Lords Sitting of 24 October 1961

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Norwich

AIR DEFENCE IN SOUTH EAST ASIA
2.35 p.m.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in pursuance of the implementation of Commonwealth responsibilities for the air defence of South-East Asia they would enter into negotiations with the New Zealand Government with a view to the maintenance of the balance of our air power in that area as under present ANZAM arrangements: alternatively, whether Her Majesty's Government would consider waiving or reducing the cost to the New Zealand Government of the hire arrangement for Canberra aircraft in Singapore or assist with training and maintenance with a view to the reconsideration of the decision to withdraw the Canberra Squadron, so that it may remain in that area as a part of our collective air defence.]
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (LORD CARRINGTON): My Lords, The New Zealand Government consulted Her Majesty's Ministers in the United Kingdom before making the changes announced in the New Zealand Government's Review of Defence Policy, 1961. But the decision to end the hire arrangements, under which the R.N.Z.A.F. operated a squadron of United Kingdom owned Canberra aircraft in Malaya, was one which rested entirely with the New Zealand Government. They have pointed out in their Defence Review that although the withdrawal of No. 75 Canberra squadron will mean a nominal reduction in the New Zealand contribution to the strategic reserve, the remaining squadron of New Zealand-owned
656
Canberra aircraft may be moved forward from New Zealand in an emergency.
As regards the other points raised by my noble friend's Question, Her Majesty's Government are always in consultation with their ANZAM partners on the defence interests which they share in South East Asia.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for his reply, may I be permitted to ask three supplementary questions? First, is he aware that his reply will cause concern to the Royal Air Force in Singapore, as it will mean a reduction in their air strength in that area? Secondly, would he not agree that our joint Canberras should be on the spot, in view of the possible task of interdiction in that area? Finally, would he not agree that it is important to maintain the excellent team-work and the efficient spirit of co-operation which exists between our three Air Forces in that area?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I think the only thing I can do is to remind my noble friend that this was a decision of the New Zealand Government, not of the United Kingdom Government, and a decision which was taken because they have balance of payments difficulties, which Her Majesty's Government understand. I hope very much with my noble friend that the cooperation, which has been such a signal success in Singapore, will continue.

TRAFFIC THROUGH NEWMARKET
2.38 p.m.
LORD WOLVERTON: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what plans they have for a by-pass road for Newmarket, in view of the ever-increasing traffic through the town by the two trunk roads (A.11 and A.45) which may become damaging to the bloodstock industry and a danger to race horses, and those who ride them, and the probability of further increased traffic to the East Coast ports if this country enters the Common Market.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD CHESHAM): My Lords, I can hold out little hope of a by-pass being approved in the foreseeable future. To avoid the areas used by the blood-stock industry, it would need to be perhaps eleven miles long and cost several million pounds. Traffic congestion in Newmarket is acute only on summer Saturdays when there is a race meeting. It does not merit such large expenditure, when there are so many other more urgent schemes to be dealt with. The junction of A.11 and A.45 at Stetchworth Toll has, however, been improved and an improvement of the junction at Bury Toll Bar is under consideration.
LORD WOLVERTON: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for his reply, may I ask him a supplementary question? Traffic on these two trunk roads, I am credibly informed by a recent census, has increased enormously—I think on the A.11 by some 80 per cent. and on the A.45 by some 70 per cent.—in the last six or seven years. It is not only the summer race traffic; the problem is very acute during many months in the year. I hope my noble friend can reconsider the question of some sort of alleviation of the traffic at a not too future date. Locally, we are all concerned about it.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, may take leave to interpret that as a question? We are aware of the traffic situation, but having regard to what we find that situation to be, I am afraid that I can add nothing to my original Answer.

RAILWAY IN SWAZILAND
2.40 p.m.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: 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 they have any statement to make regarding the recent agreement for the construction of a railway in Swaziland, with special reference to the contribution of the Colonial Development Corporation to this pro-
658
ject and the composition of the Railway Board.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have decided that work on the building of the first railway in Swaziland shall begin as soon as possible. It is hoped that it will be open for through traffic by the end of 1964. The railway will run a distance of about 140 miles from the west of Swaziland to the Mozambique border, where it will link with the Portuguese railway to Lourenço Marques. Construction of this rail link will make it possible to develop for export large iron ore deposits at Ngwenya. The estimated cost of building the Swaziland section will be about £8 million. The Colonial Development Corporation and the Anglo-American Corporation have agreed to provide the major proportion of the capital required. The Colonial Development Corporation will provide £1¼ million from Exchequer sources and will also on-lend a further substantial sum which they will obtain from other sources.
I take this opportunity of thanking these two concerns for their co-operation in this venture, which, I am sure, will do much to foster the development of this Territory. The High Commissioner has issued a proclamation providing for the establishment of a Swaziland Railway Board, which will be responsible for the Swaziland section of the new railway. The Chairman of the Board and the chief executive officer will be Mr. L. A. W. Hawkins, whom Rhodesia Railways have been good enough to second for this post. There will be two ex officio members of the Board—the Secretary for Finance and Development and the Director of Public Works, both Swaziland Government officers. There will be four unofficial members, appointed by the High Commissioner. Of these, one will be a person representing the Swazi nation, appointed after consultation with the Paramount Chief in Council. The principal users of the railway will be represented among the other three.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, I am sure that your Lordships will be glad to hear this statement, and to know that

659
Her Majesty's Government are proposing to go ahead as soon as possible with the construction of this railway, which will make so much difference to the development of Swaziland. Would the noble Duke say a little more about the three unofficial members of the Board; whether any of the members of the Board are to be provided from the Colonial Development Corporation, and so on?
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, the finalising of the construction of the Board has not yet been settled, but I understand that the remaining three members will come from the users of the railway, as opposed to those who are constructing it.

NUCLEAR TESTS AND FALL-OUT HAZARD
2.44 p.m.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a statement about the level of radioactive fall-out resulting from the resumption of nuclear tests by the U.S.S.R., and whether they will give an assessment of the present and future hazards to the population of this country resulting from these tests.]
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, before the Leader of the House replies to the Question, may I inform the House of what I have put to him also? I have put the further Question by Private Notice: To ask whether Her Majesty's Government will make a statement with regard to the nuclear tests carried out by the U.S.S.R., with the latest information they have, including the estimated fall-out. I understand that the noble and learned Viscount will endeavour to answer both Questions in the one statement.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, I should like to ask the indulgence of the House, as the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition has indicated, to allow me to answer together both the Question standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord
660
Taylor, and the Question of which the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition has given Private Notice. I am grateful to both noble Lords for thus enabling me to provide some information on this important subject to Parliament before Prorogation, and in a form which will allow some further remarks to be made, if this is desired—though I hope that we shall not get into a regular debate, since this would be out of order; and, in any event, noble Lords will wish to study the more detailed statement which is being issued by the Medical Research Council this afternoon. In part of what I want to say, I will stick pretty closely to my notes. But first I should like to make two general observations.
A full scientific assessment of the effects of the recent tests is quite obviously premature. The tests are not, so far as I know, complete. We do not know the exact nature of the devices used, nor the height at which they were exploded, and the fall-out will not have begun to show its true pattern for a number of months. Nevertheless, I think that the public is entitled to an informed commentary on what is going on, and that is why I have arranged for the Medical Research Council to issue, this afternoon, a fuller statement of which the reply I am about to give is—as regards assessment of the effects of the tests—a summary.
My second observation is that, as regards the immediate future, I regard the statement by the Medical Research Council as reassuring. At the same time, I should like to emphasise that this should not in any way be considered to qualify what I said on the subject in the Foreign Affairs debate last week. What has happened is extremely serious. The safety margins are being eaten up. The breach, by one nation, of the moratorium may not remain the only case; it is liable to lead, sooner or later, to other Powers doing the same. The explosions that have recently taken place are, in my view—and the explosion of anything like a 50-megaton bomb certainly must be considered, on any objective view—an offence against humanity.
As regards the information asked for in the earlier part of the Private Notice Question of the Leader of the Opposition, I think the best thing I can do is

661
to repeat what was said by my right honourable friend the Minister of Defence in another place this morning. He said:
"As the House knows, the Russians are engaged on a series of nuclear tests and, up to yesterday's date, had exploded well over 20 weapons, giving a total of well over 20 megatons.
"Yesterday morning, two further devices were exploded. The first gave the greatest yield of any device yet exploded in the atmosphere. It must be some time before Western scientists can make any accurate assessment of either the total yield of this device or of its nature. Preliminary evidence suggests a yield of the order of 30 megatons.
"The second device exploded two hours later was a small yield and was exploded under water.
"We cannot of course say whether this concludes the present series of tests or whether further explosions will take place."
As regards fall-out, mentioned in the latter part of the Question asked by the Leader of the Opposition and the Question of the noble Lord. Lord Taylor, the radioactivity reaching the ground in recent weeks has come mainly from short-lived components, including radioactive iodine, which are deposited within a few weeks of the explosion. The deposition of longer-lived components, such as strontium 90 and caesium 137, is likely to be greatest next spring.
Radioactive fall-out is monitored in the United Kingdom under a country-wide scheme, and the results are published. The House might like to know that the country-wide sample comes from over 200 depots taken once a week; and in addition, daily, or sometimes every two days, samples for iodine are taken from a representative selection of points, at present about a dozen as a check. As the levels of radioactivity measured in air have so far been similar to those observed at an equivalent time after explosions in the autumn of 1958, there is at present no reason to believe that tests from which fall-out has so far been detected will involve an additional radiation exposure from external radiation or from strontium 90 differing
662
greatly from what has been experienced hitherto.
It may be concluded that strontium 90 from tests so far carried out will not give rise to bone levels approaching those which the Medical Research Council regard as the maximum permissible in the general population. I should like to say that that applies even after yesterday's tests, and even in the light of possible future tests in the present series.
In view of the rapid deposition of short-lived fission products observed following explosions in high altitudes during the autumn of 1958, extensive measurements are being made of levels of iodine 131 contamination following the present series of tests. The importance of this isotope is that it becomes concentrated in the thyroid gland. Consequently, although its radioactive half-life is only eight days, it may give doses comparable in significance with those delivered over much longer periods by the longer-lived materials produced in the same explosions.
Since iodine 131 is taken into the body predominantly through milk, the Medical Research Council have had under review the levels in milk which might be regarded as allowable. They have concluded that an acceptable dose would not be exceeded in any age group of the population unless an average concentration of iodine 131 in milk of 130 micromicrocuries per litre—that is a millionth part of a millionth part of a curie—was exceeded over a period of one year, or higher levels for correspondingly shorter times—for instance 520 micro-microcuries per litre for three months in one year. This criterion has been set to provide a margin of safety for the section of the population in which the dose received would be highest—namely infants in their first year of life. Considerably lower radiation doses would be received by older children and adults consuming the same milk. This, of course, is partly due to the composition of their diet, and partly due to the rate at which glands absorb the iodine. In framing this recommendation allowance has been made for the likely variation in the concentration of iodine in local milk supplies. It should be emphasised that the figure of 130 micro-microcuries per litre is quoted as a twelve-month running average level and that wide

663
variations in individual milk samples are to be expected.
During the past month the general level of iodine 131 in milk throughout the United Kingdom has been about 120 micro-microcuries per litre. However, as a marked decrease may be expected within a few weeks of the cessation of tests, the level specified by the Medical Research Council will not be reached unless the present levels of iodine 131 continue for several months, or are substantially increased as a result of further weapon tests.
The explosion of a 50-megaton bomb during the present series of tests would cause the total energy released from this series to correspond approximately with that of explosions occurring in the two years 1957 and 1958. If the bomb is exploded in the atmosphere, the resulting fall-out will depend on the extent to which the energy is due to fusion rather than fission, and on the altitude and site of the explosion. My Lords, perhaps I should say, in parenthesis, that it is not at all the case that the amount of fall-out from a fusion bomb is related in direct proportion to the size of the yield. A contrary impression happened to be given on the radio last night, so I thought it might be worth while saying that.
The explosion of the bomb in the atmosphere in Northern latitudes during the autumn could be followed by considerable fall-out of short and medium-lived radioisotopes. The iodine 131 deposition due to the series might then be substantially greater than that from previous tests, and the contamination of milk in the subsequent weeks might cause the annual mean level to reach that specified by the Medical Research Council.
Radioisotopes of medium half-lives, such as zirconium 95, might be expected to raise the external radiation level in the open for some months by an amount comparable with the dose rate received from natural sources. It is not yet possible to predict with any accuracy the total additional radiation dose to which the population will be committed by the current series of Russian tests. Bone concentrations of strontium 90 in young children might rise in the course of one year to about twice the maximum level
664
observed hitherto, but the level regarded in December, 1960, as the maximum permissible by the Medical Research Council would not be reached.
The Government are keeping close watch on the situation and considering measures that might be needed to meet future eventualities. Arrangements are being made to ensure that, should iodine 131 in liquid milk reach a danger level for infants of up to one year old, alternative forms of milk can immediately be made available for the necessary period.
That is the Answer to the noble Lords' Questions.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, may I ask the leave of my noble friend who has the Question down to intervene at the commencement, and to say how grateful we are to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House for the statement which he has given, and especially his own contribution to the statement? It is obvious that those of us who are not, like some of my noble friends, professionally qualified to deal with some of the considerable points that the noble Viscount has given will certainly require a good deal of time to study the details of this. In the meantime, I think we all want to express our horror at this ghastly and dastardly series of explosions which have been set off by the Russians, as if it were a special desire of one man, with those few who support him, to make war in peace time upon the infants of the world. That really is a very shocking thing. We shall have something more to say about that perhaps later on, but in the meantime I think we shall need to make a good deal of study of what should be the actual procedures of the Government.
They promise that they are going to take every possible care they can to keep the public informed and to take steps. I shall leave it to my professional friends to say whether, in the remedial measures the Government propose to take, consideration should not be given to whether making supplies of, say, dried milk available, or certain other actions to be taken, should not have to wait until we are certain that the danger to children has already been reached or surpassed. I put that as a general point for consideration to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, and leave it to

665
my other noble friends or Members of the House to put what other further questions they want.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, of course I associate myself with the expression of disgust at the action which I have had to describe, which the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition has expressed on behalf of his side of the House. I think we all agree with that.
As regards the other point, I think it is extremely important to remember that the point at which remedial measures will be taken is not the point at which, as you might say, the danger is actual, because at the moment it is exactly what the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition is suggesting —that is to say, it is what I might call the warning level. It is important also that people should not anticipate that, because otherwise you would have a lower warning level than necessary, and people would say, "We must have a lower one still". We will, of course, take what advice we can about this extremely important matter, but I think the general effect is that we must not ourselves be alarmed about this before it is really necessary. Although I fully realise the seriousness of what I have been saying, I think it is important not to put it any higher than I have put it.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, may I add my thanks to those of my noble Leader for the extremely clear and balanced statement which the noble Viscount the Lord President has given us of the risks of dangers and hazards through which we are now passing? I should like to thank also his really admirable scientific staff for the way they are carrying out this very delicate monitoring, and the extremely honest and objective way in which they are presenting results for him to present to us and, in due course, to the country. As I understand it, we shall know in a week or so after the termination of any series of tests whether this radio iodine is going to do harm, because it will have manifested itself quite quickly, and we can only hope that the present series was ended by these two devices exploded yesterday.
We have all been thinking much about the strange, bizarre pattern of thought which must go on in the minds of those
666
who explode these devices, and one wonders whether perhaps the Lord President cannot, in his capacity as Minister for Science, set up a research committee to study the motivation of the Russians and the way their minds work, because I really think this is a very interesting problem of psycho-pathology which ought to be properly investigated as well as these purely objective medical results.
LORD RATHCAVAN: My Lords, may I ask the noble Viscount this? I understand that there was a specially big bomb exploded yesterday. Is that supposed to be the big bomb threatened by Mr. Khrushchev, or is that still to come?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, may I deal with both those supplementary questions in the order in which they were put? I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, for his kindly observations about the statement, and also, on behalf of the Agricultural and the Medical Research Councils, to thank him for his recognition of their services. It is a very great thing to be thankful for that we have this system of monitoring and assessment, which has now been built up ready for use in just this situation, based on experience and objectivity. We have tried to ensure not merely that the panel of advisers is medically beyond reproach—which it is —but also that whatever they say is absolutely uncoloured by any political bias in one direction or the other, and I think that when your Lordships read the Medical Research Council's statement you will see that they live up to that objectivity. The difficulty, of course, in dealing with matters of this kind is to make what is essentially complex simple, and they of course do their best. But any attempt at simplification is very apt to lead to some degree of distortion, and therefore I did in the course of my remarks add remarks of my own, as a layman, to try to indicate the immediate practical effect of some of the things I see as essentially important.
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Rathcavan, I cannot of course say whether this was what Mr. Khrushchev was threatening. I can only repeat that it is said to have been a bomb of 30 megatons; that it took place before the end of the month—yesterday; and that

667
what Mr. Khrushchev promised was 50 megatons at the end of the month.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, can the noble Viscount tell me, having regard to the hazards to health of these tests, why the Government yesterday told the country they were considering whether they should start tests again?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, what the Government said was that they reserved the right to make further tests. They said nothing else than that.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, may I ask my noble and learned friend this? As these various elements in the fall-out seem to have different lengths of life, is it the view of the experts that there is a time after which fall-out A, B or C, lying on the grass or in the trees or in the atmosphere, ceases to be harmful, so that one may expect after a time that the effect will not be cumulative for, say, the next decade or for ever and that it will clear un?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: This is an extremely complex question. Broadly, the answer is, Yes. The position is that different radioactive isotopes have a different rate of decay. Fortunately, iodine, which is the one we have mainly been discussing this afternoon, iodine 131, has a relatively rapid rate of decay—an average half-life, as it is called, of eight days. That means, of course, that even if it stays up in the atmosphere, and does not come down for a long time, it is decaying up there, and therefore when it does come down after a reasonably short time it will be in a reasonably safe state. On the other hand, some of the others have a relatively long half-life; certainly strontium 90 has a half-life of 28 years, and of course it is coming down over a long period of time. As I indicated in the statement, it will probably reach its maximum in the spring of next year; it will not start coming down much earlier, owing to the effect by which it is yielded. It will not start coming down here until next spring, and even then, as it has such a long half-life, it will be active for a long time to come, and this is why it is generally considered a dangerous substance, even though in itself, and for any ordinary short period, it is not as dangerous as some of the other isotopes.
668
As regards the other part of my noble friend's question, I am again trying to simplify an extremely complex subject. Some of the isotopes, of course, wash away in the course of rain, and then they will go down to the rivers and into the sea and will cease to be tiresome. On the other hand, others will tend to accumulate in the soil, more or less rapidly; some will gradually be absorbed into the fabric of plants and trees; others—such as carbon 14—into the actual structure of living bodies such as ourselves. Indeed, we all have a proportion of carbon 14 in our bodies, quite independently of Mr. Khrushchev. The same is also true of strontium, which the body tends to take up in the same way as calcium, with which it has an affinity, and therefore it tends to concentrate in the bone. Subject to those qualifications, and, I am afraid, to many others, the broad answer is, Yes, the hazards will tend gradually to die out over a period of months.
LORD AMWELL: My Lords, how does that answer affect the results of the under-water explosions? Has the Minister anything to say about the question of the possible effects upon health through food, and so on, in the sea?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, so far as we know, there is no danger to health through the under-water explosions.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, this, of course, is a crime against humanity and especially children, and a breach of undertakings previously given by the Soviet Government. May I ask the noble Viscount the Leader of the House whether it would not be wise for the Government to bring these imperialist, militarist aggressors before the United Nations so that the United Nations may be given an opportunity of giving judgment and asking the Soviet Government to cease this very, very antisocial conduct?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I think that is a very wise suggestion, if I may say so. In fact what we are doing is to support a move which has been made by other nations in the United Nations, to do this very thing. My own feeling has been—I am told I am probably wrong about this—that any rational system of international law, like any rational system of municipal law, would

669
render such acts wholly outside the pale of what was legal, and I still believe that sooner or later an international court will have the knowledge and judgment and jurisprudence to say so.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, this is a matter in which there is considerable concern in the country. We in this House who share that concern have had the opportunity of hearing the noble Viscount's statement. There have been, as your Lordships probably know, various articles in the Press and various programmes on television, some of which perhaps have been alarming—more alarming than the statement we have had this afternoon. There is so much concern that I wonder whether the noble Viscount would consider having a Government statement made on television similar to, but probably more simple in words than the one we have had this afternoon, to give some assurance to the people of the country.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I think that that again is very desirable in one form or another. Whether a Government statement is quite the right vehicle I do not know. What I have tended to encourage hitherto—I am not of course in control of television programmes—is that some very reputable member of a panel, like Doctor Pochin, be approached by the television and broadcasting authorities to get this kind of statement. Of course, I could do this myself, but I do not carry the same scientific weight.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, in view of the fact that the new Session is not to start for a week, and if, unhappily, there is another explosion, could either the noble Viscount himself or his Department give an authoritative statement about the nature of such explosions rather than encourage possibly alarmist and ill-informed or not sufficiently informed speculation?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, again I take note of that suggestion. I think the responsibility for giving direct information about the explosions themselves had probably better remain with the Ministry of Defence, who are better qualified than I or my advisers to assess them, but it will, of course, take a matter of time even before yesterday's are properly assessed.
LORD KILLEARN: My Lords, I should like strongly to support the suggestion by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd. About ten days ago there was an interview on television (I forget which service) which I think was extraordinarily alarmist and unfortunately very impressive. It must have been seen by millions of people in this country, so that it seems to me that what the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, suggests is pure common sense. If the noble Viscount or the Government could see some way of getting the truth across, more or less as he has given it to-day, surely that would be a wise public service.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I absolutely agree with the necessity of trying to get a balanced view of the truth. Unhappily, of course, the truth is complex and sometimes does not acquire the same circulation as something which is a little less true and a little more exciting.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, is it not the case that in fact we shall not know for some time the full effects of the fallout? Therefore, while we do not want to encourage a state of panic in the country, would it not be premature to assume that all is well and that if the Russians explode the 50 megaton bomb they are free to do so because it is not as bad as we thought? We really do not know for certain, and shall not know for some time, the full effects.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, while it is true that we do not know, and, as I pointed out in my statement, we shall not know the full effects of the fall-out for some time, I think we have taken care of that margin of ignorance to a very large extent indeed. I, personally, have been through this with the Medical Research Council and their expert advisers on a number of occasions in the last four years, and even as recently as this morning, and I feel quite confident on the whole that I have not erred on the side of over-optimism. I have tried very hard not to do so. In fact, I do not think I could be reassuring to anybody if I had not taken that precaution.
LORD REA: My Lords, could the noble Viscount indicate whether any steps are being taken in research as

671
regards antidotes to radioactive fall-out if such antidotes exist?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I must apologise for taking up so much time of the House, but the answer to that is, I think, that we do not really know, to anything like an adequate extent, the actual physics of the damage which radioactivity does. We are carrying on at Harwell and elsewhere some very extensive research of a fundamental character, and there is also some applied research. Broadly speaking, there are various approaches to the problem, of a fairly practical kind. Obviously, if one is dealing with a short-lived isotope the mere fact of processing means that it is delayed between the cow and the consumer to a point at which the short-lived isotope has decayed. Also, you could in theory, by adding certain substances to milk, reduce both the absorption of strontium and of iodine. But I do not think I could say more than that we do research in all these subjects. The most important thing to research into is the actual fundamental biology and physics of the damage caused to the cell by ionising radiation, and not nearly enough is known about that.
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, the discussion has taken place very largely on how to deal with the problem of radioactive fall-out. May I support my noble friend Lord Morrison of Lambeth in pressing upon the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, that what is necessary is action to prevent tests which produce fall-out?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, that I absolutely agree with. That is exactly what we have been seeking to achieve in the test-ban Conference for three years, and what it grieves us so much we have failed to achieve—through, I think, no fault of our own. We are taking the step I referred to before—supporting the smaller European nations in their protest.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, the noble Viscount said, in quoting statements made by the Minister of Defence, that of the two devices exploded yesterday the first gave the greatest yield of any device yet exploded in the atmosphere. Was he referring to the present
672
series or to any device ever exploded, and, if so, are we to take it that this was a dirty bomb?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, as regards the first part of the question, I do mean that it was the biggest device ever exploded. The extent of dirtiness does not bear a direct relation to yield, partly because it depends upon the nature of the device employed and partly upon the height at which it is exploded. In theory, if it were exploded in space you would get either no or very little fall-out, for obvious reasons. Moreover, with fusion bombs, although fusion does create a certain amount of carbon 14 and there is, therefore, that factor in it, it does not really depend so much upon the fusion component of the bomb, which creates the size of the bang, as on the fission, which is used to trigger the bomb and which may also succeed the fusion at the end of the process. This causes radioactive fall-out very much in excess of the fusion process. Therefore, it depends very much on the size of the device and upon the height at which it is exploded.

HOUSING BILL
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.

THE MALTA CONSTITUTION
3.20 p.m.
EARL. WINTERTON EARL. WINTERTON rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether any consultations have taken place between it and the leaders of the political Parties in Malta over the proposed new Constitution. The noble Earl said: My Lords, it is as well when one gets old to recognise one's faults, and I realise that I am often aggressive and tactless. I might often be said to be offensive. I am very anxious on what is a delicate subject, as I shall show in a moment—namely, the situation in Malta—to avoid being aggressive or tactless. But I am bound to have to refer—which makes my position a somewhat delicate one, as the noble Earl who is going to reply is a devout Catholic—to the position of the Catholic Church. I hope I shall not say anything which could offend any of my very many Catholic friends. But the position of the Church, as your Lordships will be aware, is inextricably

673
intertwined at the moment with the political situation in Malta.
I do not know whether your Lordships are aware that attention has been called to this matter on more than one occasion by a right reverend Prelate—that in 1828, I think, the British Government conferred certain rights upon the Catholic Church in Malta. Among those rights was the power to prohibit in the streets any religious procession except a Catholic procession, and any service except a Catholic service. In fact, the latter power was put into operation, so we were informed at the time, when Her Majesty the Queen—I am not sure whether she was then Queen or was Princess Elizabeth—was going to unveil a memorial to the R.A.F. and it was intended that there should be a Church of England service, conducted I think by the Bishop of Gibraltar. As they were entitled to do, the Catholic Church objected to this. In consequence, the service was not held on Malta but instead on a ship in the harbour to which of course the power of the Church did not extend.
Before I continue this story I should like to say that I want to put factually the position between the Church and one of the principal, if not the biggest, political Parties in Malta. I should like to pay a tribute to the Catholic Church for the work it has done in many directions. I think it is due to the influence of that Church that Malta is a most law-abiding community. There is little violent crime; there is a high state of sexual morality. The Church is entitled to be congratulated on that. Some people think that there is something new about the most acrimonious controversy which has arisen between Mr. Mintoff and Archbishop Gonzi. But that is not so.
Some of your Lordships, especially those on the Front Bench opposite, who have, like myself, spent a long time in another place, will remember the late Lord Strickland before he became a Peer, and when he was a Member of another place. Lord Strickland, in 1930, objected to the action of the then Archbishop in trying to prevent a priest from leaving Malta, apparently on the ground that he was going to say something inimical to the administration of the Church in Malta. Lord
674
Strickland most strongly objected, with the result—I think this will be a surprise to your Lordships who may have forgotten the incident—that he was excommunicated. In consequence, the Constitution had to be suspended, and the kind of direct Colonial Office rule which now exists was brought into operation. Eventually, a new Constitution was given to Malta and, as everybody is aware, the last Prime Minister was my friend Dom Mintoff. I say "my friend". I differ greatly with many things that he has said lately, which I think have been foolish and indeed uncomplimentary to this country. But I have a great regard, as I said on the last occasion, for the work which he did when he was Prime Minister. Friends of mine in Malta have said that he was the first Prime Minister of that country who had really tried to carry out social reform, which he did quite successfully.
I want to go into parenthesis and say that I think that I owe an apology to my noble friend the Minister over a dispute which we had on the last occasion when I spoke on Malta, in regard to integration. I said that the Church had opposed integration. My noble friend denied that that was so. My noble friend was quite correct, in this respect, that there was no open statement by the Church opposing integration. The Archbishop did not issue any statement, but in fact—here I make myself responsible for this statement because I got it from more than one source, from the Maltese—the priesthood were told not in any way to advocate integration, and if they could see their way to do so, to oppose it.
Now we come to the deplorable story of events that have recently occurred over the controversy between the Archbishop and Dom Mintoff. I think it would be most improper for me to say who is in the right and who is in the wrong. The probable answer is that both of them have made great mistakes. Mr. Mintoff accuses the Archbishop of trying in every way to interfere with his Party, of carrying out various ecclesiastical sanctions against it. Only the other day I was told that when some Maltese soldiers, who I think had been to Libya or somewhere like that, were killed in an air crash, it was discovered that one of them was a prominent member of the

675
Maltese Labour Party, and in consequence the Maltese priest refused to give him the last rites which are customarily given to a Catholic when he is buried. Fortunately, an English Catholic chaplain stepped into the breach and the man in question received the proper rites.
Mr. Mintoff accuses the Archbishop of interfering with his meetings in every possible way. He says that when he has been holding open air meetings the church bells have been loudly rung in order to drown what he is saying, and things of that kind. That is his statement. Two letters have appeared in The Times newspaper defending the action of the Archbishop—one of them from a Father Bernard and the other from the indomitable Miss Strickland. I must make this criticism of these letters, or at any rate comment on them, that they both appeared to show, or to propagate the opinion, that the Church had a right to interfere in temporal and political matters to a degree that I certainly think would not be considered right by any Church in this country, the Established Church, the Free Churches or anybody else. I do not think that either of those letters helped the cause which Miss Strickland and Father Bernard were trying to support; in fact, I should imagine that they had a contrary effect. I do not want to speak long. I am glad that the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, with whose speech on the last occasion I agreed almost entirely, is going to follow me and will no doubt largely support the views which I am about to put forward.
The proposition which I wish to put forward is this. I greatly hope, despite the immense burden of responsibility upon his shoulders, that the new Secretary of State for the Colonies will himself go to Malta. I hope that my noble friend the Minister, for whom I have the highest admiration, and his Under-Secretary, will not think me offensive if I say that it would be much better that he should go rather than that they went, because, in view of this religious controversy, some people would say that the two Ministers were affected by their religious views. If they did go it would be necessary to have a talk not only with Mr. Mintoff but with Dr. Olivera, and any of the other Parties,
676
though they are mostly splinter Parties, which exist in Malta, to try to see whether it would be possible to devise a new Constitution.
Now I come to a controversial point, though I think I shall have the support of noble Lords opposite in what I am about to say. I do not see how Her Majesty's Government can say to some African people, whose grandfathers were more or less savages and who have only a very short experience of civilisation, when their leader (who may have been in prison for sedition and who may not be a person of any great substance) asks for self-government, that they will grant it at once, or give a promise of it, and, at the same time, not give the same assurances to such a highly-cultured people as the Maltese, with their great history behind them, with their immense courage during the war, and with over a hundred years of help in various ways to the British forces as stewards and seamen on British ships and as members of the British military forces. I do not see how they can give these assurances to African peoples and their leaders and not give them to a European community of the type and character of the Maltese. Somehow or other, Her Majesty's Government must give the Maltese an understanding of what they intend their ultimate future to be.
It may well be that the Government, the Committee on Imperial Defence, say that it is essential that we should retain Malta as a base. But that should not present any greater difficulties than did the situation in Cyprus. It could still be a base, even if Malta were given the power of independence and the power, if necessary, to leave the Commonwealth. I believe that, if that were done, it would make the situation very much easier.
I end on a rather personal note. I worked with and under Colonel T. E. Lawrence, and he was once good enough to say in a book which he wrote (I think it was The Seven Pillars of Wisdom), that I should always be in support of the weaker side except when I was hunting the fox. In this controversy I am certainly on the side of the weaker entity, which is Malta. Compared with this country, of course, she is weak. She has no political power here, and the

677
average person here does not take much interest in her affairs.
As I have said in previous debates, there is a strong Negrophile element in this country, and it is only self-government for Africans or the wellbeing of African States which appears to interest a number of newspapers. If Mr. Mintoff came to this country, I do not think he would be given half the attention by the B.B.C., by the Press, or even by the Prime Minister, that has been given to some of the African leaders: and yet he is the leader of a Party which would probably obtain a majority if there were an election. I would therefore make a very strong plea to my noble friend this afternoon to try—and this little debate is very important from the point of view of Malta—first to assure us that immediate steps will be taken to try to get the Maltese political leaders around a table; and, secondly, to give them some assurance as to the future. I think that Mr. Mintoff and other Maltese leaders have been rather unfair to the Government about the financial aid which has been given to Malta. It has been very considerable; but I think that it is money well spent. As the noble Earl the Minister, in his very interesting speech, told us last time, there are hopeful signs that the money which has been spent there, and which is going to be spent there, will fructify, in increasing both the tourist trade and also those lesser industrial undertakings which are so necessary for the wellbeing of the island.
There is one very small subsidiary point that I want to make before I sit down. I have read, and I know, that the Government, the War Office, are attempting to recruit people for the British Army in various parts of the world. There was a statement that they were to be mostly coloured people. I hope that they will attempt to recruit the Maltese, and will do everything possible to make the two Malta regiments (I think there is one of infantry and one of artillery, though I am not quite sure) feel that they are part of the British Army. From what I know from an officer friend of mine in one of them, I believe that they would very much appreciate being asked to serve overseas, perhaps in Libya, or even in this country. I know from what I have seen that they are very highly disciplined.
So, in thanking so many of your Lordships for being good enough to stay here to hear what I have to say, I end as I began: by saying that I very much hope that Malta will have the sympathy of your Lordships' House, of another place and of the Government, and that the very serious difficulties and differences which have existed between us and some of the Maltese during the last few years —differences which never ought to have existed, since until a few years ago there could not have been a more loyal community than that of Malta—will be resolved, and that this George Cross Island will once again be a happy part of the British Commonwealth.
3.37 p.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Earl for the Question he has put on the Order Paper this afternoon—for two reasons. In the first place, it raises an extremely important issue, that of Government policy towards the Colony of Malta, a Colony which is particularly close to all our hearts because of the great part it played during the war. Then, in the second place, I welcome the Question because it is so well-timed. It comes at a moment before the new Constitution has been imposed on the people of Malta and while the Government have time to reconsider the imposition of this Constitution and the method of obtaining co-operation with the people of Malta in their own political future.
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COLONIAL AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF PERTH): My Lords, I do not know whether I should interrupt the noble Earl, but perhaps he would like to know that I had intended to say, in reply to this Question, which includes the words, "proposed new Constitution", that, in fact, this morning, Her Majesty in Council was pleased to make a new Constitution for Malta, the text of which will be available in the Library of the House this afternoon for your Lordships. I thought I ought to make that point, because here is something which has happened. At the same time, the Question clearly raises various points which I shall be very ready to try and deal with, including anything the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, may want to say. But I thought it would be a pity if I

679
allowed him to continue speaking without this piece of information.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I am extremely grateful to the noble Earl, because I had completely misunderstood the situation. I had no information that the Constitution had already been promulgated by Order in Council. It is, therefore, a fait accompli; and nothing we say this afternoon can have the slightest effect on the policy of the Government in relation to what the noble Earl, Lord Winterton, then thought (though he was no doubt correct when he put the Question down) was the proposed Constitution of Malta.
My Lords, another comment I wanted to make on the noble Earl's remarks was that I do not propose to follow him in expressing any view about the controversy between the Labour Party and the Roman Catholic Church in Malta. With the greatest respect to the noble Earl, I do not think it is strictly relevant to the Question he has on the Paper. I am sure that we all share the hope that this conflict will be resolved by good will and tolerance on both sides. What I propose to say (and the substance of what I say has not been altered by what the noble Earl opposite has just told us) is this. As I understand it, from what the noble Earl has just said, the Blood Constitution, as I have no doubt it will be called, the Constitution proposed in the Report of the Blood Commission, has now been decided upon by the Government and will be imposed on Malta at an appropriate moment, which I imagine will be in the early part of next year. No doubt the noble Earl will give us the exact timing of the introduction of the new Constitution in his reply to the noble Earl's Question. It is therefore far too late to ask the Government to invite, as the noble Earl, Lord Winterton, has asked the Government to do in his Question, the political Parties to co-operate in the framing of this Constitution and to express views about what form this Constitution should take.
But, my Lords, I very much regret that the political Parties in Malta were not associated with this new Constitution. I think it is partly their fault, and I will go into that point in a moment; but I think it is also partly the fault of
680
the Government, and the most appropriate thing I can do in what I am going to say is to refer to their part. I think it is the fault of the Government because the reason why the political Parties in Malta would not co-operate or be associated in any discussion of this Constitution was that the Government would not treat the Blood Constitution as an interim Constitution pending the working out of a Constitution for an independent State of Malta.
I believe—and here I agree entirely with the noble Earl opposite—that the Government is gravely at fault in treating Malta differently from British territories in Africa. British West Africa (the three great British territories in West Africa) are already independent. They are already self-governing countries in the Commonwealth. Our territories in East and Central Africa have all been promised independence, and their Constitutions are at different stages in the advance to full self-government. We have just heard—well, we heard it a few months ago, but it was fairly recently—that Tanganyika would become independent towards the end of this year. We have heard even more recently, during the last few weeks, that Uganda will become independent next year. My Lords, how can the Government expect a politically sophisticated people like the people of Malta to accept treatment as political children, while they are treating African peoples as adults? How can they expect a Mediterranean people like the people of Malta to accept treatment as politically immature individuals, when the peoples of Africa are being treated as politically fully mature?
I do not know what is the real reason for this aspect of Government colonial policy, so different from the general tenor of the Government's colonial policy. I have not any access to State papers or Cabinet documents, and of course I do not know what goes on in Cabinet Meetings, but my guess is this: I cannot help thinking that the real reason for treating Malta in this way is a strategic rather than political reason. It is the fear that if Malta were no longer British, we could not then deny it as a base to any foreign power, even to the Soviet Union. I do not believe that our strategic experts are so naïve

681
that they think Malta of any great strategic value to us; I certainly do not believe that; but I can see an argument for the view that Malta might be of value to a foreign power. However, my own view about this is that it is in fact of no greater value to a foreign power than it would be to us under conditions of modern warfare. I think it is a complete misunderstanding of the attitude of the Maltese people to Communist countries if the Government here imagine for one moment that the Maltese would ever be willing to put themselves under the thumb of the Soviet Union or of any Communist power.
In looking to the future, I hope that when Malta becomes independent, as it must do one day like every other British Colony, it will belong to the N.A.T.O. camp and will join the West. But if the worst happens and Malta were to become neutral, like most of its neighbours in North Africa, even that would not be a great blow to us. I think it is a risk that has to be taken. Every important political decision involves a risk, and a decision to give a country independence involves enormous risk. This is just one of the risks which has to he taken in connection with Malta. I am very much afraid that the decision we have heard about this afternoon from the noble Earl, to impose this Constitution, may lead to violence and bloodshed in Malta. At best—and we all hope that "at best" is what will happen—it will start a Parliamentary system which will be so unrepresentative and so unpopular in Malta that it is very likely to be replaced again by direct rule. And this has happened again and again in the history of Malta since the First World War. Again and again we have devised Constitutions which have not worked, and Malta has come back to direct rule.
I hope very much that, as the Government have decided to proceed in this way, the Maltese will refrain from violence and bloodshed, and I am sure that that is the appeal that everyone in your Lordships' House will make to Malta. I also hope that the Maltese and the big Maltese political Parties may be willing to change their minds, even at the last moment, to take part in the elections, and to try to work a Parliamentary system which is constitutionally devised
682
and which is, at any rate, better than the present system of direct rule.
My Lords, this is at best what one can hope for if our friends in Malta behave in an extraordinary forbearing, reasonable way. I think we should give them more help from the United Kingdom. We could give them a lead, and we have a major share in the responsibility for the future of Malta. If only the Government, before the elections take place, could give some sort of undertaking that they were prepared to discuss the question of independence, full self-government for Malta, and that this Constitution was preparatory to another Constitution under which the Government of Malta would have full sovereignty, I think it would launch this Constitution in an atmosphere that was likely to make it workable in Malta.
I know that the noble Earl will not be in a position this afternoon to say that the Government have changed their attitude in this respect; but we have a new Secretary of State for the Colonies, Mr. Maudling, and we all hope that he may be able to go to Malta, as the noble Earl suggested, although it would be difficult for him with his responsibilities. However, I think we are entitled to ask him to reconsider British policy towards Malta and particularly to reconsider the possibility of asking Malta to work with us in the implementation of the Constitution, which is only a step towards full sovereignty, full self-government and complete independence for the people of Malta.
3.51 p.m.
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, I think that it might be useful if I started by reading out the question which the noble Earl, Lord Winterton, put down on the Order Paper. It is as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether any consultations have taken place between it and the leaders of the political Parties in Malta over the proposed new Constitution.
Frankly, I am well briefed to answer that Question, and perhaps some of your Lordships want to know the Answer, but your Lordships will not expect me to deal with all the points over which the noble Earl ranged. So far as I am concerned, the question of age has nothing to do with it. I always enjoy any contribution which the noble Earl may make, and we all know his real love for Malta and what prompts him to take

683
this particular interest in the island. I do not think that it would be appropriate for me to touch on, for example, the question of the religious controversy which the noble Earl elaborated.
It is a curious and, in a sense, unfortunate coincidence that the Constitution was announced after the Privy Council meeting this morning, but I do not think that any noble Lord should really be surprised about this when he considers the history of the matter. We had a debate in your Lordships' House just before the House rose for the Recess, so that it is not as if we had not had the benefit of the views of the noble Earl who raised the Question and of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, before we came to the final elaboration of the Constitution. As your Lordships know, the Constitution is based entirely—I do not say literally, word for word—on the Blood Report, which was published earlier in the year.
The answer to the Question whether we had consultations with the leaders of the political Parties in Malta over the proposed Constitution would be that since the Blood Commission went out we have had very limited consultations, and with the two leading political Parties none at all. I regret as much as I am sure many noble Lords regret that there was no consultation with the leading Parties, but from that I do not wish your Lordships to deduce that this Constitution has been formed in a vacuum, that we have just written down what we have thought would be good for Malta and did not have the benefit of knowing what the Maltese think. Far from it.
Over the last year all the political Parties, either officially or unofficially, by publications, promulgations and speeches have made known their views on certain aspects. Two years ago we tried to have just such a conference as the noble Earl asked for, but that was abortive because we could not get people round the table. We also have had the advantage of the work of the Blood Commission, which consisted of Sir Hilary Blood, two eminent trade unionists, one replacing the other, Sir Alfred Roberts and then Mr. Hayday and a representative from the Commonwealth, Mr. St. John from Australia.
684
Their Report, which we adopted earlier in the year, was the basis on which we formed the Constitution. They did not have talks officially with Mr. Mintoff, for example, but they obtained a considerable amount of information from various sources, and were able, I think, to their own complete satisfaction to draw up a Constitution which they thought was both forward in relation to the last Constitution and appropriate for the present situation in Malta. If your Lordships would care to look at paragraphs 119 and 120 of the Blood Report your Lordships will see that what I am saying is supported by what the Commission have actually written.
I am deliberately not going into great detail because I know that there is another Question and that we have not much time. That is the background to the question as to whether we have drawn up this Constitution in a vacuum or after getting the best advice we could from the people of Malta and from those experts who went out there. When the Blood Report was published the Secretary of State once again invited those in Malta to make known their views and comments. We have a certain number, a rather limited number, of suggestions from one or two of the lesser—"smaller" is perhaps the right word to use—political Parties, which were of value to us, but we did not get the sort of help we should have liked. What were we to do? We thought that the right course was to go forward. As the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, said, the Maltese are not only a gallant people but politically mature, and in our judgment the right course was to have elections as soon as it was appropriate, so that we could have representative government back again, because this is clearly the right form of government for the people of Malta.
The noble Earl asked me when the new Constitution will come into effect. The answer is that the part which allows for elections will come into effect on November 1, and the rest on a date to be proclaimed later by the Governor, a date which it is thought should be after the elections and when there is a Maltese Prime Minister. I shall not go into the details of the Constitution. Malta is to become a State with all that that stands for. No longer will it be the island, or

685
even the George Cross Island, of Malta —though we shall always remember it as the George Cross Island—but the State of Malta. It will be able to deal with all matters which affect it, except defence and foreign affairs, in which we shall have concurrent powers. If anything were to be done which was repugnant to our Parliament, our rule would prevail. The Constitution is a tremendous step forward in relation to any previous Constitution.
We have tried to get consultations with the Maltese political Parties, but the Leaders would not play. So, because we think that elections are all important for the island, we shall introduce this Constitution; and I express the hope that whoever are elected will play their part in running the island on the basis of the Constitution. I would, in that respect, quote the last thing said by the Blood Commission in paragraph 121 of their Report, where they say:
"We know very well that no Constitution can work if the will to make it work is not present. We cannot create that will, but we believe that if it were forthcoming the Maltese State could grow, and flourish, in the constitutional framework which we have devised."
That I think is right. But the noble Earl, Lord Winterton, and the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, both pressed for some statement about the future.
We have again and again given our position in regard to that, and I think I can do no better than to end up by quoting what was said by the then Colonial Secretary on March 8 in another place, which was certainly something that I echoed in this House. He said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 636, col. 474]:
"I made it clear that the Blood Commission had as its concern the immediate future. I did not then suggest, and I do not now suggest, that the Constitution which I have just announced will be the final stage of Malta's constitutional development."
I do not think it is appropriate for me to go further. This makes it extremely clear, and I would just repeat the words:
"… and I do not now suggest that the Constitution which I have just announced will be the final stage of Malta's constitutional development."

ST. LUCIA ELECTIONS
4.2 p.m.
LORD WALSTON LORD WALSTON rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware of the general feeling of dismay
686
and bewilderment in the island of St. Lucia as a result of the Order in Council which, in effect, sets aside a High Court decision dealing with the validity of the recent elections in the Colony; and of the unfortunate effects this Order is likely to have upon respect for democratic forms of government in territories shortly to become independent. The noble Lord said: My Lords, before starting to speak to this Question, I feel that I should declare such interest as I have in this matter, in that I am a farmer in the island of St. Lucia, and most of the people involved in this particular incident to which I shall refer are at any rate personal acquaintances of mine, if not personal friends. There is little time left to deal with the matter. I shall therefore make my comments as short as 'possible, and I hope that sufficient time will be left at least for an Answer.
In the middle of April of this year there was a General Election held in the island of St. Lucia. At that General Election the Labour Party gained nine of the ten seats, and the People's Progressive Party, under which name the Right Wing Party, somewhat curiously, posed, gained the remaining seat. It appeared, therefore, that there was going to be a strong Government composed of the Labour Party Members, as there had been prior to the General Election. However, some half hour or so before the final time at which protests against the validity of elections could be lodged the Opposition lodged protests against all nine of the successful Labour Members on the ground that they had used wrong nomination papers. They did not mention the fact that they themselves had also used the same nomination papers; but that was fair enough. As it happened, one of the protests was ruled out on the ground of invalidity, and that, by a rather important coincidence, happened to be the protest against the leader of what by now had become the dissident branch of the St. Lucia Labour Party—one might almost call it the "Bevanite group"; because they learn quite rapidly from what goes on in this country.
Therefore, one had in the middle of May a situation in which there was one undisputed People's Progressive Party member, one undisputed Labour Party member, the leader of the dissident group,

687
and eight disputed Labour Party members, the majority of whom were of the orthodox Labour Party. The island was therefore left in a state of uncertainty until this case had been heard by the Supreme Court. The case duly came up towards the end of July, and in early August, or it may have been the end of July (I am not certain of the exact date), a Judge of the Supreme Court delivered his decision, which invalidated the elections of the eight Members whose election was in question.
That was the situation when the Judge had delivered his judgment. But with-in 24 hours of that judgment being delivered news arrived in the island that by Order in Council Her Majesty's Government had, in fact, validated the elections. The ground on which that was done may seem to us sitting here to be perfectly reasonable. There was no fraud; there was no suggestion that the will of the electors had been flouted; there was no deception at all: it was purely a matter of a very technical slipup which had been perpetrated by all candidates of all Parties, both successful and unsuccessful. So it may be said: "Why bother about it? It is only validating something which is common sense." But, my Lords, the situation in St. Lucia, and in many other similar areas of the island, is not exactly what it is here. I should like to read to your Lordships an extract from a letter I received from a highly respected citizen of St. Lucia regarding this matter. He wrote:
"It is felt that the Order in Council could be reasonable in a country with mature politics and a high standard of education, but certainly not in these islands. We have all along felt that once a judge has ruled the ruling must be upheld, and now we may as well be living in Cuba or other Latin American countries."
He goes on to say:
"All this could lead to a multitude of future dictatorial and injudicious legislation, especially when we shall have received independence, which is so near. In other words, Her Majesty's Government has given our politicians an example of what they can do under independence. The judge, in pronouncing judgment on the election petitions, said that in matters pertaining to elections strict compliance with the law must at all times be adhered to. We agree with him. Otherwise, corruption, particularly with our high rate of illiteracy, is bound to creep in rapidly."
That is the reason why I feel it is right to raise this matter in your Lordships' House.
It may be said, perhaps cynically: "What does it matter, in an island the size of the Isle of Wight, with a population of 100,000? Maybe there was some slip-up in the Colonial Office and things did not go quite so rapidly as they should have done. Maybe the legal department was over-worked and had more important matters to deal with." But, my Lords, it is not merely one small island. A decision of this kind, a deliberate flouting, as it seems to them, of the High Court Judge's decision and the overruling of it by Her Majesty's Government's decision, is bound to have an effect on countries just entering into democracy. I said earlier, perhaps slightly flippantly, that they learn quickly from us in their Bevanite troubles and the dissident Labour group. But they learn in other ways, too. If Her Majesty's Government, finding that something has been done that is not to their liking, that a Judge has given a decision with which they do not agree, or which it appears may lead to complications and undue and unnecessary trouble, make an Order in Council, or pass retrospective legislation, or what you will, that, I maintain, is bound to lead to a disastrous state of mind in these countries which have just received, or are just about to receive, their independence, particularly when, not many miles away, we have the example of Cuba and of Castro. For that reason alone, I consider that this has been a most unfortunate action on the part of the Colonial Office.
There is one further point where I feel the action has still further repercussions. We are seeing now, in many of these former Colonies as they gain their independence, that once Parties, groups or tribes no longer have to unite in order to get rid of the imperialistic yoke, they find that they have themselves to fight among, too. We see this in Kenya today more seriously than in St. Lucia. If any action of the Government tends to exacerbate the struggle between the different groups which already exist, then it must be a bad action. I hope that it is not too late for Her Majesty's Government to do something to right the very serious wrong impression which they have made as a result of this unfortunate Order in Council.
4.10 p.m.
LORD TWINING: My Lords, as a former administrator of the island of St. Lucia, I have some knowledge of the island, its people, their problems and their aspirations. They have a traditional respect for law. They have recently become great devotees of democracy, and this act, which here seems perfectly reasonable perhaps, must seem to them to be an arbitrary act which can upset the Supreme Court decision and can also show that irregularities in a General Election can be permitted. I hope Her Majesty's Government will see that everything is done to explain the reasons which led to the Order in Council, so that there will be no misunderstanding, or so that the misunderstanding which has already aroused passions in the island can be minimised. In view of the shortage of time, I will say no more.
4.12 p.m.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, it is a most unfortunate thing that time has been so limited this afternoon, because I believe that a grave injustice has been perpetrated. My information comes from a professional man in St. Lucia of the highest integrity. We have mutual friends, and I feel that I can rely upon his information. My noble friend has given all the details and consequently I cannot elaborate the case as I should have wished.
May I just mention these points? This case was due to be heard in the Supreme Court of St. Lucia at the end of July. On July 31 the learned Judge ruled that the long line of election petitions tended to the view that the rules in respect of nominees must be strictly followed, that the provisions had been violated, and that the nominations were consequently void. On August 2 a fourth petition came up for hearing. Counsel for the respondent objected that since the months of August and September were months during which the court was on vacation, no civil matters could lawfully be then heard. The learned Judge adjourned the court sine die in order to consider the objections, intimating that the parties and counsel would be duly notified when the court would be ready to make its ruling.
690
This is really the most outrageous point. On the following day it was rumoured that the Government of St. Lucia had sent a telegram to the Colonial Office, asking for legislation to enable them to retain their seats. Public outcry was immediate and vociferous. I see the noble Earl looking at the clock. This is most difficult. The fact is that action was taken in this country, and on August 8 an Order in Council was made validating retrospectively the elections and going over the head of the Judge in the Supreme Court. There is a very strong case. We want to hear the noble Earl, and I am told there are only four minutes left, but I ask him to reconsider this matter, because although St. Lucia is a very small place, the ripples that go out from St. Lucia in the Caribbean during the next year may be of such a kind that this case will have the most unfortunate repercussions.
4.15 p.m.
THE EARL of PERTH: My Lords, I am extremely sorry we have such a limited time, because clearly the concern expressed by the noble Lord who put down the Question and the noble Lord, Lord Twining, and also the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, shows the anxiety felt. I have, I think, an absolutely cast-iron answer which I should want to be broadcast in St. Lucia in particular. Whether I shall be able to give it to your Lordships in the five minutes or so at my disposal I do not know, but I hope I shall. I hope your Lordships will find that it is quite clear that, so far as Her Majesty's Government are concerned, there is no question of disregarding the high standing and repute of the Supreme Court of St. Lucia.
May I very quickly give your Lordships some facts? The elections were on April 14. Before those elections all candidates were given by the returning officer a form in regard to their nomination. Subsequently, as it will appear, that form proved to be wrong, in that it was based on the 1951 rules for elections, and not on those for 1953. But the only difference in substance was really ridiculously small. In the 1951 rules they were to be duly qualified in the electoral district, whereas the 1953 rules laid it down that they could be duly qualified in the Colony of St. Lucia.

691
As a matter of detail, there is no difference at all. What happened? The elections were fought, and the result was the return of nine Labour and one Peoples' Progressive Party candidates. As always, there are 21 days in which to file objection. Some wise person in the Peoples' Progressive Party found the slip that had been made, and on the Saturday, at the last possible moment, objections were lodged. I suppose your Lordships may say that this is a perfectly proper political manœuvre. But let us recognise that that is what it was, remembering that everybody had fallen into the same category.
In due course the case came up before the courts. For one reason or another —a chapter of unfortunate things—we were not officially advised of this position until rather late. The reason for that, I think, was that the chief minister and his chief official were both over here on an important conference, and consultation with them did not take place until they got back. As soon as they arrived back this question was discussed and we were officially advised. What were we to do? You have heard from me just what was the difference and what was this technical fault. It did not seem appropriate to us to ask for a special meeting of the Privy Council to validate this purely technical issue. Rather did we think it appropriate that it should be put right at the next meeting of the Privy Council, which was, as a matter of fact, on August 2. On August 2 the validating Order was duly made.
By great bad fortune, if you like, the Judge to whom this case had been put gave his ruling (we had no idea he was going to do it, or we might have tried to ask him to wait a day or two) on July 31. But you will see from the account I have given that this was not cause and effect, if I may put it that way, but rather that the whole thing had been arranged and decided long before. Let us see what the learned Judge said at the time he gave his ruling. He regretted that there was an absence of provision in the St. Lucia law corresponding to the provision of Section 16 of the Representation of the People Act, 1949, in this country. Your Lordships will know that, under that
692
Act, if a returning officer makes a mistake which does not substantially vary from the law as directed and does not affect the results of the election then it is forgotten. This is exactly what was the position in regard to St. Lucia, and exactly what we did in the Order in Council. We, in effect, gave the power, or took action, which would have been ordinarily possible in St. Lucia if they had had the same type of section in their election laws as Section 16 of the Representation of the People Act, 1949. It is obviously the right course to follow to give expression to the will of the people and to avoid having another set of elections—they had just had one—merely because there was a technical mistake which the Judge and everybody wished had not happened.
Why does all this agitation go on? I must make clear this issue—and I do not blame people or political Parties—of a political agitation. What happened after the elections, as your Lordships have heard, is this. There were nine Labour and one People's Progressive Party candidates elected. The Labour Party split. These things happen in many places, I know. The splinter Party said, "Here is a chance for us to have new elections, and we shall see if we cannot get the existing Government out and return ourselves." So for the last weeks they have been agitating on this chance, as they see it, of upsetting things and having new elections, although as I think and hope I have explained satisfactorily to your Lordships, there is no ground for them—in fact very much the opposite. The will of the people was expressed in the elections, and to have new ones would be both expensive and defeating the normal course of democracy which we all understand so well. As I say, this is why at this moment one gets this agitation. There are, as I have endeavoured to show, no clear grounds—no grounds at all—for general "dismay and bewilderment" as mentioned in the noble Lord's Question.
I hope, in the light of this explanation—which I have had to give much more quickly than I should have wished—that the people will no longer have that dismay, and will understand that what was done was done not in a spirit of trickery or so that one could invalidate the courts but rather so as to ensure

693
quite clearly that the wish of one and all should be given effect. I would end with an expression of hope that these people who petitioned, whose petition has been answered and who have been told that there is no ground for reopening the issue, will drop it and have recourse to what is the normal form of Parliamentary opposition; and, if successful, then they themselves may form a Government.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: May I ask the noble Earl before he sits down, as he has a little unfairly said that this is a political matter, whether he then suggests that the Judge of the Supreme Court had a political bias when he ruled in opposite manner to the Government here?
THE EARL OF PERTH: Certainly not, I would not think of suggesting such a thing. The Judge said he had to work strictly according to law. He also expressed regret, as I outlined, that there was no section similar to one over here. By that very expression he showed that he would have wished the course to have been otherwise; and, as I have tried to explain, and I think quite adequately, the Order in Council gives just that effect to the very wish that the Judge expressed.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

ROYAL COMMISSION
4.30 p.m.
The following Bill received the Royal Assent:
Housing.

PROROGATION: HER MAJESTY'S SPEECH
Her Majesty's most gracious Speech was then delivered to both Houses of Parliament by The Lord Chancellor (in pursuance of Her Majesty's Command) as followeth:
"My Lords and Members of the House of Commons
"I was deeply moved by the enthusiastic welcome which My Husband and I received during our visits to India and Pakistan. We shall long treasure most vivid and warming
694
memories of all that we saw in these great and growing countries, whose rich cultural heritage is now rivalled by their striking technical and industrial advance.
"It gave us great pleasure to visit Iran as the guests of His Imperial Majesty the Shah-in-Shah and to renew our friendship with Their Majesties The King and Queen of Nepal. We were also glad to meet the Head of State of the Republic of Turkey.
"I recall with pleasure the welcome given to us by the President and people of Italy and our reception by His Holiness Pope John XXIII.
"I was happy to welcome the President of the United States and Mrs. Kennedy when they came to London in June.
"My Government have worked for a resumption of negotiations on general disarmament. They have also striven for international agreement on the discontinuance, under effective control, of all tests of nuclear weapons. They deeply regret that the Soviet Government should have initiated the resumption of these tests.
"My Government have maintained their support for the United Nations and participated fully in the work of its agencies. My Ministers share my sense of the great loss which the United Nations has sustained by the tragic death of the Secretary-General, Mr. Hammarskjoeld.
"The North Atlantic Alliance and other regional associations for defence have continued to be the basis of My Government's defence policy, and My Armed Forces have contributed to peace and order throughout the world. Their ability to come to the aid of those threatened has been convincingly demonstrated by their swift response to the request from the Amir of Kuwait.
"In March I was most happy to receive the Prime Ministers of all Commonwealth countries on the occasion of their meeting in London, when the discussions showed a wide measure of agreement on the question of disarmament and other world problems.
"The Commonwealth Prime Ministers accepted the application from the Republic of Cyprus for Membership

695
of the Commonwealth. In April Sierra Leone attained independence and was also admitted to Commonwealth Membership. I extend to both countries my warmest good wishes.
"The Union of South Africa withdrew from the Commonwealth on 31st May, 1961, and has become a Republic.
"Following on a plebiscite held last February United Kingdom Trusteeship in the Cameroons has been terminated. The Northern part has joined Nigeria and the Southern part has united in a Federation with the Cameroun Republic.
"I was pleased to open the Seventh Conference of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, which met in London last month, and to welcome representatives of sixty-one different Legislatures in all parts of the Commonwealth.
"Further constitutional advances have been made in many territories.
"Negotiations have been opened by My Government with a view to joining the European Economic Community if satisfactory arrangements can be made to meet the special interests of the United Kingdom, the Commonwealth and the European Free Trade Association. My Government have ratified the Convention establishing the Organisation for European Cooperation and Development.
"Members of the House of Commons
"I thank you for the provision which you have made for the public services.
"My Lords and Members of the House of Commons
"My Government have sought to deal with an unsatisfactory balance of payments in such a way as to increase the competitiveness and the efficiency of the national economy. The short-term steps taken have included a drawing on the International Monetary Fund. Since the end of July there has been a steady improvement in the strength of sterling.
"A new Department of Technical Co-operation has been set up to coordinate and improve the administration of the technical assistance which
696
My Government has continued to provide on a substantial scale to developing countries.
"Support for home agriculture has been maintained. Acts have been passed to enable drainage charges to be levied on agricultural land and to provide for the reorganisation and improvement of Covent Garden Market.
"My Government have continued to support the fishing industry and to seek a settlement of problems of fishery limits in those waters of importance to our fishermen. To this end, they have made agreements with the Governments of Iceland and of Norway.
"Legislation has been passed to make fresh provision for the reorganisation and development of crofting in the Highlands and Islands.
"Measures were taken to strengthen the finances of the National Health Service by increasing the National Health Service Contributions and certain charges.
"Progress has been made with the building of schools and technical colleges and with the expansion of teacher training colleges. Improved financial assistance has been made available for students at universities, teacher training colleges and other similar institutions. Steps have been taken, in co-operation with the local education authorities and voluntary organisations, to develop the Youth Service.
"My Government have continued to give special attention to the social welfare of My People. War pensions have been increased; retirement pensions and other benefits provided under the National Insurance and Industrial Injuries Schemes have been raised, and improvements have been made in the scales of national assistance. A system of graduated pensions and contributions has been brought into operation.
"My Government have been concerned to improve the protection of the community against crime. An Act has been passed to provide better means of dealing with young offenders, to extend the scope of the compulsory supervision of persons released from custody and to give new powers in connection with the management of

697
approved schools. A number of new detention centres has been completed.
"Measures have been passed to reform the licensing laws and to strengthen the law relating to registered clubs in England and Wales.
"Legislation has been enacted to provide in England and Wales for a better distribution of housing subsidies, and to assist the further improvement of housing conditions generally.
"An Act has been passed to amend the law of rating and valuation and to facilitate the 1963 revaluation in England arid Wales.
"An Act has been passed to reorganise the financial arrangements of the Post Office in recognition of its commercial character.
"Acts have been passed to amend the investment powers of trustees and to revise and simplify previous legislation for the management of the Crown Estate by the Crown Estate Commissioners.
"My Lords and Members of the House of Commons
"I pray that the blessing of Almighty God may attend you."
After which The LORD CHANCELLOR said:
My Lords and Members of the House of Commons, by virtue of Her Majesty's Commission, under the Great Seal, to us and other Lords directed, we do, in Her Majesty's name, and in obedience to Her Majesty's Commands, prorogue this Parliament to Tuesday, the 31st day of this instant October, to be then here holden, and this Parliament is accordingly prorogued to Tuesday, the 31st day of this instant October.
End of the Second Session of the Forty-second Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in the tenth year of the Reign of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II.