the values of those parts of those funds being ascertained as at the time of appropriation), or some intermediate proportion.")
Clause 4, page 5, line 6, leave out subsections (3) to (6).
Clause 4, page 5, line 35, leave out subsection (7) and insert—
("(7) In the application of this section to Scotland the following subsection shall be substituted for subsection (1) thereof:—
'(1) In this Act "property" includes property of any description (whether heritable or moveable, corporeal or incorporeal) which is presently enjoyable, but does not include a future interest, whether vested or contingent'".)
After Clause 4, insert the following new clause:
Certain valuations to he conclusive for purposes of division of trust fund
("(1) If for the purposes of section two or four of this Act or Schedule (Modification of s. 2 in relation to property falling within s. 3 (3)) thereto a trustee obtains, from a person reasonably believed by the trustee to be qualified to make it, a valuation in writing of any property, the valuation shall be conclusive in determining whether the division of the trust fund in pursuance of subsection (1) of the said section two, or any transfer or apportionment of property under that section or the said Schedule, has been duly made.
(2) The foregoing subsection applies to any such valuation notwithstanding that it is made by a person in the course of his employment as an officer or servant.")
Clause 5, page 6, line 3, leave out from ("for") to the end of line 7 and insert ("diversification of investments of the trust, in so far as is appropriate to the circumstances of the trust")
Clause 5, page 6, line 13, after ("Act") insert ("or before investing in any such manner in the exercise of a power falling within subsection (2) of section three of this Act")
Clause 5, page 6, line 18, after ("power") insert ("and in such a manner")
Clause 6, page 7, line 16, at end insert—
("(2) Where, in the exercise of powers conferred by any enactment, an authority to which paragraph 9 of Part II of the First Schedule to this Act applies uses money belonging to any fund for a purpose for which the authority has power to borrow, the foregoing provisions of this Act, as applied by the foregoing subsection, shall apply as if there were comprised in the fund (in addition to the actual content thereof) property, being narrower-range investments, having a value equal to so much of the said money as for the time being has not been repaid to the fund, and accordingly any repayment of such money to the fund shall not be treated for the said purposes as the accrual of property to the fund:
Provided that nothing in this subsection shall be taken to require compliance with any of the provisions of section five of this Act in relation to the exercise of such powers as aforesaid.")
Clause 7, page 7, line 25, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
("(a) notwithstanding anything in subsection (3) of section one of this Act, no provision of any enactment passed, or instrument having effect under an enactment and made, before the passing of this Act shall limit the powers conferred by the said section one.")
Clause 7, page 7, line 41, leave out from ("enactment") to end of line 42 and insert ("contained in a local or private Act.")
After Clause 7, insert the following new clause:
Supplementary provisions as to investments
(".—(1) In subsection (3) of section ten of the Trustee Act, 1925, before paragraph (c) (which enables trustees to concur in any scheme or arrangement for the amalgamation of a company in which they hold securities with another company, with power to accept securities in the second company) there shall be inserted the following paragraph:—
(bb) for the acquisition of the securities of the company, or of control thereof, by another company'.
(2) It is hereby declared that the power to subscribe for securities conferred by subsection (4) of the said section ten includes power to retain them for any period for which the trustee has power to retain the holding in respect of which the right to subscribe for the securities was offered, but subject to any conditions subject to which the trustee has that power.")
After Clause 7, insert the following new clause:
Powers of Scottish trustees supplementary to powers of investment
(".—. Section four of the Trusts (Scotland) Act, 1921 (which empowers trustees in trusts the execution of which is governed by the law in force in Scotland to do certain acts, where such acts are not at variance with the terms or purposes of the trusts) shall have effect as if. in subsection (1) thereof, after paragraph (n) there were added the following paragraphs:—
'(o) to concur, in respect of any securities of a company (being securities comprised in the trust estate), in any scheme or arrangement—

(i) for the reconstruction of the company,

(ii) for the sale of all or any part of the property and undertaking of the company to another company,

(iii) for the acquisition of the securities of the company, or of control thereof, by another company,

(iv) for the amalgamation of the company with another company, or

(v) for the release, modification, or variation of any rights, privileges or liabilities attached to the securities or any of them,

in like manner as if the trustees were entitled to such securities beneficially; to accept any

43
securities of any denomination or description of the reconstructed or purchasing or new company in lieu of, or in exchange for, all or any of the first mentioned securities; and to retain any securities so accepted as aforesaid for any period fur which the trustees could have properly retained the original securities.
(p) to exercise, to such extent as the trustees think fit, any conditional or preferential right to subscribe for any securities in a company (being a right offered to them in respect of any holding in the company), to apply capital money of the trust estate in payment of the consideration, and to retain any such securities for which they have subscribed for any period far which they have power to retain the holding in respect of which the right to subscribe for the securities was offered (but subject to any conditions subject to which they have that power); to renounce, to such extent as they think fit, any such right; or to assign, to such extent as they think fit and for the best consideration that can reasonably be obtained, the benefit of such right OT the title thereto to any person, including any beneficiary under the trust '.")
Clause 8, page 8, line 17, at end insert:
("(3) In approving a scheme under this section, the Treasury may direct that the Prevention of Fraud (Investments) Act, 1958, or the Prevention of Fraud (Investments) Act (Northern Ireland), 1940, shall not apply to dealings undertaken or documents issued for the purposes of the scheme, or to such dealings or documents of such descriptions as may be specified in the direction.")
Clause 8, page 8, line 33, at end insert:
("(d) in Northern Ireland, the council of a county, a county or other borough, or an urban or rural district, and the Northern Ireland Local Government Officers' Superannuation Committee established under the Local Government (Superannuation) Act (Northern Ireland), 1950.")
After Clause 9, insert the following new clause:
Power to modify provisions as to division of trust fund
(".—(1) The Treasury may by order made by statutory instrument direct that, subject to subsection (3) of section four of this Act, any division of a trust fund made in pursuance of subsection (1) of section two of this Act during the continuance in force of the order shall be made so that the value of the wider-range part at the time of the division bears to the then value of the narrower-range part such proportion, greater than one but not greater than three to one, as may be prescribed by the order; and in this Act 'the prescribed proportion' means the proportion for the time being prescribed under his subsection.
(2) A fund which has been divided in pursuance of subsection (1) of section two of this Act before the coming into operation of an order under the foregoing subsection may notwithstanding anything in that subsection be again divided (once only) in pursuance of the said subsection (1) during the continuance in force of the order.
(3) If an order is made under subsection (1) of this section, then as from the coming into operation of the order—

(a) paragraph (b) of subsection (3) of section two of this Act and sub-paragraph (b) of paragraph 3 of the Second Schedule thereto shall have effect with the substitution, for the words from 'each' to the end, of the words 'the wider-range part of the fund is increased by an amount which bears the prescribed proportion to the amount by which the value of the narrower-range part of the fund is increased';

(b) subsection (3) of section four of this Act shall have effect as if for the words ' so as either 'to' each other 'there were substituted the words `so as to bear to each other either the prescribed proportion or ".

(4) An order under this section may be revoked by a subsequent order thereunder prescribing a great proportion.
(5) An order under this section shall not have effect unless approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.")
After Clause 10, insert the following new clause:
Saving for powers of court
(" The enlargement of the investment powers of trustees by this Act shall not lessen any power of a court to confer wider powers of investment on trustees, or affect the extent to which any such power is to be exercised.")
Clause 12, page 9, line 10, leave out ("section") and insert ("sections eight and")
Clause 12, page 9, line 20, at beginning ("Except where the context otherwise requires")
Clause 12, page 9, line 23, at beginning insert ("Except where the context otherwise requires")
First Schedule, page 11, line 2, leave out from ("and") to end of line 3 and insert ("on the giving of an undertaking by the authority that, if requested to charge the loan as aforesaid, it will either comply with the request or repay the loan")
Clause 12, page 9, line 16, at end insert—
("(d) the Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District or a combined police authority (within the meaning of the Police Act, 1946)")
Clause 12, page 9, line 26, at end insert ("or in a department (not being a department certified under subsection (3) of section nine of the Finance Act. 1956) of a bank any other department of which is so certified")
Clause 12, page 9, page 12, line 8, after ("Certificates") insert ("securities issued before the passing of this Act by the Government of the Isle of Man, securities falling within paragraph 4 of the said Part II issued before the passing of this Act ")
Clause 12, page 9, line 27, leave out ("ordinary")
Clause 12, page 9, line 29, at end insert ("and any shares which by their terms of issue did not rank for the dividend for that year.")
Clause 12, page 9, line 31, after ("formed") insert ("(i)")
Clause 12, page 9, line 32, after ("companies") insert ("or
(ii) to acquire the securities of, or control of, another company or other companies, or for either of those purposes and for other purposes")
Clause 12, page 9, line 40, at end insert ("and loan stock or notes")
After the First Schedule, insert the following new Schedule—

MODIFICATION OF S. 2 IN RELATION TO PROPERTY FALLING WITHIN S. 3 (3)
1. In this Schedule 'special-range property' means property falling within subsection (3) of section three of this Act.
2.—(1) Where a trust fund includes special-range property, subsection (1) of section two of this Act shall have effect as if references to the trust fund were references to so much thereof as does not consist of special-range property, and the special-range property shall be carried to a separate part of the fund.
(2) Any property which—

(a) being property belonging to the narrower-range or wider-range part of a trust fund, is converted into special-range property, or

(b) being special-range property, accrues to a trust fund after the division of the fund or part thereof in pursuance of subsection (1) of section two of this Act or of that subsection as modified by subparagraph (1) of this paragraph,

shall be carried to such a separate part of the fund as aforesaid: and subsections (2) and (3) of the said section two shall have effect subject to this sub-paragraph.
3. Where property carried to such a separate part as aforesaid is converted into property other than special-range property,

(a) it shall be transferred to the narrower-range part of the fund or the wider-range part of the fund as apportioned between them, and

(b) any transfer of property from one of those parts to the other shall be made which is necessary to secure that the value of each of those parts of the fund is increased by the same amount.")

After the First Schedule, insert the following new Schedule—
("PROVISIONS SUPPLEMENTARY TO S. 3 (4)
1. Where in a case falling within subsection (4) of section three of this Act, property belonging to the narrower-range part of a trust fund—

(a) is invested otherwise than in a narrower-range investment, or

(b) being so invested, is retained and not transferred or as soon as may be reinvested as mentioned in subsection (2) of section two of this Act,

then, so long as the property continues so invested and comprised in the narrower-range part of the fund, section one of the Act shall not authorise the making or retention of any wider-range investment.
2. Section four of the Trustee Act, 1925, or section thirty-three of the Trusts (Scotland) Act, 1921 (which relieve a trustee from liability for retaining an investment which has ceased to be authorised), shall not apply where an investment ceases to be authorised in consequence of the foregoing paragraph.")
Third Schedule, page 16, line 7, at end insert—

("9 & 10 Eliz. 2. c. 16.

The Sierra Leone Independence Act, 1961.

In the Third Schedule, paragraph 5.")

THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Earl of Dundee.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

POOLE CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: the said Amendments considered, and agreed to.

PORT OF LONDON BILL
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-four minutes past four o'clock