Lords Sitting of 1 May 1962

Preamble
Reassembling after the Easter Recess, the House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Worcester

TRAINING OF COMMONWEALTH LAW STUDENTS
2.36 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps have been taken to ensure that law students from overseas Commonwealth States are receiving the requisite training in Great Britain to fit them for practice in a fused profession in their own countries.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): My Lords, the Council of Legal Education has taken steps, in the light of the recommendations contained in the Report of the Denning Committee, to improve the education given in the Inns of Court School of Law. In particular, the Council has, in conjunction with the Law Society, expanded the scope of the post-final practical training course given by the School so as to give more instruction in the work of solicitors, with a view to fitting Commonwealth students for practice in their own countries in the type of profession that is referred to by the noble Lord in his Question.
As I informed your Lordships last August, however, in answer to an earlier Question by the noble Lord, the main problem for the Council is shortage of accommodation for the School of Law. I am sorry to have to inform your Lordships that although the Council has, both independently and in consultation with my right honourable friend the Minister of Works, made numerous attempts to obtain additional accommo-
964
dation, these have so far failed. The Council has, however, a further project in mind which, if successful, would enable the Denning Report to be much more fully implemented than at present. As this is still in its early stages, however, I should prefer to say nothing more about it at present.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, while thanking the noble and learned Viscount for his reply, and while acknowledging his own personal interest in this matter, may I ask him whether he will continue to apply pressure, both to the Law Society and to the Benchers of the various Inns, in order that we may get some more action in this urgent and important matter?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I shall do my utmost to secure that the recommendations of the Denning Committee are implemented. This is a matter, as the noble Lord has been good enough to say, in which I feel very strongly, and I shall do everything I can.

GRIMSBY CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Read 3ª, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

MANCHESTER CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
2.38 p.m.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD MERTHYR): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time. In so doing, may I say that in my speech on the Second Reading of this Bill I made a statement which I now find was incorrect? I should like to apologise to the House and to correct it, for the purpose of the records. I stated, correctly, that under Standing Order 94 the Chairman of Committees has power to move a Resolution that a Private Bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House; but I went on to say, incorrectly, that the last occasion when this had been done was in 1882. I found later that same afternoon that I was wrong, and that in fact in the year 1939 the then Chairman of Committees, Lord Onslow, moved (and it was carried) that the National Trust for Places of Historic

965
Interest or Natural Beauty Bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House. I just wanted, for the purposes of the records, to correct my former statement. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3ª. — (Lord Merthyr.)
On Question, Bill read 3ª, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

HOUSE OF LORDS REFORM
Message from the Commons, That they have appointed a Committee of Eleven Members to join with a Committee of this House to consider whether any, and if so what, changes should be made in the rights of Peers of England, Scotland, Ireland, Great Britain or of the United Kingdom, and of Peeresses in their own right, to sit in either House of Parliament, or to vote at Parliamentary elections, and whether, and if so under what conditions, a Peer should be enabled to surrender a peerage permanently or for his lifetime or for any less period having regard to the effects and consequences thereof;

That they have made the fallowing Orders:

That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records;

That the Committee have power to report from time to time;

That Five be the quorum;

and to request this House to appoint an equal number of Lords to be joined with the Members of their House.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. We debated the general issues of policy underlying this Motion at considerable length very recently indeed, and therefore I do not think I should say very much in support of the Motion. The names and numbers have been the subject of very careful and close consultation between the interests involved. Perhaps the only point to which I need draw your Lordships' attention is that we have been lucky enough to secure to the Committee, in addition to the Party Members, the services of a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary.
Moved, That the said Message be taken into consideration forthwith and that the Lords following be named of the Committee to join with the Committee appointed by the Commons:—

Lord Chancellor

Marquess of Salisbury

Earl St. Aldwyn

Earl of Swinton

Viscount Colville of Culross

Viscount Alexander of Hillsborough

Earl of Listowel

Lord Derwent

Lord Rea

Lord Morton of Henryton

Lord Silkin

Lord Morrison of Lambeth.

—(Viscount Hailsham.)

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble and learned Viscount. I need only formally second the Motion.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I have just been informed—and I am sure the House would like to join with me in saying this—that it is the noble Viscount's birthday to-day. If I had known that when I spoke a moment ago I should have referred to it then, but I am sure we should all join in wishing him many happy returns of the day.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
LORD REA: My Lords, may I also support the Motion and the good wishes expressed to the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough?
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Ordered, That such Committee have power to agree with the Committee of the Commons in the appointment of a Chairman; and that Five be the quorum.
Leave given to the Committee to send for persons, papers, and records; and to report from time to time.
Then a Message was ordered to be sent to the Commons to inform them of the appointment of the said Committee by this House and to acquaint them with the said Orders.

TRANSPORT BILL
Brought from the Commons; read a, and to be printed.
BUILDING SOCIETIES BILL [H.L.]
Read 3ª (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

PIPE-LINES BILL [H.L.]
2.43 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD MILLS): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time. In view of the fact that some Amendments have been tabled, it may be for the convenience of the House if we take the Motion for the Third Reading formally, then proceed to the Amendments, and finally have a general discussion about the issues raised by the Bill on the Motion that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3ª. — (Lord Mills.)
On Question, Bill read 3ª.
Clause 35 [Notification of change of ownership or use of pipe-line]:
LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD moved to insert as a new subsection (1):
"( ) If it becomes known to the owner of a pipe-line that a change is likely to occur in the ownership of the pipe-line or in the constitution of any body owning the pipe-line, he shall notify the Minister thereof, and thereupon the Minister may within three weeks inform the owner that the Minister intends, if the change takes place, to issue a direction forbidding further use of the pipe-line; and accordingly, if the change does take place, the Minister may within two weeks issue such a direction under his hand; and any person who uses the pipe-line thereafter shall be guilty of an offence and liable, on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding five hundred pounds; and, if the use continues after his conviction, he shall be guilty of a further offence and liable, in respect thereof, to a fine not exceeding twenty-five pounds for each day on which the use continues."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Amendment that stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Lindgren. May a noble Lord from this side of the House welcome the best wishes to our noble Leader; and also express the hope that he will remain with us to lead us with his usual vigour and tenacity? Would it be with the permission of the House that I should speak
968
also to Amendment No. 2, which will be consequential, should the House feel fit to accept the first Amendment?
My Lords, we have had a long debate on this Bill in the Committee and Report stages. I think it will be agreed that considerable improvement has already been made, and I believe it will be found that, when the Bill goes to another place, further improvements will be made. Therefore I do not feel that I need to apologise for the fact that, at this very late stage, I should raise a new point in this Amendment; it was a point that I did raise, in the form of a question, on the Report stage. The Amendment in no way affects the general principle of the Bill. It seeks to give to the Minister special powers in relation to the transfer of ownership, powers which we on this side of the House feel are of importance.
It may be that in the early stages these pipe-lines, when they are constructed, will be in the ownership of petroleum companies; but they will in the future become an increasing form of transportation and many types of merchandise will be carried. And it may well be the case—in fact, I believe that plans are already afoot—that pipe-lines will be constructed and operated, not by petroleum companies, but by people who could be described as general transport operators. It is in respect of these operators that I would express some concern.
The Minister has power, at his discretion, to grant or refuse an application for permission to build a pipe-line. We presume that he would lay down exacting requirements, not only as to the standing of the applicant but also as to the technical ability of the applicant. and many other factors. Therefore, we presume, the Minister would grant a licence only to an organisation which he was thoroughly satisfied would carry out, with safety and efficiency, the operation of a pipe-line. The Minister, it is clear, does not intend that there should be a multitude of pipe-lines. In Clause 8 it is specifically provided that a pipe-line should be so constructed as to reduce the necessity for the construction of others. Therefore, we presume that a pipe-line operator who has succeeded in his application for building a pipe-line from, say, London to

969
Glasgow, or from Glasgow to Liverpool, or wherever it may be, will assume a form of monopoly position, a position which, I think, will be proved to be an extremely profitable one.
We thus have the case that the Minister has to be satisfied as to the standing of the applicant, and that the organisation which has won its application will be in a semi-monopoly position. On the other hand, there is nothing in the Bill, as I see it, which requires that the Minister shall be so satisfied should there be a transfer of ownership of a pipe-line. All that is required in Clause 35 is that, where there is a change of ownership of a pipeline, the Minister shall be so informed within three weeks of the completion of the transfer. We on this side of the House—and I hope that it will be accepted also on the other side—feel that this is just not good enough. If the Minister has to be satisfied as to the builder and the operator of the pipeline, I should have thought that it would follow that the Minister himself should equally be satisfied with the new operator if a transfer were to take place, remembering the many factors involved, such as safety, particularly where pipelines are constructed through built-up areas.
My Amendment seeks to provide that, where the owner becomes aware that there is to be a change of ownership, the Minister shall be informed. Then, if the Minister is not satisfied with the transfer and the possible new owner, he will be able to forbid the future use of the pipe-line by the new owner. This is the only way in which we can give power to the Minister to prevent the transfer of ownership. In the Transport Bill, which will be before your Lordships' House shortly, the Minister is given power of direction, but obviously the Minister cannot be given such a power of direction when we are dealing with private owners. Therefore, the only thing we can do is to give the Minister power to withdraw a licence under which a pipe-line is operated, if he is not satisfied with the transfer to the proposed new operator.
I hope that the noble Lord will be able to accept the principle of the Amendment and that he finds the wording satisfactory. The noble Lord will
970
remember that when he resisted an Amendment on inquiries into accidents, he said that national security might be involved. I should think that the question of national security is also valid with regard to the ownership of a pipeline. A monopoly position for the pipeline owner having been created, I do not think that he should be free to sell this valuable asset on the exchange, maybe to a foreign operator. I do not suppose that we could prevent the sale, but at least the Minister should have power to accept the transfer and, if not, he should have power to stop the operation of the pipe-line by the new owner. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 30, line 1, at beginning insert the said subsection.—(Lord Shepherd.)
LORD MILLS: My Lords, we have given very careful consideration to this Amendment, which has been put down following the consideration of the clause on Report stage. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, was good enough then to draw our attention to the points he has also made to-day. I can only say that there are so many points of policy bound up with this Amendment that further time is needed for its consideration. To give the Minister far-reaching powers to interfere with the sale and purchase of industrial property in this country could cause a great deal of anxiety and uncertainty. To illustrate this to your Lordships, it is clear that pipe-lines may be connected with factories, refineries and other kinds of industrial development and it can readily be seen that to allow the sale of the industrial installation and to refuse the sale of associated pipe-lines could give rise to difficulties. I think that this aspect of the matter is a very complicated one and acceptance of the Amendment could have far-reaching repercussions.
I hope your Lordships will agree that the matter is not a simple one and deserves further consideration. My right honourable friend the Minister of Power has assured me that this is just what it will have, although I cannot say at this stage what will be the outcome. I hope that, on reflection, the noble Lord will see that the matter does want further consideration and will be prepared to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, if I may speak by leave of the House, in view of the noble Lord's remarks I certainly will not press this Amendment. I wonder whether he could go so far as to say that the present provision where there is a transfer of ownership—I am thinking particularly of the trunk line operator—for the Minister to be informed three weeks after the transfer has taken place, will be amended so that the Minister will be informed prior to any transfer. I am sure that the noble Lord would appreciate that I am thinking of the trunk line operators with lines, perhaps, from London to Glasgow or Glasgow to Manchester, which go through private property, where there may be difficulty through accidents. Could the noble Lord go to that extent?
LORD MILLS: My Lords, I can appreciate the noble Lord's point. Of course, Clause 35 stipulates that everyone who is concerned with a pipe-line should be notified of a change of ownership. It also stipulates that the Minister should be informed, but that is merely for the purpose of registering the name of the new owner with whom the Minister would have to communicate. I see the point made by the noble Lord, but I should not like to be specific in reply. I think that the whole subject raised by this Amendment needs further consideration and the Minister has assured me that it will have it.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 38[Certain pipe-lines to be plant or machinery for rating purposes in England and Wales]:
LORD MERRIVALE LORD MERRIVALE moved, in subsection (1), to add to the proposed new paragraph 5:
" but also includes any premises, place or works, whether below ground or above ground, occupied and used for pumping or raising brine for the purpose of manufacture or sale from shafts, wells, springs, or mines."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, during Committee stage I sought to have this clause deleted from the Bill on the ground that it was more suitable for a rating and valuation Bill. The reason given by my noble friend Lord
972
Mills for not accepting my Amendment was the necessity to reverse the effect of the decision by the Lands Tribunal in a recent Unilever case, so that large sums of rateable income should not be lost. I believe that those were the words of my noble friend. I should like to point out that between 1949 and 1956, due to decisions of the courts, such items as 'bakers' ovens, rotary cement kilns, and tilting furnaces, became rateable plant. Therefore, I think that it is fair to say that not all court decisions are detrimental to the Inland Revenue of this country. I think it is equally fair to say that it is unreasonable on the part of Her Majesty's Government to change the rules as the result of one unfavourable court decision.
I believe I am right in saying that supports and foundations for pipes, as well as the land or wayleave occupied by pipes, are rateable. But should the Government, on reflection, decide that this clause should stand part of the Bill, then I think two anomalies will arise. The first concerns pipes within the curtilage of non-factory premises; thus, for example, the pipes within an oil storage depôt will become rateable while pipes in an oil refinery will not. The second anomaly arises from the fact that a brine field is not a factory or a mine or quarry, as defined in the Factories Act, 1961, or the Mines and Quarries Act, 1954. I should also like to add that there is a precedent for this Amendment, and it may be found in Section 3 (4) of the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act, 1928. I sincerely hope that this small Amendment, which will be beneficial to industry, will meet with the favour of Her Majesty's Government. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 31, line 40, at end insert the said words. —(Lord Merrivale.)
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD CIIESHAM): My Lords, I feel perhaps my noble friend Lord Merrivale will understand if I do not follow him entirely in discussing his views on the rating of pipe-lines generally, and if I confine myself rather more precisely to the actual terms of the Amendment he has put down. I do not think there is much question that the reason why the

973
brine fields and pumping arrangements to which he has referred are left out of the exceptions to Clause 38 is that of a technicality. I do not think there is any doubt that their inclusion in the exceptions is perfectly justified, along with mines and quarries, factories and the like. It certainly meets the spirit of the clause that they should be included and, therefore, I should be very happy to accept the principle of my noble friend's Amendment. I would only ask whether he would agree to withdraw it to-day, because we are not quite certain about the method of drafting. We should like to have another look at that. If my noble friend would withdraw his Amendment now, I would undertake that it would be put down in a suitable form at a later stage.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for his acceptance in principle at this late stage of the Bill in this House. I am only too happy to ask to withdraw the Amendment, on the undertaking that it will be moved in another place in a suitable form.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 42 [Obligation to restore agricultural land]:
LORD CHESHAM LORD CHESHAM moved, in subsection (1), to leave out reasonably fit for use as agricultural land" and to substitute:
"fit for use for the purpose for which it was used immediately before the execution of the works was begun".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment, standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Mills, is put down in fulfilment of an undertaking which I gave on the Report stage. The provisions in the Bill relating to the restoration of agricultural land after a pipeline had been laid in it were criticised in Committee, on the ground that the words "reasonably fit for use as agricultural land" were too vague. We discussed the matter again on Report, when my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross put down a further Amendment; and so, come to that, did we. Your Lordships will probably remember that at the time I said I did not like either of them, and thought we could do better. This Amendment on the Marshalled List is the one that we believe meets the
974
case. I think we were quite right to discuss this matter in some detail twice before, because it is obviously a point which is of great importance: land should be properly restored after it has been temporarily upset for the laying of a pipe-line.
Although the words "reasonably fit" are used in other Acts, and seem to work quite well, I recognise the point that they are probably a little on the vague side for what we have in mind. Therefore we have drafted the Amendment in the terms which your Lordships will see on the Marshalled list. I think this meets all the criticisms which were made and the various points which arose. I do not know whether or not I am in order in mentioning this, but my noble friend Lord Amherst of Hackney, who was interested in this point and who is unable to be in his place to-day, wrote to me and said he felt quite satisfied about it. I hope your Lordships will feel the same. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 33, line 38, leave out (" reasonably fit for use as agricultural land ") and insert the said new words.— (Lord Chesham.)
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I should like merely to say that I join with my noble friend Lord Amherst of Hackney in congratulating Her Majesty's Government on thinking of this new form of wording which seems to me to be entirely satisfactory. I am very pleased indeed to see it on the Order Paper.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendments (privilege) made.
3.8 p.m.
LORD MILLS: My Lords, I beg to Move that this Bill do now pass. Noble Lords will wish to have a general discussion on this Motion. I should first, however, like to take this opportunity to thank noble Lords for the care and attention which they have devoted to the Bill during all its stages. A large number of Amendments were put down at both the Committee stage and the Report stage, and we have had a full discussion both of the principles and of the detail of the Bill. The Government have tried so far as they could to meet the views expressed by noble Lords, and I am sure that the Amendments that have been made to the Bill to-day and in Commit

975
tee and on Report have contributed much to its improvement.
There are certain matters which were raised earlier to which I or my noble friend Lord Chesham promised to give further consideration. Perhaps it would be helpful to the House if I referred to some of these now. I shall, of course, speak also at the close of the debate and shall then have an opportunity to reply to any further points made by other noble Lords.
First, the House may remember that I promised my noble friend Lord Merrivale that the Government would try to find a solution to the problems concerning the china clay industry arising from the Bill. We are still considering this and intend to move Amendments in another place. My noble friend also raised in Committee a point about improper disclosure of information by a civil servant. I have since ascertained that any such improper disclosure would render a civil servant liable to prosecution under the Official Secrets Act. No amendment to the Bill is therefore necessary.
The noble Earl, Lord Lucan, supported by the noble Lords, Lord Stonham and Lord Lindgren, wished the Minister to hold an inquiry under Clause 31 in all cases where a pipe-line accident resulted in loss of life. I have looked at this point again and I am convinced that there would be no advantage to be gained from such an Amendment. The present clause follows the precedent of the Mines and Quarries Act, 1954, and neither that Statute nor the Factories Act, 1961, lays down that there must always be an inquiry into fatal accidents. I see no reason for departing from precedent in this matter, and there is no likelihood of the Minister's turning a blind eye to any fatalities which may occur, or being reluctant to investigate at once the cause of any accident, where this has not already been sufficiently established, for example at a coroner's inquest.
I gave an assurance on Report to the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, that the Government would prepare a suitable Amendment that would enable the Minister to impose additional safety requirements in respect of pipe-lines already laid. A Government Amend
976
ment to deal with this point is now being prepared. I am advised, however, that its drafting presents certain complications which will require time to resolve, and I have not felt it right to come forward with an Amendment at this stage. A suitable Amendment will therefore be moved in another place.
Finally, there were two points raised by my noble friend Lord Merrivale on what is now Clause 58, to which I might refer at this stage. I have sought further legal advice on the question whether the words "drain or sewer" would cover pipe-lines used for the disposal of trade effluents. The advice is that the words would cover such pipe-lines, and they are therefore excluded from the provisions of the Bill. The other point raised by my noble friend referred to the exclusion from the Bill of pipes used for agriculture, horticulture, scientific research or experimental purposes. No evidence was produced on the Report stage to show that agricultural or horticultural pipe-lines presented a real problem. If such evidence is produced later, the Government will be prepared to consider it. As to pipelines used for scientific research or experimental purposes, it would be wrong to accept any Amendment which had the effect of excluding such pipelines from all safety controls. particularly where there is a possibility that they may be sited on land to which the public have access. It can be accepted that special considerations may apply to pipe-lines situated within research stations and the like, but these cannot be very numerous and it would be a relatively simple matter for the Minister to arrange, where appropriate, for a shorter period of notice than 16 weeks to be given of the construction of such lines. Here again, however, if there is evidence that a real problem exists the Government will be prepared to consider it.
I hope noble Lords have found it of value to have this indication of the further consideration given by the Government to points made in earlier discussion. Any further points which are made by noble Lords later I will, of course, try to answer when I reply to the debate. I beg to move.
Moved. That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Mills.)
3.15 p.m.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, as the noble Lord has said, the Bill has received very careful and thorough consideration by your Lordships—so thorough that, indeed, the Bill is considerably changed from what it was when it came into this House, a fact which prompts the first reflection that less than the usual credit for a Bill is reflected on the Departments who drafted it. It is surprising that so many matters that were not in the Bill have had to be suggested by Members of your Lordships' House who, as we well know, have never lost their amateur status; yet, giving only limited time and attention to the Bill, your Lordships have been able to remedy a number of quite serious omissions. One which comes to mind at once is the question of amenity, and it had only to be pointed out to the Minister that there was a lack in this respect for him to put a new clause into the Bill.
In a number of other matters the noble Lord and his colleagues have displayed a very reasonable and accommodating attitude to our suggestions. They have given concessions on quite a number of points. Points were raised by noble Lords opposite on the protection of the rights of individuals and points were raised at the suggestion of various statutory authorities—river boards, water undertakers, fire and police authorities—who suggested amendments to the Bill; and I must say that I find it surprising that those matters, as also the case of amenity, were not adequately thought of before the Bill was presented to Parliament.
Again, on matters of safety and safety precautions, quite a number of concessions were made, for which we are duly grateful. I must confess, however, that I am not altogether satisfied that the Minister has sufficient powers to safeguard this new developing network. I feel that one of the skills that to some extent is lacking in your Lordships' House is that of the mechanical and civil engineer, and I should have been much happier if I had heard qualified engineers saying that this Bill was entirely satisfactory. I have a suspicion that certain clauses could still be tightened up. In particular, I remain quite unconvinced by the Government arguments that it was better for the Minister to have power
978
to give a notice to an individual in a particular case rather than that he should make regulations to be observed by all applicants for pipe-line authorisation. The argument for not making regulations, that this is a new method and to some extent there is a lack of experience in the operation of these things, is hard to accept. After all, every branch of industry is changing all the time. Regulations made under the Factories Acts and every other Act covering such subjects as mines, quarries and aviation, that are considered adequate one year will be out of date five years later. So I suggest that the Minister would be better armed if he took the power to make regulations and ensure safety.
There were concessions, and we are duly grateful for them. I should like to thank the Minister for accepting a suggestion that there should be retrospective power to correct faulty construction; he says that an Amendment will be moved in another place by the Government. But those are comparatively minor matters. On the main points of the Bill, we are sorry that the Government have been quite rigid all through. We think that the question of the "common carrier" obligation on owners of pipe-tines should be imposed. Your Lordships will remember that when the Bill was first introduced a leading article in The Times said:
" Pipe-line owners are thus being granted something of the status of public utilities. In particular they are being given the power to acquire compulsorily or extinguish other private persons' rights. The quid pro quo for this should be that they operate in the general public interest and not primarily for the purpose of reaping a profit. The principle of this clause is therefore fully justified, that they may be required to pump other people's cargoes."
The conception of the pipe-line network as a public service, as an essential part of the economic machinery of the country, seems to be altogether lacking. All the Government have done is to give the Minister certain limited negative powers to prevent duplication. They have called it orderly development, and perhaps they can claim that those words are justified. But we think they fall far short of what is needed in the present day and in face of this new development.
We believe that the network should be built up according to the needs of the country, and not according to the

979
whims of those wishing to invest their capital. Because, after all, nobody is going to apply to the Minister for an authorisation unless he sees a profit in it. Whether laying that pipe-line will benefit British industry, ports, transport services, social environment, does not enter into it at all. We shall still depend purely on the individual operator out to make a profit; he is the person who will apply to the Minister. There is no power whatever for the Minister to stimulate pipe-line development in places where private enterprise does not want to put it. It is true that he can refuse authorisations where he does not want a pipe-line, but there is no means of stimulating development in the directions where it will do most good.
The Government would not accept the view that the existing transport system of the country should be empowered to extend its activities into this new field. We said that the transport services, which are already, we are told, entitled to lay and operate pipe-lines on their own land and to carry their own goods, should be entitled to perform their transport function in carrying whatever goods need carrying from one part of the country to another. It is a sad coincidence that just at the time when we are passing this Bill about this great new development in the field of transport we are to receive from another place a Bill which destroys the last remnants, after ten years of Tory Government, of the integrated national inland transport system which was set up fifteen years ago. I should only like to thank the Minister personally for his courtesy in replying and taking so much trouble over our points.
3.26 p.m.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, I should like first of all to express my thanks to my noble friend Lord Mills for kindly giving the various assurances he did with regard to the points I raised during the various stages of the Bill. My main concern has been that industry should not suffer unduly by this Bill in its day-to-day working. though I hope that throughout I was sufficiently conscious of the need to safeguard the interests of the land owner and the need to preserve amenities. I think I also well recognised the need for ensuring that there are in the Bill adequate
980
safeguards with regard to the imposition of safety requirements; though on this aspect I still regret that the Minister should not have power to make regulations as and when required.
With regard to short pipe-lines, I still feel that Her Majesty's Government have shown an insufficient awareness of the number which are already in existence. They do not appear to wish to recognise that industry is already well and truly cognisant of the safety problems involved in the conveyance of things through pipe-lines, and already well knows which is the weakest link in the chain; and that would apply equally to pipe-lines. It is inconceivable that industry should take less care of a pipe-line passing just outside a factory fence for a short distance. For instance, to illustrate my point regarding the number of short pipe-lines in existence and industry's knowledge regarding the varied application of high safety standards, I should like to mention that one firm alone already operates 179 short pipelines, and these are just outside factory premises. Eighty-eight of them are less than 25 yards long, and 30 of them are between a quarter of a mile and one mile in length. Those pipe-lines convey over 30 organic and inorganic chemicals. The organic chemicals are nearly all liquids, and the inorganic chemicals are gases, liquids and a few slurries.
In conclusion, I should like to ask Her Majesty's Government whether, under conditions such as I have just mentioned, it would not be preferable to give to the highly qualified Factories Inspectorate, to which I referred in the previous debate, the task of inspecting such short pipe-lines or factory links just outside factory premises. With those few remarks I should again like to thank both the noble Lord, Lord Mills, and the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, for their kindness during this debate, though at times we have not always agreed.
3.32 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, your Lordships will remember that throughout the Committee and Report stages of this Bill I have concentrated my interest on attempting to safeguard, so far as it is possible, the interests of the ordinary citizen whose property and rights can be taken away from him statutorily at the instance of another private individual. Undoubtedly

981
this is another excursion into the vast field of administrative law into which we have tended to drift for the last fifteen or twenty years.
I venture this afternoon to address your Lordships for a brief while on these particular points at the invitation of the noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack, because he, I know, has been as worried as I am about these specific points, and on the second day of the Report stage he invited your Lordships in general and myself in particular to give consideration to the points he had put forward in reply to mine. If I was unhappy before I had given consideration to the points of the noble and learned Viscount, I am doubly unhappy now; and I think that this would be the time to express the reasons for that unhappiness, before this Bill leaves your Lordships' House and goes to another place. I quite appreciate that the timetable has been very congested and the points which were discussed by the noble and learned Viscount and myself, and, incidentally by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, are so important, that the noble and learned Viscount has not had the time to give them that weight of consideration which I think he would desire.
May I briefly refresh your Lordships' minds on the point at issue? My complaint was on the narrowness of the terms of reference upon which an inquiry could be set up into an objection to an authorisation of a pipe-line. That is referred to in the fourth paragraph of the First Schedule. I was fearful that the terms of reference would be limited to inquiry into the objection, and your Lordships will remember that I said that this offended against paragraph 271 of the Franks Committee Report, which specifically stated that an inquiry could not properly inquire into an objection unless it inquired also into the wider field as to why the objection had been made and what was objected to. The noble and learned Viscount said that he could not think that a Minister would restrict the inquiry into something of such a narrow character.
The next point that I argued was as to where lay the burden of proof. Was it upon the applicant for an authorisation to lay pipe-lines through someone else's land? Was it for him to make his
982
case that it was of national importance that he should have the authorisation? Or was it for the objector to take on the burden of proving that he should not? If so, how was the objector to be armed? Speaking for the Government, on the last day of the Report stage, the noble and learned Viscount said —and this is the reason why I am even more disturbed (I quote from column 816 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of April 17):
" We feel that the Bill has a clear purpose, which is that pipe-lines will be created. If that is taken as the purpose of this Bill, I think that the first point your Lordships have to consider is this: how do you approach an application for authorisation? Should that be approached with an onus on the applicant, or, if the purpose of the Bill is to be carried out, should one not approach it on the basis that, up to the point, and only up to the point at which you run into using compulsory powers either for purchase or a right, you will give the authorisation unless an objection is clear? I am deliberately stating the problem, because I think it is important at that stage."
Surely the ordinary interpretation of those words is that the objector has to bear the burden of proof against the application, and that the applicant is not called upon to bear the burden of proof of his own case. The noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack nods his head in agreement.
The noble and learned Viscount went on to say:
" My noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth will understand that I emphasise again and again the words ' at that stage ', because once you come to the second stage, when you are going to infringe the rights of the individual, then different considerations apply."
My contention is that once you have put upon the objector the burden of proof, in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred the second stage will never arise, because, if I may use the same expression as I used to your Lordships on that occasion, at that point the pass has been sold. If an authorisation has been given by the Minister in the first instance under the First Schedule, what chance has the objector of winning any case before the second inquiry, which is, if it is necessary to have one, for an objection against compulsory acquisition? That Is what disturbs me.
My Lords, I will quote again what the Council on Tribunals said in their

983
memorandum in regard to the procedure adopted in the Chalk-Pit case:
" If the public is to have confidence in the procedure laid down by Parliament, it must be made clear that inquiries are not just an incident in the administrative process."
Here, my Lords, we have an inquiry set up by the Minister of Power, and the Minister has already given his consent in principle for the applicant to proceed. The inquiry is held, not by an independent inspector—although the noble and learned Viscount said that he did not rule out an independent inspector—but by an inspector from the Ministry of Power, Whose duty it is to see that the policy of the Minister of Power is carried out. I cannot for one moment think that such a procedure as is laid down in this Bill, and as stated by the noble and learned Viscount, can in any way line up with the fundamental principle of openness, fairness and impartiality, enunciated by the Franks Committee and the Government. The noble and learned Viscount has given an edict of Government policy: it is the policy of the Government to see that these pipe-lines are laid. Therefore, the bias—if there is one—must be in favour of carrying out Government policy. That is the meaning his words convey.
May I bring to your Lordships' notice the inquiry into the working of ironstone in North Oxfordshire, which was the subject of a debate in your Lordships' House? At the inquiry learned counsel for the applicant opened his case before the inspector by saying that he did not intend to bring any evidence; that this was really outside the jurisdiction of the court of inquiry because the Iron and Steel Board had produced a report in which they said that the policy was to use home-produced ore; and that, as that Report had been laid before Parliament and nobody had rejected it, it had ipso facto become Government policy. This was entirely wrong and was contradicted by other counsel appearing at the inquiry. But the Minister of Power has in recent weeks made a statement that it is now definite Government policy that home-produced ore should be mined.
I wonder, my Lords, whether that will be used in future to prejudice the proper
984
hearing of any subsequent inquiry after objection has been made, as was made in the North Oxfordshire case which I have just cited. Will the noble and learned Viscount's words that I have just quoted be used in future against an objector who is objecting to something which is Government policy? Is the burden of proof now to fall upon the individual citizen's shoulders to show, in the specific case to which he is objecting, that it is not in the public interest? In regard to the rules which the noble and learned Viscount is going to frame or which he said are passing between his Department and the Council on Tribunals, I think he said that if it were found they did not fit the various cases he would have them amended or altered. My Lords, can an official of a Government Department be called at one of these inquiries to give evidence about whether or not this is in the national interest? Because in regard to all these cases held under the First Schedule of this Bill, at some time or another the question is sure to be asked: "What is in the public interest?".
These are some of the things that disquiet me. I hope that they will receive still further consideration by the noble and learned Viscount. The position of the ordinary common-or-garden citizen, if I may call him that, under this Bill is appalling. He will be fighting against people of great substance, people with plenty of money. Who is going to look after his interests? Not the Government: not the Department concerned. There is only one body that exists to safeguard the interests of the ordinary citizen, and that is the Council on Tribunals. If the Council on Tribunals can see that the ordinary citizen's interests are safeguarded by the rules which the noble and learned Viscount has said he would prefer to specific provision written into the Bill, then I myself shall, in the end, be satisfied.
I do not expect the noble Lord the Minister to reply to these points, but I thought it was my duty to raise them. All I would ask the Minister, Lord Mills is this: will he, in his reply, give me an assurance that the particular points I have raised will receive very careful and close consideration by the Department which he represents, in conjunction with the noble and learned Viscount, during the passage of this Bill to another place,

985
so that when it comes back here we may he able to have some satisfaction upon them?
3.47 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, there is no doubt that this Bill has been greatly improved in its passage through the House, but I think it should be pointed out that this is in large measure due to the initiative taken by my noble friend Lord Silkin, supported by noble Lords in all parts of the House, to secure more time in order to allow proper consideration for the Bill. I feel that this should be emphasised for our job is not to despatch Bills as expeditiously as possible, but to deal with the business as efficiently as possible.
In common with other noble Lords and Ladies, I took a brief part in a television programme on Friday evening, and we all had to listen to one of my honourable friends from another place complaining that he had to spend four months on the Copyright Bill because we had done our job so very badly, or had not done it at all. As he was the last to speak there was no opportunity for any comment to be made upon that, or on the fact that we here get more than the occasional "no ball" and wide "from another place, and that Parliament, without the Lords, would be like cricket without a wicketkeeper. But I think we can say that, because we have spent more time on this Bill a proper job has been done, and that on this occasion there ought not to be any complaint on that score.
There is another thing that I think should be said on this Bill, and that is that it has increased in stature and importance in the eyes of your Lordships and in the eyes of the public. That, I think, is due, at least in some measure, to the fact that the Government underestimated its importance, or certainly underestimated its potentialities; indeed, I think they still do, because whatever improvements have been made—and there are many—the Bill still contains at least two fundamental weaknesses, from our point of view, which have been vigorously pointed out from this side of the House, particularly by my noble friend Lord Lucan. The first is that the Bill, when it becomes an Act, will be administered by the Minister of Power, instead of by the Minister of
986
Transport. My objection to that is in no way related to my estimate of the respective virtues of those Ministers, nor of their Departments. It is because it reveals a fundamental misconception of the potentialities of this Bill, and also, because the use of pipe-lines is not clearly seen as a new, possibly dynamic, means of transport.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Mills, has told us, quite truly, that the experts reside temporarily in the Ministry of Power, and that at some later stage they can be transferred to another Department, if it is thought proper and expedient. But surely the time is now, and we should not have to mess about in this way. If it be easy to transfer later, it will be just as easy to transfer the experts now from one room to another in Whitehall. There is absolutely no argument against that at all, and I hope—although it is too late for us to do anything about it—that the change will be made in another place, and that the fact that it was not made here will not be laid at our door.
The other point of fundamental weakness is the fact that under this Bill British Railways are handicapped in the efforts that they otherwise could and would have made. My noble friend Lord Lucan pointed to the fact that the Minister has no power to stimulate development where it will do most good. If British Railways had been given, in the appropriate clause of the Bill, the power for which we asked, they would have been able to stimulate action and development where it would have done most good. It seems to me extraordinary, seeing that in a few months' time we shall be hearing the Minister of Transport disclose that second main lines on the railways are to be closed down altogether—perhaps London to Exeter; London to Birmingham, or other places where two main lines exist —that we should not have had the foresight to think that they would, and indeed must, be the most economical and suitable agencies for new pipe-lines, sometimes over long distances. If we had had the proper powers in the Bill for the proper authority, then there would have been no difficulty later on, and I think it would have given a new impetus to the railways which, with all their sufferings, are at present suffering

987
most of all from a low morale. It would have been a great thing if they could have been singled out as one of the main agents for this new development.
I think, too, that the noble Lord, Lord Mills, revealed that the Government have not realised sufficiently that this is a new and largely unknown element, when he indicated just now that the Government had decided not to accede to our request for an automatic inquiry in the event of a death arising from a pipe-line. He cited the Mines and Quarries Act and the Factories Act. He may know, but I confess that I do not know, all the kinds of dangers which will arise when various commodities are sent through pipe-lines—some which we have not yet thought of. But I do know that it will almost certainly be found that the conditions are not similar to those existing in mines and quarries, or in any factory of which I know. Certainly, the dangers in mines and quarries and in factories are to those who work in them. The dangers in pipe-lines will be to citizens throughout the country who are near them. I think that that was something which should have been conceded, but, again, it reveals a misconception of the possibilities and potentialities of this new method of transport. My Lords, I feel that the time we have taken on this Bill has been very well spent and I am grateful that we have had as much time as we have. I think that a good job has been done.
3.55 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I had not intended to speak, particularly as I was not able to take part in the Report stage, but I have been instigated by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, to say a word on the very interesting observations that he has made. Before doing so, I should like to associate myself with my noble friends, and with the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, by saying how much this Bill has been improved in the course of its progress through this House.
I would take this opportunity, now that the noble Earl, Lord St. Aldwyn, is here, to ask him whether he would send a message to the Government saying that, in the case of these difficult and controversial Bills, we really ought to
988
get them here earlier if we are to receive them in the first place. We are criticised, as my noble friend Lord Stonham has said, because we sometimes do not do our job properly—and I would be the first to admit it—"we" meaning not only Private Members but also the Government. The reason is that we have to do our work in a great hurry. We are all amateurs, most of us have other occupations, and most of us do not have the advantages of the Government in drafting Amendments and in carrying out research, so we ought to be given ample time. If this Bill had been presented to the House at a very much earlier stage in the Session, I can assure the House that we should have made a far better job of it, and we should not have had the unpleasantness which at times we have had, arising from the pressure under which this Bill was being carried through.
I want to say a word to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth. He has constituted himself the champion, as he says, of the private citizen, and I think that is a very worthy cause. He has studied the Franks Committee Report. I think he regards it almost as a Holy Writ: not one single word, comma or dot must be omitted from that Report; it must be carried out absolutely in its entirety. Well, that is very nice, but, with respect, and speaking as an old friend, I do think that he is making rather heavy weather of the procedure under this Bill.
I myself have always taken the view in connection with planning applications—and I would say the same about other forms of application for consent—that prima facie the citizen who makes an application is entitled to have his application granted. In a case like pipe-lines, where there is a Statute actually passed, he is even more entitled to have his application granted prima facie, unless there is good reason to the contrary. If anyone comes forward and objects, and establishes that there is good reason to the contrary, then it is the duty of the Minister to refuse; but otherwise I think the bias should be in favour of granting the application. As I say, I think that should be the position with regard to all applications that are made by a private citizen, and if the noble Lord has the private citizen's interests in mind, surely

989
he must also have regard to the position of the person who makes the application who also, presumably, is a private citizen.
The imposition of planning controls or other forms of administrative controls can be justified in a system of private enterprise only on the ground that control is necessary and that an action which the citizen wishes to take is against the public interest: but that has to be established. Therefore, I would not complain that the objector has to make his case. It is not for me to answer for the Government's intentions, but those would be my views.
The noble Lord makes the second point that, once the objection has been overruled, there may be a second inquiry on the question of compulsory acquisition and the objector's position is prejudiced—the noble Lord said, to the extent of 99 per cent.—by the fact that the application has been granted in the first instance. My Lords, I would not accept that at all, not if the inquiries are properly conducted, as I have every confidence they will be. The first inquiry is on the question whether it is against the public interest that the pipeline should be laid, and that is a definite, clear question which can be considered on its merits. The second inquiry is on the point as to how far the interests of the private citizen, the individual, are going to be affected.
It may be that, however much the laying of a pipe-line is in the public interest, the injury to the citizen is so great that it cannot be compensated for by a mere sum of money. In such a case, it would be the duty of the Minister to uphold the objection of the citizen against compulsory purchase, and to refuse to make the order; and I do not understand why the two positions should be contradictory. A Minister can quite well say that it is the right thing to have a pipe-line, and to make an authorisation, but he can later on say, "If the only way in Which you can lay this pipeline is by damaging the interests of a particular objector to such an extent that he cannot be compensated by a payment of money, I cannot allow you to lay it in this particular position ". I would hope that the Minister would be able to take up both positions without being charged with inconsistency. As I
990
say, my Lords, it is not my business to reply to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, or to give him assurances, but I thought it might be as well if I stated What I conceive the position to be, and I should be very grateful if the noble Lord, Lord Mills, could say whether he takes my view or not.
4.4 p.m.
LORD MILLS: My Lords, I think we have had a very full and interesting debate, as indeed we have at every stage of this Bill. The noble Earl, Lord Lucan, seemed to regret that it had been possible for so many Amendments to be made by noble Lords and that therefore the Ministry had not done its job when the Bill was presented in the form in which it was to your Lordships' House. I do not think there is any cause for regret: I think there is cause for congratulation. It is something we ought to expect when the combined wisdom and experience of your Lordships lead to many improvements in a Bill of this character. I think we must remember that, however well staffed Government Departments are, they cannot represent every kind of experience. In your Lordships' House there are noble Lords who have had a very wide experience indeed, and I should expect that when a complicated Bill of this kind comes to your Lordships' House many Amendments are put forward and many are accepted.
I detected in the noble Earl's remarks that he had some feeling against any individual benefiting from the existence of a pipe-line. But, after all, we have benefited as a country very greatly from the individual operator who was out to make a profit. That motive has been the cause of great advances in this country. The noble Earl also referred to the question of making Regulations of general application, as against notices to individuals. The difficulty about Regulations in a matter of this kind is that it is not clear that they could be sufficiently precise to be capable of enforcement; and, on balance, we have decided to rule them out for the present.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, may I just interrupt the noble Lord? I thought that the case made was that there should be power taken in the Bill to make Regulations when the Minister saw sufficiently clearly that Regulations

991
could be made. The Bill contains no power to make Regulation's at all; that was the criticism.
LORD MILLS: My Lords, I am quite aware of that. If the Bill contained powers to make Regulations there would then be great pressure upon the Minister to make Regulations. I am sure the noble Lord is sufficiently experienced to appreciate that. My noble friend Lord Merrivale made the same point, and I must give him the same answer. He also referred to this question of local pipelines round factory premises, and suggested again that it would be preferable to give factory inspectors the job of inspecting them. But I do not think that it is necessary to give anybody that job. The duty lies upon the Minister to see that certain requirements are carried out, and the whole thing can be easily dealt with administratively. The noble Lord also referred to his efforts to safeguard the position of landowners, and I think he has carried out that task very well.
Then the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, gave us a very interesting address, for which he was congratulated by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin—congratulated for his researches if not for the views he expressed. I think I have no difficulty in giving the noble Lord the assurances for which he asked. My noble and learned friend sitting on the Woolsack will have in mind the points he raised, and also the points put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, in considering the rules of procedure for inquiries which are now being evolved; and will at the same time, no doubt, have regard to the question of Inspectors, which the noble Lord also mentioned. I said that I thought there would be no difficulty in giving the noble Lord the assurance for which he asked specifically, that careful consideration would be given by the Minister, in conjunction with my noble and learned friend, to the points he has put forward.
The chief point of the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, was that the Government had not considered or had underestimated the potential importance of pipe-lines and had a fundamental misconception of the potentialities of this Bill. I can assure the noble Lord that he is quite wrong. From the beginning
992
the Government have realised the importance of and the need for these developments: that is why your Lordships have this Bill before you now. The noble Lord also said that British Railways had been handicapped by this Bill, but they are not handicapped by the Bill in any particular. I think perhaps the noble Lord is referring to the Transport Bill, which he may already have read. Certain powers are given to British Railways in that Bill, and I have no doubt that we shall be discussing that point in due course.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, will the noble Lord be kind enough to allow me to intervene? What I did say was that the question of handicapping British Railways in this Bill means that they have not been granted the powers that we on this side of the House think they ought to have with regard to pipe-lines. We are all aware, of course, as the noble Lord has pointed out, that there is nothing in this Bill to prevent British Railways from having a pipe-line; but it is a very different thing from the much wider powers for which we asked.
LORD MILLS: My Lords, I think the noble Lord will find in the Transport Bill that certain powers are given to the Railways which go as far as we think they should. They will not be devoid of powers. They will be able to use any land they control, or which they mainly control, for the purpose of a pipe-line. It may be that the noble Lord will take a different view when he has read that Bill.
With regard to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, I should like to say that we missed him at the Report Stage. We regret that he was not there; I am sure he would have added to the value of our deliberations. So far as the shortage of time is concerned, to which he referred and about which the views of your Lordships' House were clearly expressed, that was entirely due to the difficult problems of drafting which arose—problems perhaps more difficult than was expected. I can only apologise to the noble Lord: we shall do out best to see that in future in other matters there is ample time. I admitted earlier that there was some shortage of time over this Bill. The noble Lord also gave his views on the speech by Lord Lucas of Chilworth. I

993
am sure he does not expect me to take sides in that matter. I have already said that the views of both noble Lords will be taken into account in the further consideration which will be given to these problems. I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

SOUTH AFRICA BILL
4.16 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Nationality, etc.]:
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL THE EARL OF LISTOWEL moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "sixty-five" and insert "sixty-six". The noble Earl said: The object of this Amendment is to increase by one year the period of time during which a citizen of the Republic of South Africa can apply for, or notify his intention of applying for, citizenship of the United Kingdom. Your Lordships will have observed that, as it stands, the clause is essentially a compromise between giving South Africans unlimited time in which to choose British citizenship, if they so desire, and, alternatively, treating them as aliens in every respect from the moment this Bill becomes law. Either of these extreme courses would certainly be undesirable, and this compromise would obviously be right in principle.
I think we shall all agree that it would be unwise and impolitic to treat South Africa as if she were a member of the Commonwealth after she has become a foreign country, but also that it would be unfair to individual South Africans to treat them exactly like foreigners from the word go "—that is to say, from May 30, when it is expected that this Bill will become law. So the question before the House is simply how much time South Africans can reasonably be expected to require in order to exercise their right of choice. The Government
994
are giving them until the end of 1965—that is to say, three years and seven months from the passing of the Bill. We should like to make the date-line the end of 1966, so as to give them one more year.
There is one very important reason for leaving the choice open for a little longer. In 1966 another General Election is due in South Africa. This will be the first General Election since she left the Commonwealth. Surely South Africans will be in a much better position to judge about the future of their country after the next General Election, when they know what their future will be. They will have to make up their minds about such questions as whether the policy of apartheid shall be more severe or more relaxed; whether the country has a greater possibility of political stability; whether her economic prospects are better or worse. All these questions, which are of vital importance to people living and working in South Africa, who may be in two minds about their future, could be resolved much more easily if they were able to form a more accurate judgment about what the future will hold for them in South Africa. That is why I hope your Lordships will accept this small extension of the period of time proposed by the Government. I beg to move the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 17, leave out (" sixty-five") and insert (" sixty-six ").—(The Earl of Listowel.)
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: Parliament being sovereign, no one could know whether this Amendment would be passed or not in one or the other House. Therefore, the Government must have brought in the date of 1965 in the knowledge that it might 'be altered. I should like to ask the noble and learned Viscount who is to answer, not whether there is any arrangement with the South African Government that the period should be three years, seven months—because that would be out of order—but whether there was any reciprocal understanding that similar periods would be adopted in this country and in South Africa during which a citizen of either country could apply for citizenship in the other. Because if there were such an arrangement, and if it were part

995
of a generally satisfactory settlement of affairs between the two countries, then perhaps that would be a matter of which we might take note. In the absence of any very strong reason why the period should be three years, seven months, I would support the Amendment.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: There is a point which I should like the noble and learned Viscount to make clear to me. The noble Earl mentioned that people had a choice, but I understand that the moment this Bill becomes an Act people will automatically lose their nationality. They have a chance of recovering it, but as at the end of this month they will lose their nationality, and their franchise when it depends on nationality. I think that I am right in saying that it is not a matter of choice, but I should like to be sure. Other things being equal, and unless there is a strong reason against it, I also would support the extension of time.
LORD OGMORE: On behalf of the Liberal Party, I too should like to support the Amendment. I think it is most important that at this juncture we give the South African people, as distinct from the South African Government, the knowledge that we in this country have by no means lost interest in them—indeed, that our interest in them is as strong as it has always been. whatever their race may be. So many people in South Africa are of British stock, and throughout the years have been accustomed to thinking of this country as home, that it is bound to come as a great shock to them when this Bill is passed, and they will certainly need a fair time in which to prepare themselves for the need to make an application under this clause. In view of our long connections with South Africa, the warm and friendly feelings that exist between ourselves and the South African people, who in many cases are our own flesh and blood, it behoves us to give them as much latitude as we can, if they wish to retain their British nationality. I support the Amendment.
LORD SPENS: Before the noble and learned Viscount replies, may I raise the question of minors? What happens when a parent has given notice of inten
996
tion to apply for nationality and dies before the change can be implemented? What happens to the children then? Is there any sort of saving clause under which a minor, whose parent dies before the time expires, can make an application?
4.26 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I have listened with great interest to the arguments that have been advanced. In choosing December 31, 1965, as the terminal date for the transitional provisions for registering we felt that the period of three and a half years after the South African citizens cease to be British subjects, on May 31, 1962, would be sufficient to allow the persons concerned to decide whether or not they want to become citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies.
One can look at it from the point of view either of the individual or, as the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, did, of making a political forecast. I do not think that, from the point of view of the individual, the period is too short. I doubt whether the extension for a year would make it any easier for, or would benefit, those who have not made up their minds by the end of 1965. I think that, from the personal point of view, most people would have decided before that time whether they desire to be British subjects or South African subjects. The position that I have stated—namely, that the South African ceases to be a British subject on May 31, 1962 —is the point that I think my noble friend Lord Stonehaven had in mind.
I entirely agree with the first three propositions which the noble Earl made. There is no difference between us that compromise in this matter is right in principle. His second proposition was that it would be wrong to treat South African citizens as Commonwealth citizens, and the third was that it would be wrong to treat them as foreigners at once. I think that we are in entire agreement on these points. Nevertheless, one has to consider carefully one or two aspects of the matter before one extends this period. The noble Earl mentioned the question of another General Election in South Africa. Although it is a very delicate matter for a Minister to say anything that appears to predict the result of elections in another country,

997
I very much doubt whether another year would give long enough for any appreciable account to be taken of a longterm change in the South African political situation occurring. I have used rather guarded language, but I think that the noble Earl will appreciate what I mean. I believe that he would agree with me that if we look far ahead into the long term, or even into the middle term, and accept that future developments in South Africa are a factor which it is legitimate to take into account, it would be very difficult to fix any time limit at all.
Then one must look at the matter from the point of view of our own nationality policy. Whatever the Government's attitude may be towards certain policies of the South African Government—and this is well known, and was emphasised by my noble friend Lord Home and myself on Second Reading—it would clearly run counter to this country's normal practice in its relations with foreign countries to write into our law special provisions to facilitate the acquisition of citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies by people who might at a later date find themselves dissatisfied with the country of their birth.
I should like to point out what the position is. Anyone whose father was born in this country or in a Colony is, and will remain, as far as our law is concerned, a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies. Again I cannot predict what action will be taken in South Africa. Indeed, South Africa is not the only country whose citizens include people whose grandfathers were born in this country. We believe that December 31, 1965, represents what is considered to be a reasonable compromise between the interests of the individuals concerned and the logical consequence of South Africa's departure from the Commonwealth, which is that it should be treated as a foreign country. We decided this after discussion and the fullest consideration we could give to that problem. We decided it on our own view. My noble friend Lord Fraser of Lansdale asked me whether we decided it on the securing of reciprocal arrangements. We did not. We decided that as what we thought was a reasonable answer to the compromise, which the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, accepts.
998
Frankly, I still think it is a reasonable period, but other opinions have been given expression by your Lordships. I think the proper way to deal with that situation is to consider it before the next stage of the Bill. I should like to discuss it with all those with whom I have had so many discussions since this Bill became a necessity. I do not want to make any promise, but I think on a point like this, when one finds differences of opinion, one ought to be ready to look at it again. Although I have not disguised my own opinion at the moment, I promise that it will be considered, and I will let the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, know what decision we come to before the next stage of the Bill, so that he can consider putting down his Amendment again if we come to a decision against it. I think that is a fair way of dealing with the situation, and I hope that in these circumstances the noble Earl will not press his Amendment to-day.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I am very much obliged to the noble and learned Viscount for what he has said, and I am sure I speak for other noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. One point which emerged was that this citizenship provision is not tied up with anything else by agreement with the South African Government, and that reply of the Lard Chancellor answered the question which was put by the noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Lansdale. That makes it perfectly clear that it is a matter for decision by the United Kingdom Government, and that their hands are unfettered. That is a point which I think it is extremely important for the House to know. I am entirely willing to leave this matter over to the next stage of the Bill, by which time the noble and learned Viscount will have had a chance to discuss it with his colleagues and will be able to inform us what the decision of the Government is. Naturally, I have not had a chance of discussing this with other noble Lords, but it is the normal procedure, and I have little doubt that it will satisfy them as well as me. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3:
Interpretation, etc.
3.—(1) In this Act "the Republic" means the Republic of South Africa; and references to the Republic, in relation to any time before the thirty-first day of May, nineteen hundred and sixty-one, include references to the Union of South Africa.
4.35 p.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL THE EARL OF LISTOWEL moved, in subsection (1), after "Republic of South Africa" to insert:
" and, where South-west Africa is also concerned, the mandated territory of South-west Africa ".
The noble Earl said: The object of this Amendment is to make it clear in the definition clause of the Bill that the legal status of South-West Africa is different from the status of the rest of the Union of South Africa. I know that that is the view taken by Her Majesty's Government. All I am asking in this Amendment is that that view shall be expressed in words in the terms of the Bill. I think it is important that it should be made clear that those provisions of the Bill which affect South-West Africa as well as the rest of the Union apply to the mandated territory, and that this proper title and description should be included in the definition clause. Indeed, I think this Amendment would bring the definition clause into line with similar Amendments that have been accepted by the Government during the passage of this Bill through another place. For example, since paragraph 7 of the Third Schedule, which deals with the marking of goods produced by the Union, was amended in another place, South-West Africa is now referred to as the "mandated territory ".
A similar reference occurs in paragraph 10 of this Schedule, which deals with the employment of teachers. There again the words "mandated territory" have been introduced. When the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs— who was the Minister dealing with this matter in another place—was speaking in reply to criticisms that were made at that time, he made it clear that some of the legislation included in the Bill covers South-West Africa as well as the rest of the Union. Some refers only to South Africa without South-West Africa. but there is no expressed reference to this fact in the Bill as it now stands.
Noble Lords will notice the long list of Acts of Parliament and Orders in
1000
Council in the Fifth Schedule of the Bill which are repealed in whole or in part by this Bill, and, of course, some of this legislation affects both South-West Africa and the rest of the Union, and some affects the Union only. This is not mentioned either in the Fifth Schedule or, so far as I am aware, anywhere else in the Bill. The question of amending the definition clause so as to meet this point was raised in another place by Mr. Thorpe. Of course, I am not going to quote him, because that would not be in order here, but the Minister implied that that was something which would have to be looked at carefully. The noble Earl, Lord Dundee, who is in the same Department, will no doubt recollect that clearly, and I have no doubt that his Department has honoured that undertaking and the matter has been looked at very carefully. I should therefore be obliged if, when the noble Viscount or the noble Earl replies, it could be said exactly what view the Government take as a result of considering this matter since the Bill left another place. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 2, after (" Africa ") insert the said words.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
4.40 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF DUNDEE): This is a matter in which I think there is no difference of view between the noble Earl and the Government. As the noble Earl has said, the question is whether the proposed alteration in the definition clause would make it more clear or less clear that we consider the status of the mandated territory of South-West Africa to be continued and that we still regard it as a mandated territory and not as having been incorporated into the Union of South Africa. I would submit to the noble Earl that it is more clear to mention the mandated territory of South-West Africa, as we have done, I think, at every point where the Bill could have any possible application to that territory.
The noble Earl has drawn your Lordships' attention to all such references in the Schedules. There are, I think, five altogether: first, on page 9, line 30, dealing with the Merchandise Marks Act; then there is the point about teachers at the bottom of page 10

1001
and the top of the next page, which speaks of teachers employed in the Republic or in the mandated territory of South-West Africa; then in the Fifth Schedule, page 12, after line 20, dealing with the repeal of the Easter Act, there are the words "Union of South Africa" and the words "South-West Africa". Similarly, on page 13, line 30, in connection with the Films Act, the words "South-West Africa" are put in to distinguish it from the Union. Again, near the bottom of page 13, line 50 says:
" The whole Order, so far as it relates to the mandated territory of South West Africa."—
again in reference to the Merchandise Marks Act.
I do not think there are any other passages in the Bill in which it is necessary to make this distinction between the Union and the mandated territory of South-West Africa. The Government have looked into this matter, and we think me could not make it more clear. We are afraid that if the definition clause were altered in the manner proposed it might make the Bill rather less clear in its intentions and provisions.
Far instance, may I ask your Lordships to look at references to citizenship of the Republic in Clause 1 and in the First Schedule, which refer to persons Who have South African citizenship whether they. originate from the Republic or from South-West Africa? As your Lordships know, people from South-West Africa may acquire Union citizenship (by virtue of their residence in South-West Africa, and persons from South-West Africa who are not South African citizens are not meant to be and ought not to be covered by provisions in this Clause or the Schedules of the Bill. I think that if we now insert in the definition clause the words proposed, under which it might be possible to read these references in Clause 1 and the First Schedule to the Republic as meaning also South-West Africa, difficulties and doubts as to our intentions might well arise.
That is only one example, which I hope is not too complicated, but this is a complicated matter. I feel that we make our intentions more clear by taking the course we have done—that is, referring to South-West Africa wherever the Bill can have any possible application
1002
to that territory—and not by putting new words into the definition clause which, I would submit, might not have the effect of making the Bill clear.
LORD OGMORE: I did not say anything before the noble Earl rose, because my reading of this particular clause and the proposed Amendment is the same as his, and I just wanted to hear what his views were. For my part, I accept his reasons as being correct. It seems to me that while I personally, and I know my Party, have every sympathy with the noble Earl, Lord Listowel—we appreciate his point of view on this matter—he might, by putting these words in here, in fact be doing the very reverse to that which he intends, and we might find that, certainly in South Africa, it would be regarded as recognition that the Republic does now include South-West Africa. That is the fear which I have on this matter, and I feel, in all the circumstances, that the Committee would he well advised to accept the advice of the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, because I think it is the safer course to follow.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: It was certainly not my intention in moving this Amendment to throw doubt on other parts of the Bill. I have listened with a great deal of conviction to both what the noble Earl has said and what the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, has said about the implications of my Amendment, which I admit were not obvious to me at the time I put it down. In view of these implications, which are certainly undesirable, I wish to ask leave of the House to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 agreed to.
First Schedule:

TEMPORARY CONTINUANCE OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF BRITISH NATIONALITY ACT, 1948, WITH RESPECT TO CITIZENSHIP BY REGISTRATION
1. Subsection (1) of section six of the British Nationality Act, 1948, and subsection (2) of section three of the British Nationality Act, 1958, shall apply in relation to citizens of the Republic as they apply in relation to citizens of countries mentioned in subsection (3) of section one of the said Act of 1948; but no person shall by virtue of this paragraph be registered as a citizen of the United Kingdom

1003
and Colonies under the said subsection (1) unless either—

(a) he makes application under that subsection before the end of the year nineteen hundred and sixty-five; or

(b) he gives notice under paragraph 2 below before the end of that year of his intention to make such an application, and makes the application within five years after giving that notice.

2. A notice of intention to make such an application shall be given to such person and in such manner as may be prescribed by regulations under section twenty-nine of the said Act of 1948; and such a notice may be given only by a citizen of the Republic who, at the time when the notice is given, is—

(a) ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom or in any colony or protectorate; or

4.48 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (EARL BATHURST)THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (EARL BATHURST) moved, in paragraph 2 (a), after "protectorate" to insert:
" residence in which may qualify for registration under the said subsection (1)"
The noble Earl said: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Home, I beg to move the two Amendments which stand in his name. Both are technical and drafting Amendments, but owing to their complexity they need a little more explanation than is normal in such cases. The first Amendment makes it clear that notice of intention under paragraph 2 (a) of the First Schedule will not be valid unless the territory in which the person is ordinarily resident at the time of the notice is one in which he could in due course qualify for registration by the statutory period of ordinary residence; and that is five years or possibly a shorter period, as the registering authority may accept.
The second Amendment makes similar provision in the case of a person who wishes to be registered on the strength of his employment with a British firm. The Amendment makes clear that to give validity to the notice the firm must have been established in a territory such that if he had applied later for registration on the strength of employment with that firm he would, in fact, be qualified for registration. The doubt has arisen in this way. Under Section 1 of the British Nationality Act, 1958, residence in the Protectorates of Northern Rhodesia or
1004
Nyasaland no longer qualifies a person for registration as a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies. Nor does service with a firm based in those countries—that is in Northern Rhodesia or Nyasaland. This is because since 1958 there has been a separate citizenship of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland, and in consequence these two Protectorates ceased to be Protectorates for the purposes of the acquisition of citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies. People who live in those two countries can acquire citizenship of the Federation.
Accordingly, when the First Schedule to the present Bill was drafted, it was not intended that connection with the Protectorates of Northern Rhodesia and Nayasaland should entitle a person to give notice of intention under paragraph 2 of this Schedule, because the notice-of-intention procedure is simply for the benefit of those persons who by the end of 1965 have not put in sufficient residence or service to qualify for registration but who would have qualified in due course if they had continued to be in such residence or service. It would be pointless, and indeed misleading, to permit a person to give this preliminary notice on the strength of a connection with a territory which would not qualify him in due course for registration. There is some doubt whether paragraph 7 of the First Schedule is sufficient to achieve the result which the Bill intended, and accordingly these specific technical and, I may add, complicated Amendments to paragraph 2, have been tabled in order to put the matter completely beyond doubt. I beg to move the first Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 26, after (" protectorate ") insert the said words.—(Earl Bathurst.)
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: May I ask the noble Earl one question? What is the position of the High Commission Territories? Are any of them Protectorates in which residence does qualify for registration as a British citizen? Are the two Protectorates to which he referred, Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland, the only ones in that part of Africa in which residence does not qualify?
EARL BATHURST: Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland are the only ones with regard to this particular part of the Bill, because they are members of the Federation. As I endeavoured to explain, a person who lives in either of those two Protectorates could obtain citizenship of the Federation. If he lives in one of the others, other rules will obviously apply.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL BATHURST: I beg to move the second Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 32, after (" any ") insert (" such ")—(Earl Bathurst.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF LTSTOWEL THE EARL OF LTSTOWEL moved to add to paragraph 2:
" (d) a person in whose case it seems to the Secretary of State fitting that he should be so registered by reason of his close connection with the United Kingdom and Colonies."
The noble Earl said: Since I tabled this Amendment the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor has been good enough to write me a long letter explaining his reasons for opposing the Amendment. I naturally considered the letter very carefully, and I was convinced that the Amendment, which would make it rather easier to register for British citizenship, was unnecessary. So I shall ask the leave of the House to withdraw my Amendment. On the other hand, I have discussed the Amendment with my colleagues and they would like something to go on the Record. I should therefore prefer to move the Amendment formally, so that the Government can give a brief reply setting out their reasons for objecting to it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 33. at end insert the said subparagraph.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am happy to respond to the noble Earl's suggestion, and I thank him for his reply to my letter. Perhaps I may explain the point. The Amendment seeks to amend paragraph 2 of the First Schedule so as to widen the qualifications for giving notice of intention to apply for registration as a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies under Section 6(1) of the British Nationality Act, 1948, and Sec-
1006
tion 3(2) of the Act of 1958. Paragraph 2 of the First Schedule sets out the circumstances in which a person not yet qualified for registration by the end of 1965 may give notice of intention to apply for registration when qualified. Accordingly, the conditions in subparagraphs (a), (b) and (c) in paragraph 2 correspond to the various ways in which a person could eventually qualify for registration by length of residence or service. But it would be inappropriate (I think the noble Earl appreciates this point) to allow a person to give notice on the strength of circumstances which did not in due course qualify him for registration.
The point that was in the mind of the noble Earl, and is brought out in his Amendment, was the question of a close connection with this country or a Colony. This is not, and never has been, on its own, a sufficient qualification for registration. I think what the noble Earl had in mind was Section 3(2) of the Act of 1958, under which a close connection with the United Kingdom or with a Colony must be coupled with the other statutory qualifications prescribed under this section which are already paralleled by sub-paragraph (c) of paragraph 2 of the Schedule. There is therefore no discrepancy between the qualifications for registration contained in the relevant provisions of the British Nationality Acts and the right to give notice under paragraph 2, on the ground, in effect, of having started to qualify for the registration.
I am afraid (and I think the noble Earl appreciates my fear) that the Amendment, by adding a further ground for giving notice under paragraph 2, which is not matched by a ground for registration itself, would indeed be misleading, since a person who gave notice on the ground merely of possessing close connections with the United Kingdom or a Colony might mistakenly be under the impression that in due course he would be able to register on this ground, instead of taking steps before the end of 1965 to take up such residence or service as would enable him to give notice on one of the existing grounds specified in paragraph 2 and to apply for registration in due time. That is the position.
The only other point I should like to make clear (and again I think the

1007
noble Earl appreciates it) is that there can be no question of accepting the proposed Amendment and matching it by widening the qualifications for registration itself, since that would be to treat South African citizens more favourably than British subjects, which would be contrary to the basic principles on which the Bill is framed. I think that explains the situation. I know the complications of these Nationality Act provisions. I have tried to put the point as simply as possible, and I hope that the noble Earl, who, if I may say so with respect, has been most reasonable in dealing with this subject, feels that I have explained satisfactorily why I was unable to accept his Amendment.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I am very much indebted to the noble and learned Viscount for his clear explanation of an extremely complicated matter, and, as I said before, I have already found it completely satisfactory. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.0 p.m.
On Question, Whether the First Schedule shall be agreed to?
THE EARL OF LUCAN: I venture to take this opportunity, because there seems be no other provided by the Bill, of raising a matter about which I think I am justified in feeling a little anxiety—namely, the position in the future of the British protected persons who go from the High Commission Territories to work in the Republic. We all know that there are many thousands who go to work every year from Basutoland and Bechuanaland, and to a lesser extent from Swaziland; the total runs into many tens of thousands. They work in the mines and other industries in the Union. They earn good wages which they transmit back to their homes, or return with them at the end of their contracts; and the sums of money which accrue to the Territories from these sources are quite considerable items in their budgets. In other words, the economies of the High Commission Territories depend to a large extent on this traffic, on the employment of these British protected persons in the Union, and on their earnings which are freely transmitted back to the Territories.
1008
We are often told—and it is quite evident—that it is an arrangement that is to the benefit of both parties: the Territories need the employment and the wages, and the Union needs the labour to keep its industries going. Clearly it is to the advantage of both. But conditions may change; movement and opinions may change over the years; and, with South Africa an independent country no longer in the Commonwealth, I inquired whether by any chance the International Labour Organisation and its acts and conventions had anything that would hear on the subject. What is essential, if this mutually beneficial traffic is to go on, is freedom of movement of the individual, rights of individual freedom no less than those of the citizens of South Africa, and finally, the freedom to transmit their earnings back home.
It appears that there are no international conventions directly covering these points. Moreover, although South Africa is a member of the I.L.O., she has not ratified several of the conventions that already exist covering immigrant labour. Therefore, I wonder whether Her Majesty's Government can tell us whether they are satisfied that the future of these people is assured. Obviously, nothing of this sort can go into a Bill, but I would ask whether they think there is any means of writing in some sort of safeguard or parallel understanding at the time of the passage of this Bill which would do something to safeguard the future.
LORD DERWENT: Before the noble Earl sits down, could he go a little further into what he has in mind? As regards labour going into the Union, it seems to me that if it does not want to go one cannot make it, and in future, should there be no work for that labour, one cannot expect the Union to accept it. I do not know quite what the noble Earl has in mind and, as this is a matter of great interest, perhaps he would go a little further into it.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: What I had in mind was that, so far as finance goes, the financial conditions might necessitate exchange controls on the part of the Republic. It might be inconvenient for them to allow all that money to be transmitted abroad. As to individuals, obviously the jobs must be there and, if

1009
the jobs are there, the men will want to go and fill them. While they are there in the Union we know that they are subject to the apartheid laws; I think they have to go without their families in nearly all cases. But we also know that there are infringements of personal liberty in the Union, and no one knows what the future years may bring.
As my noble friend Lord Listowel said, future elections may cause the application of the apartheid system to be made more, or less, severe. It may be that opinion will harden in South Africa against immigrant labour. We know countries which have often taken action which damages their economic interest if it satisfies some other desire. We know that countries have asked for independence when it would have been to their material benefit to remain dependent. So the economic interest, which is undoubtedly there, is not necessarily always and for ever going to be a bar to action that would prejudice these people of whom I am thinking.
LORD MILVERTON: May I ask one question of the noble Earl? It seems to me that once more this is an exemplification of the desire to interfere with the internal affairs of what will be a foreign country, and I am completely mystified as to what the noble Earl really wants to do. How can he suggest that the British Government should dictate these terms? Surely it is open to South Africa, as an independent country, to manage her internal affairs as she wishes. If she does not wish to have certain immigrants she will not have them. If they wish to go there, the terms on which they can go will be known, and, if they do not like them, then, as the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, has said, they need not go.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I do not think that the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, was in fact suggesting that we should interfere in the internal arrangements of South Africa. If I understand him aright, I do not think he meant to imply that it would be possible to insert in this Bill any statutory provisions dealing with the matters which he has raised. I quite agree with my noble friends Lord Milverton and Lord Derwent that it would not be practicable in an Act of Parliament to lay down conditions under which British protected persons from the
1010
Protectorates shall be treated when they go into the territory of the Union of South Africa. We agree with the noble Earl that it is a most important question to which we should give our attention.
Although it may not be strictly relevant to this Bill so far as the terms of the Bill are concerned, the opportunity for Africans from British protected territories to work in South Africa is a matter which we have discussed with the South African Government. We have been assured that the South African Government appreciate the problem and will consult with us about any arrangements which are in force, so far as their own labour requirements permit. Of course, the position as between South Africa and the whole range of matters concerning the protected territories depends on relations between us and the Union of South Africa, but, so far as the present situation is concerned, we are satisfied about the position and about the future in the light of the assurances which the South African Government have already given us on this matter.
LORD OGMORE: I think the noble Earl was quite justified in bringing up this matter because it is a vital one for the High Commission Territories, for which we are responsible, and for which this House remains responsible, I am glad to say, under this Bill, and I hope it will be responsible for them for many years to come. I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, that there is no way in which this desire can be carried out by legislation. It can be done only by constant negotiation and agreement with the Republic of South Africa.
The point upon which I really rose to speak was this. It is often forgotten that the Territories, particularly Swaziland and Bechuanaland, contribute a great deal to the economy of the Republic. It is by no means a one-way traffic. There is a good deal of republican money invested in the Territories, and quite a number of people from South Africa are working there. So the Government, in their bargaining, always have a pretty strong hand in this respect, and I hope that throughout the years friendly relations will be maintained between the High Commission Territories and the Republican Government.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: That also implies that it is in the interests of the South African Union itself to continue these satisfactory arrangements.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I was very pleased by the noble Earl's reply. I must say that it seems to me remarkable that the South African Government has agreed, if I understand the noble Earl correctly, to consult Her Majesty's Government before making any important changes in existing arrangements in regard to immigrant labour. We expect a Commonwealth Government to consult us, but not a foreign Government. I think the South African Government is going a very long way in saying that it will consult us before deciding upon any important change in existing arrangements. I do not think we can expect any more than that. It seems to me very satisfactory that we have been able to get an agreement of this kind with the South African Government.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: As my noble friend said, I never expected anything to be written into this Bill that would affect the question, but I am very glad to have the information from Her Majesty's Government. I think it bears out what several of us said in the course of the Second Reading debate: that this two-way traffic between the Territories and the Republic depends upon the maintenance of good relations, and we hope those relations will long be maintained.
On Question, First Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Second Schedule agreed to.
Third Schedule:

TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS AND SAVINGS
Fugitive offenders
1. Where, in the case of a person accused of having committed an offence within the territory of the Republic, a warrant or provisional warrant for his apprehension has been endorsed or issued outside the Republic under Part I or Part II of the Fugitive Offenders Act, 1881, and has been executed before the commencement of this Act, the provisions of that Act applicable to his case shall, unless the offence is not an offence under the law of the country or territory in which the warrant was so endorsed or issued, apply in his case as if the Republic were a part of Her Majesty's dominions.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE THE EARL OF DUNDEE moved, in paragraph 1, to omit all words from and including "applicable" and to substitute:
" shall apply in relation to the warrant and any proceedings thereon as if the Republic were a part of Her Majesty's dominions:
Provided that no person shall be returned to the Republic by virtue of this paragraph—

(a) if the offence of which he is accused is an offence of a political character or an offence which is not an offence under the law of the country or territory in which the warrant was endorsed or issued as aforesaid; or

(b) if he proves to the satisfaction of a magistrate, court or authority having jurisdiction under the said Act to order his return or discharge that his return is in fact sought with a view to trying or punishing him for such an offence as aforesaid."

The noble Earl said: This Amendment, which was in the name of my noble friend, the Foreign Secretary, fulfils an undertaking given on the Report stage of the Bill in the other place, when we said we would make it clear that in the case of demands for repatriation, Or legal prosecutions which were not yet terminated, it would not be possible to return a fugitive to South Africa if the offence of which he was accused was one of a political character. It had already been agreed—and the Bill had accordingly been amended—that an accused person would not be returnable in respect of an offence that was not an offence under the law of the country or territory in which the warrant was endorsed or issued. The matter was not raised in another place until late on the Report stage, and the undertaking was given which this Amendment seeks to fulfil.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 12, leave out from second (" Act ") and insert the said new words.—(The Earl of Dundee.)
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: We were very glad to know that the Government had given this undertaking in another place, and we are delighted to find it has been honoured in this way. We regard it as of great importance that somebody who is coming from South Africa and who is prosecuted on political grounds should be in the same position as other aliens here who cannot be extradited on political charges. We therefore welcome this Amendment.
LORD OGMORE: I should just like to ask a question on this matter. Paragraph 1 of the Third Schedule says:
" Where, in the case of a person accused of having committed an offence within the territory of the Republic, a warrant or provisional warrant for his apprehension has been endorsed or issued outside the Republic under Part I or Part II of the Fugitive Offenders Act, 1881, and has been executed before the commencement of this Act, the provisions of that Act … shall … apply …"
Does that mean that this is purely a provisional matter, and not a permanent one? Does it mean that in the case of any warrants which have been executed after the commencement of this Act these provisions shall not apply? That is my first question.
The other question I would ask is this. What arrangements are being made for citizens who go from one part of a High Commission Territory to another? As your Lordships will know, these three High Commission Territories, Swaziland, Bechuanaland and Basutoland, are in fact governed and administered from within the Republic. Therefore, if anybody—whether a fugitive offender or not —wishes to see the Government of the Protectorate, either to appeal against something or other or in order to get some protection, he not only has to go through Republican territory, but has to go into Republican territory, because that is where the High Commissioner responsible for the Territories has his administrative headquarters.
Your Lordships will remember that in the Second Reading debate I protested against this procedure. As you can imagine, it was said by some people, "Sir John Maud is a splendid fellow, and any criticism you make is a criticism of him". That is complete nonsense. I made this criticism years before Sir John Maud was appointed, when he was still an official in Whitehall. This is not an objection to the man, but to the system—that is to say, that the same man ought not to be Ambassador to a foreign country, with his headquarters in the capital of that foreign country, and be at the same time Governor of three High Commission Territories and administering those Territories from inside the foreign country. We can see now how inconvenient that is going to be under this provision relating to fugitive offenders. As I have said before, if the offender wants to go to see
1014
the High Commissioner, he has to go into the very territory from which he is a fugitive. I must say that that is a very rum state of affairs, and the sooner we put an end to it the better.
Just to show this is not a fictitious or idle premise, I would point out that quite recently in Basutoland an African political refugee from the Republic was assaulted and kidnapped by South African police. After disappearing for five months in gaol he succeeded in slipping a note out of gaol. This led to an attempt to secure his release, whereupon he was charged in the South African court with the attempted murder in Basutoland of his kidnappers. The charge failed, I am glad to say, and the High Commissioner ultimately secured his release and he returned to Basutoland.
There is a second case, which I mentioned on the Second Reading of thi Bill. Dr. Swame, the Secretary of the Swaziland Progressive Party, was arrested by South African police whilst returning from a visit to the Bechuanaland Protectorate. On his return from Bechuanaland to Swaziland he had to go through Republican territory, and although he was in possession of a valid passport and travel visa he was charged with being without a reference book or pass. In this case, too, the High Commissioner obtained both his release and an apology from the Minister for External Affairs.
I mention those cases only to show that these are very real questions in the Republic and, in a sense, they are very difficult to obviate in all cases, because the Territories are divided by Republican territory in the way I have described. But we can at least make this far less difficult than it is now, by putting our own government in our own territory. While we have the head of our own government living in a foreign territory—which surely must be the only case in the civilised world of that happening—then situations of this sort are going to arise from time to time, and there is going to be great embarrassment between the United Kingdom Government and the Republic.
It is no good "riding off" on the personality of Sir John Maud. That does not come into it. It does not matter who the man is. I do not care whether it is Sir John Maud or somebody else;

1015
the same difficulties are bound to arise, because it is not a question of personality. It is a question of the location of his administrative headquarters which, as I have said, are now in a foreign country. That is the situation so far as my second point is concerned. In other words, is it not going to be very difficult to control this refugee or fugitive situation While that absurd situation continues?
The third point is: what is the position about our own Protectorate citizens? Are they in any way to be regarded as fugitive offenders? It must be realised that it is often very difficult to decide in borderline cases, where you have tribes, whether a man is a Republican citizen or a citizen of the High Commission Territories. Your Lordships may remember that, in the case of Dr. Swame, a noble Lord opposite got up on Second Reading, When I raised this point, and said that Dr. Swame was not a Swazi; he was a Zulu, and he came from Natal.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: The noble Lord is perfectly correct. I said that I thought he was a Zulu. I put it as a question. In point of fact, I was incorrect and he is a Swazi.
LORD OGMORE: I am much obliged to the noble Viscount: it is good of him to correct himself. But the point the noble Lord made may well have been right; he may well have been a Zulu. Therefore, I feel that the Government should look into that question to see whether some definition of borderline cases of this sort could be made. Otherwise, I see many difficult issues arising with the Republic. This is the last chance we shall have of raising these questions, which are of vital importance to the citizens of the High Commission Territories. This situation does not arise anywhere else in the world, except for India and Pakistan. I would ask the Government to look at this matter very carefully, and to think about whether this particular provision in this Schedule is strong enough to meet the sort of case which could arise.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: May I ask the noble Lord one question, before the noble Earl replies? Unless the noble Lord is having three independent
1016
Governors, I do not see how the Central Government being at Mbabane, which was a suggestion, could help with people coming from Bechuanaland or Basutoland: they would still have to cross Republican territory. Unless you have three individuals, I do not see how that would solve the problem.
LORD OGMORE: That is a very good question, and it can be answered in this way. These people would get from one place to the other by air. They all have landing strips, and the people would go by air; that is to say, they would not land in Republican territory. The noble Viscount will appreciate that, if your headquarters are located in Republican territory, you are bound to go there, whether you go by rail, road or air; whereas if the headquarters are at Mbabane, in Swaziland, as I suggested, you could get there by air from Bechuanaland and from Basutoland, without putting your feet on Republican territory.
5.26 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, has asked three questions. The first question was: what will happen to subsequent cases after May 30? As I think the noble Lord understands, this Amendment about fugitive offenders which I have now moved, deals only with cases which are now pending, in which a prosecution has already been initiated. With regard to new permanent arrangements, which may exclude certain types of offences, the Government have made it clear in another place that it is their intention that the new arrangements should also exclude offences which are not offences in the territory being asked to return a fugitive, political offences, and offences which are subject to the death penalty in the territory requesting the return of the fugitive but not in the territory being asked to surrender the fugitive. I cannot go into more detail, because we are now currently engaged in negotiating these new arrangements with the South African Government.
Then the noble Lord raised the question of whether it was desirable to have the same person as Ambassador from the United Kingdom to the Republic of South Africa and as High Commissioner for the Territories. That is a very wide question which I do not think I should

1017
enter into on this particular Amendment, but, as the noble Lord knows far better than I do, the Territories are each largely governed by the Resident Commissioners in the Territories. Almost all types of case are dealt with by the Resident Commissioners. Very few individuals need go to the High Commissioner; and certainly no fugitive offenders, with whom this Amendment is concerned, need do so.
The third matter which the noble Lord asked about, and which, if I may say so, interested me very much, was as regards cases of doubt. Of course the Bill makes no difference at all to the status of British-protected persons, but the noble Lord represented that owing to tribal arrangements there might be some doubt as to whether a particular person was a citizen of the Republic of South Africa or a British-protected person. I think what he meant to say was that his residential qualification would not finally determine the matter. I will certainly do what the noble Lord asked me to do—which I think is all that I can promise at this moment—and look into the question, to see whether anything can be done to put in a definition or to make some provision which will, so far as possible, eliminate any doubt about the status of these people.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: Before the noble Earl sits down, would he say whether he thinks there is any possi-
1018
bility of doing that, short of abolishing all the colonial boundaries which were laid down in the nineteenth century, through dividing tribal areas in Africa?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I think very probably not, but that need not prevent us from looking into it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Third Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining Schedules agreed to.
House resumed.

LONDON BRIDGE IMPROVEMENTS BILL [H.L.]
The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn; the Orders made on the 14th February and the 16th April last discharged, and Bill committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (IMPROVEMENTS) BILL [H.L.]
The Queen's consent signified; Bill reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
House adjourned at twenty-nine minutes before six o'clock.