Lords Sitting of 27 November 1962

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

RETAIL AND FARMERS' PRICES
2.35 p.m.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: 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 when they expect to reach a decision on the negotiations now being conducted with the National Farmers' Union on the suggestion that information should be provided showing the difference between prices obtained by farmers and prices charged in the shops.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (LORD ST. OSWALD): My Lords, I do not know of any negotiations with the National Farmers' Union, but this is a subject we are always prepared to discuss. There have been exchanges of view between the Union and the Ministry on whether additional sources of information can be developed, and my right honourable friend is quite ready to consider the practicalities of this. Such information would, however, be by no means simple to obtain and my right honourable friend does not accept that it would be indispensable for making further progress in the improvement of agricultural marketing.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that that is a considerable advance on the attitude taken up by the Government during my ten years in another place, and that we welcome such advance?
1098
But may I ask him whether he would agree that, as Mr. Harold Woolley, the President of the National Farmers' Union, said last week, I think on November 15, such information would be valuable to the producer, the distributor and the consumer; and can he tell the House when such negotiations are likely to commence?
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I think I understand the point the noble Lady has in mind. The President of the National Farmers' Union raised this matter (the noble Lady is quite right) with my right honourable friend in May of last year as one of several items, and my right honourable friend then replied in the same terms as I have today. The matter has subsequently been raised with the Department again only in the past few days. The Union have been offered in the first place a review of the existing statistical information.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, may I in a last question ask the noble Lord whether he feels that this information, if it does become available, can be given to the general public? Is he aware that those of us who have pursued this matter for some time merely wish to know why there is the wide discrepancy between the money received by the producer and the prices paid in the shops?
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, the noble Lady will be the first to realise that what she has posed there is an enormously wide point which cannot be answered by question and answer. In fact, I think I am right in saying that the discrepancy is no greater than it is in most highly developed countries. But, naturally, the question the noble Lady has put to-day will be followed up.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, would the noble Lord consider a second possibility? While I realise the difficulty of showing in a shop the prices which are being paid to the producer, because the prices vary, might it not be possible instead to put the per centage by which the producer's prices have risen or fallen during a given period, so that the housewife realises the position, assuming that the price in the shop remains the same but possibly the prices to the consumer or producer have risen or fallen in that period?
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I am not aware of the precise type of statistical information which is available and will be shown to the N.F.U., but, naturally, I shall draw the attention of my right honourable friend to the noble Lord's question and find out whether this particular type of information is available.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, perhaps it would be interesting to have an immediate, little, inside Government investigation, say, into the price of bread, since English milling wheat is being sold ex-farm at 16s. 6d. a cwt. and the price of bread is very high.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, the noble Viscount has mentioned a particularly complicated matter. The processing that goes on between wheat leaving the farm and the loaf reaching the counter is considerable and complicated.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, the noble Lord has referred to existing statistical information. Does he mean existing within his Department already? If so, what difficulty can there be in making that available?
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I have said that a review of that statistical information is going to be made available to the National Farmers' Union.
LORD TAYLOR: And to the public?
LORD ST. OSWALD: Not so far.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Why not?
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord why the National Farmers' Union, representing the producers, are going to have this information and the public as a whole are not going to have it?
LORD TAYLOR: Is this an official secret?
LORD MORRISON of LAMBETH: My Lords, surely the noble Lord ought to answer the point which has been raised by my noble friend and by the noble Lord on the Liberal Benches. This is a matter of vital importance. If the Government are going to get the information for which my noble friend has asked in the first Question, surely the public are entitled to know. Why should
1100
this be kept as a trade secret between the Conservative Government and the National Farmers' Union? Will the noble Lord not answer the question? Why are they hiding it?
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I was hiding nothing. I was trying to answer—and I thought I had answered it, but apparently not sufficiently clearly—the earlier question of the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore. The statistical information is very involved and very wide, and it would be extremely difficult to publish the whole of it, and not even very helpful. When it has been discussed with the National Farmers' Union, then we shall be at least a step ahead and we shall see what further practical steps may be advisable.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, will this information be available to Parliament?
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I am perfectly ready to convey the noble Lord's wish, as I imagine it is, to my right honourable friend.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: It is our right.

TALL BUILDINGS ON THAMES SOUTH BANK
LORD BOSSOM: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will give consideration to the construction of a new major thoroughfare on the South Bank of the Thames, extending from the south end of Westminster Bridge or an adjacent bridge to the south end of London Bridge; and whether the segment of land so formed between this new thoroughfare and the river could be specially available for skyscrapers, so avoiding the siting of these tall buildings in inappropriate or historic parts of London.]
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, responsibility for the construction of major roads in the Administrative County of London rests with the London County

1101
Council. The Council have not put forward any proposal for a road on the lines envisaged by my noble friend.
That is no reason why applications should not be made for the erection of high buildings along the South Bank if developers so desire. They would fall to be considered under the London County Council's revised criteria relating to high buildings. My right honourable friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government, is not in favour of rigid plans which try to lay down where tall buildings may or may not be built. He agrees with the London County Council that all such applications should be considered on their merits against the background of stated criteria.
LORD BOSSOM: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for the Answer, stating that the London County Council is the initiator of such activities, is my noble friend aware that if that were suggested to them by his Department they would give it very serious consideration, because it would vastly improve the rateable value of that property, it would ease the transit of traffic to the City, and it would be of benefit to the entire community?
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, I have no doubt that the London County Council will take note of my noble friend's remarks, which will be read also by my right honourable friend.

DEFICIENCIES IN NATO FORCES
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 whether their attention has been drawn to the statement made by General Lauris Norstad, Supreme Allied Commander Europe, to the 8th NATO Parliamentarians' Conference in Paris on November 12, 1962, that whilst the sailors, soldiers and airmen under NATO command are magnificent, nevertheless NATO forces are critically short in a number of ways and there are deficiencies of serious proportions; that NATO is still short on certain major units and many of those units it has are seriously short in com-
1102
bat and service support; that there are notable deficiencies in available supplies and that there is a general lack in furnishing the modern equipment without which NATO forces would have to fight at a grave dis-advanatge; and, if so, what steps Her Majesty's Government propose to take, in concert with their NATO partners, in order to make good these defects.]
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (LORD CARRINGTON): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are aware of General Norstad's statement, but the passage referred to by the noble Lord needs to be considered in its context. General Norstad pointed out that the force available to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation was significant, and said that what remained to be done to meet the goals of the Supreme Commanders, although in his view critical, was relatively small compared to what had already been accomplished. The contribution of Her Majesty's Government to NATO is continually under review, but we always have to balance the claims of NATO upon our defence resources with the other claims upon us in many other parts of the world.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, in view of the fact that the noble Lord has admitted that General Norstad said that these deficiencies were critical, is it not time that Her Majesty's Government, in conjunction with the other Powers in NATO, gave the General's words serious attention and tried to remedy these critical deficiences in our forces in Europe?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I think it is necessary to read the whole of General Norstad's speech to get in proper perspective what he said. Of course, the NATO Council and the Standing Committee will consider very carefully what the Supreme Commander said.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, may we take it that, when the Defence White Paper is published this year by the Minister of Defence, all these matters will have been taken into careful consideration and proper proposals made of what the Government consider proper in that White Paper, so that we can discuss it effectively then?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I will certainly convey to the Minister of Defence what the noble Viscount has said.

PRIVILEGES OF MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will consider examining the law in order to eliminate any provisions which confer exceptional privileges upon Members of both Houses of Parliament.]
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lady for giving me this opportunity of confirming what indeed her Question clearly implies; namely, that the privileges of Members of this House are not unique but similar to privileges enjoyed by Members of another place. My Lords, the Government are considering this matter and I hope to be able to make a statement shortly.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, while I thank the noble Viscount the Leader of the House for what I consider to be an interim statement, may I ask whether he would not agree with me that, in view of the circumstances surrounding this case which prompted me to put down this Question, a full statement, when it comes to be given on these privileges, should be given in this House first?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, the privileges of either House are a matter for the House in question. I think it is very desirable that wherever possible there should be some kind of informal parallelism between the views which the two Houses take of their privileges. I should welcome any representations made to me by, for instance, the Leader of the Opposition or the Leader of the Liberal Party. I know that this would be equally welcome in another place, through a similar channel. But we have not yet had any such conversations, and I should not wish to go
1104
further than I have gone this afternoon. The House will not expect me to comment upon the circumstances of any particular case.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Viscount. The sort of representation that the Leader would get through the usual channels has not been possible for us owing to a matter of time. We did not know until a few hours ago that the Question put to-day by the noble Baroness, Lady Summer-skill, would not be answered in full. I understand that the reason for its not being answered in full to-day is that there is to be a statement in another place. I daresay conversations through the usual channels will now proceed.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, is it not the case that a certain amount has already been done in the past unofficially to prevent privileges of the House from being a nuisance to the public? It is shown every day in those rather hideous and enormous badges that we wear on our motor cars in order to warn the police of the situation, and prevent situations of embarrassment arising to them and to the public.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I hope we shall not have to wear badges in the streets or in the law courts.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, may we take it from what the noble Viscount the Leader of the House has said that if an announcement is to be made, for example, in another place, a simultaneous announcement will be made in this House? May I put it to him that I hope very much that the answer to my noble friend's Question will be favourable. If it is not I should myself be disposed to take advice as to bringing in a Private Member's Bill to deal with the matter.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I think the House can take it that there will be parallel statements in the two Houses, although of course I must be careful to guard the position that each House as a whole is guardian of its own respective privileges. I think the House may take it that what is done in another place will be done analogously in this House. I would rather not take the

1105
matter further this afternoon, but I am not altogether unsympathetic to the point of view which has been put forward.

AIR CORPORATIONS BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

AIR FORCE ACT 1955 (CONTINUATION) ORDER 1962
2.50 p.m.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I think it might be for the convenience of your Lordships if we had one debate on these two Orders, so, with your Lordships' permission, I will formally move the first one and we might have the debate on the second one. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Air Force Act 1955 (Continuation) Order 1962 be approved.—(Lord Carrington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

ARMY ACT 1955 (CONTINUATION) ORDER 1962
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, as your Lordships know, the Army and Air Force Acts, 1955, brought to an end the procedure of, annual Army and Air Force Acts and introduced a system of continuation annually by Order in Council for a maximum period of five years. The Acts came into force on January 1, 1957, and would have expired on December 31, 1961, had they not been extended by the Army and Air Force Act, 1961, subject once again to the annual Order in Council procedure. The Continuation Orders which we are now discussing are the first made under that Act. They are also the first to come before your Lordships' House since 1960. The reason for that is that last year no Orders were necessary, since the 1961 Act itself provided for continuation until the end of this year.
As well as extending the Army and Air Force Acts, the Army and Air Force Act, 1961, made a number of amendments to those Acts. One of the measures introduced by that Act was aimed at reducing the wastage rate
1106
among recruits. The measure was recommended by the Select Committee to whom the Bill was committed. As your Lordships will recall, at that time more and more recruits were taking advantage of Section 14 of the Act to buy themselves out. They could do this in their first three months for £20, and in 1960 the proportion who did so in the Army had risen to 14 per cent. We told the Select Committee that we believed that some of the men who took their decision in their early days acted on impulse, and that if they had stayed in the Army longer they would have changed their minds. The Select Committee therefore decided to give the Army and Air Councils power, in the 1961 Act, to prohibit the exercise of the right to formulate discharge for up to two months from the date of a recruit's attestation. The Army Council imposed an eight-week ban in August, 1961.
This was not, of course, the only measure aimed at improving the situation. But the combined result of everything we did bas been to bring the rate of discharge by purchase by Army recruits down from nearly 14 per cent. in early 1961 to something over 10 per cent. in 1962. There has been some offsetting increase in wastage from other causes, but overall there has been a gain to the Army in 1962 of some 600 men.
Another important innovation in the 1961 Act was the provision in Section 19 for punishment by forfeiture of a sum from pay. This measure has been welcomed by commanding officers and has worked well in practice. It has proved particularly useful in the case of junior N.C.O.s who previously could be awarded no more than a reprimand by their commanding officer.
Turning to the question of Army discipline, during the last twelve months for which figures are available 28 officers were convicted by courts-martial. This is, in fact, eight higher than the number in the previous year and it represents about one officer in 700. In the same period there were 2,343 courts-martial convictions of other ranks. This is rather less than the previous year, when the figure was 2,664, but the decrease in number is almost exactly matched by the decrease in the strength of the Army between the years. Nearly two-thirds were military, as opposed to civil,

1107
offences covered by Section 70 of the Army Act. There were in the past year 37 appeal petitions to the Army Council under the Courts-Martial (Appeals) Act, 1951. Three convictions were quashed. The rest were refused or only partially quashed. The Courts-Martial Appeal Court considered 16 applications and granted leave to appeal in five cases. One of these appeals was granted and the conviction quashed. The remainder were dismissed.
The standard of discipline in the Royal Air Force also remains of a high order. In the year ending September 30, 1962, there were, on average, only 2·69 courts-martial for every 1,000 officers and airmen serving in the Royal Air Force, which is slightly lower than even last year's figure of 2·7 per 1,000. There were seven petitions to the Air Council against sentence, all of which were rejected. There were also seven appeal petitions against findings. One led to the conviction being quashed because of misdirection at the trial, and in the remainder six leave to appeal was refused by the Appeal Court. So much for discipline, my Lords.
I said in the course of our debate on the Address earlier this month that the Army's recruiting figures in recent months had been extremely encouraging. The Army reached its minimum all-Regular strength of 165,000 men in August—about four months before the date which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for War had set for it. So the Government's confidence in our ability to raise an all-Regular Army had been borne out; and I am sure that noble Lords, on whatever side of the House they sit, and however sanguine or gloomy they may have been earlier on, will share the Government's satisfaction that this first goal has been reached. But we are not slackening our efforts, and already since August another 4,000 men have been recruited. In fact, in the last ten months we have recruited 25,300 men from civil life, which is 26 per cent. above the corresponding figure for last year, and 53 per cent. above the figure for the year before that. I think that is a very welcome sign not only that our Press and television advertising campaigns have been successful but also that the Army itself is proving an attract-
1108
tive career; and in the long run it is this, the contented recruit, which will count for most.
The task of making the Royal Air Force an all-Regular force is now all but complete. For all practical purposes the Royal Air Force is now manned with Regular airmen and is generally up to strength, except in one or two trades; and recruitment of airmen has been excellent in the past year. During the year ending in September, 1962, we recruited a total of 14,572 men, youths and women, compared with 12,474 in 1961. Various factors (the main ones are the completion of the change to all-Regular manning, and alterations in the tasks to be done; for example, the rundown of the Thor stations) mean that we shall not need so many recruits in the Royal Air Force in the future. In the coming year vacancies in the ground trades will be very limited and we shall take substantially less than we recruited in 1961 and 1962. We expect no difficulty in recruiting all the men we want and the competition for vacancies should allow us to be very selective.
My Lords, that, in broad outline, is the purpose of these two Orders. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Army Act, 1955 (Continuation) Order, 1962, be approved.—(Lord Carrington.)
2.58 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am much obliged to Her Majesty's Government for agreeing to the procedure, which I think is for the convenience of the House and which allows us to have a small autumn debate on defence. And in the light of the figures the First Lord has given us, it is, I think, clearly desirable that we should have an opportunity for this sort of interim discussion.
I should like to congratulate all those concerned, even including the Government, on the encouraging recruiting figures. It is extremely satisfactory and a great relief that we have attained what is now called the "minimum target". This, of course, puts us in the difficulty we are always in in this matter, because the Government are extremely elusive When it comes to the question of establishing how many troops and how many

1109
people they really want in the Forces. We have long suspected that the number they want is always the number that they get at a particular moment. I cannot go fully into what the First Lord has been pleased to call the "numbers game", but the fact remains that 165,000 is nothing like enough for our needs, and that it has long been apparent that planning of our Regular Forces has been based on a need for 180,000. I would ask the First Lord, when he comes to reply, what the present target is. Is it 180,000? Obviously, the ultimate test must be how many we get, but I think it would be useful to know what the Government really hope to get and now believe that they are going to get. Certainly I cannot rest content with these particular figures. I am sure that the Government themselves are not content.
It is, incidentally in passing, satisfactory that recruiting now into the Royal Air Force is so satisfactory. We know that the Royal Navy, which does not come into this matter, never has had much trouble, and for quite a while the Royal Air Force has been fairly free from difficulty. The point is important, because the moment we get ourselves into a position of having more men than we can take, it is going to make it very much easier to raise standards, and this will in turn reduce wastage.
I would turn, as the noble Lord, the First Lord, would expect, to a subject about which the Government may also be a little sensitive: the position of the "Ever-readies". It may well be that the "Ever-readies" will fade from view, that they will never play the important part envisaged when they were first brought forth from the Government's hat as a sort of conjuring trick to solve our problems. But according to the information I have seen, recruiting for the "Ever-readies" is rather disappointing. We were extremely doubtful as to whether the "Ever-readies" ever would succeed in meeting the particular need that the Government had for them, but if there is a need for them it must be in the course of the next few months, especially after National Service has run out; and from the information we are getting it looks as if the figures are not encouraging. We should like a frank statement from the Government as to how they now regard the scheme. I am sure it is
1110
one every noble Lord would wish to encourage, but at the same time it is not, I am afraid, going to be as satisfactory as we had hoped.
May I turn to one aspect of recruiting and that is the recruiting of junior leaders and boy soldiers? Like others of your Lordships, I am in the habit of giving lifts to men from the Services, and often in the past one has picked up National Service men only to find that they were counting the days till they could get out of the Army. Three times in the last two months by chance I have given lifts to boy soldiers, junior leaders, apprentices, and I have been immensely impressed by the enthusiasm they have shown. On one fairly long car journey I picked up three boys bound for Penzance or somewhere like that on an initiative test, and they talked continuously about how marvellous the life was, how keen they were on their prospects in the Army, how satisfied they were with the training, the education, the officers and the N.C.O.s. It was a pæan of praise of such a nature that I made a mental note that I would raise this subject in due course in the House. I gave a lift only the night before last to yet another boy soldier who almost sat down to try to write my speech for me, because he felt it was such a marvellous thing.
There is no doubt that the Army are on to a very good thing here, and they are running it extremely well. They have obviously picked the right officers and the right places—one of the places I have heard about was Arbourfield—for running it. Many of these boy soldiers come from homes with Service backgrounds; their fathers have been in the Army and are glad to see their sons go into it directly, rather than that there should be a period between the time they leave school and the time they join up. There is no doubt that it is infinitely easier to absorb the boys in this way and give them prospects.
I am wondering whether the noble Lord has any figures on wastage; he may not have them now; I would not press him on this point. He was talking about wastage and the examination which has taken place, and I am sure the Army and Air Force operational research people have looked into this question. I am wondering how far we

1111
can pinpoint the places where wastages occur and those aspects of recruiting where the minimum wastage occurs, and whether it would be possible to reinforce the success where it exists.
I do not know whether the Army training of junior leaders is an expensive way of recruiting, but we must remember that in the process better citizens are being produced, because, quite apart from military training, these lads are getting a great deal more education. Many of them are taking the relevant Army examination and doing the G.C.E. work which, in fact, because they were "browned off" at school, they did not do; and when ultimately they retire from the Army, perhaps after many years' service, they will be the more valuable to the community. I would regard this as a wholly satisfactory field in which to see further development. At the present moment, I am told, they are in fact over-subscribed—my information, again, is only from the boy soldiers to whom I have given lifts—and possibly desirable applicants have to be turned down.
I would turn now, after these pleasing, and, I hope, encouraging remarks, to the question of our strength and our capacity to meet our needs. We had a Question just now from the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, which I must say was not given a very satisfactory Answer by the First Lord. The point is that we know it is not possible to give a satisfactory answer; that we are still below strength in our commitments to NATO, although it is encouraging to note from the figures that the strength of the British Army of the Rhine has gone up quite considerably and that the situation is not so dour as, in some ways, it was only 12 or 18 months ago. We have been told that it will be possible to reinforce and bring it up to war strength.
I would ask the Government what they think might have happened if something had gone wrong at the time of the Cuban crisis. They may well think that in those circumstances, if things really had gone wrong, the nuclear exchange would have been such that any question of military operation would have ceased to be of significance. But we have also to bear in mind that it is at such times that there is a danger of some more brinkmanship
1112
that it is just at that moment when the West is tensing itself and then breathing again, having secured a breathing space, that something might happen—after all, it is what the Chinese have been doing in Asia—when we should not be ready and our forces would not be up to the strength which the Supreme Commander, General Norstad, has insisted they should be. It really is not good enough that our strength there is still below our original undertaking at the time when the agreement to introduce German rearmament was produced. I would even go so far as to say that I think it has an affect on our relations within Asia, and that (though this may be too far-fetched) it may also be affecting not only our relations with the European Defence Community but our efforts to get into the Common Market. I hope that the Government will see whether they cannot do something about a situation which they know as well as we do is held to be a failure on the part of this country.
I should have liked to ask the First Lord how long it would take, in the estimate of the Government, to bring our Forces up to what is called war strength. If it is a matter of days, or a week, or what have you, I do not think it can be good enough. We must, of course, note that France is not playing her part, and (although this does not arise strictly from the debate,) it is worth noting that there are only two French divisions committed to NATO although there are other divisions in metropolitan France. But the argument is still the same. It might well be that we can encourage them also to produce a properly deployed shield, one able to play the rôle that General Norstad expects.
Might I digress briefly at this moment to refer to the Royal Air Force? We have heard encouraging figures about recruiting, but we are still not satisfied that the R.A.F. can meet all its obligations in the mobility field. This is a matter in which I know the First Lord is himself personally interested; particularly from the naval point of view, he is concerned with this question of mobility. But we are beginning to hear again the rather depressing rumours that we heard about the Belfast. I still maintain that the Government made a mistake in ordering the Belfast instead of a different type of aircraft, and in not getting it more quickly,

1113
even if they had to manufacture an American type under licence. Has the order been placed for the O.R.351? I do not think that it has been yet. How long is to elapse before we see it? We shall on a later occasion probe more fully into this question of aircraft supply. It is always a depressing story of delay. Year after year we have been talking about the Belfast. I scarcely like to raise the subject, we have talked so often about it. But we still have not got it. I suppose we shall hear the happy phrase "the mid-'sixties", and that we may see it in 1965. I am sure the House will agree that this is fundamental to the world-wide situation and to the strategy that we have to pursue. It was certainly of importance in the Kuwait operation, and there may be other operations in Asia where extreme mobility may be of equal importance.
In passing, I wonder whether the Government would throw a little more light on this controversy that has boiled up over Kuwait. I do not wish to pursue all the arguments that were vigorously deployed in another place on the subject. Nor can I quote from the honourable Member who raised them; but they came from what I should regard as a pretty authoritative source. There have even been suggestions that there should be a Select Committee to look into the Kuwait operation. I will not pursue that aspect now, beyond saying that I think the Government ought perhaps, in order to resolve the doubts that have been expressed in another place, and, indeed, in The Times and elsewhere, to publish a rather fuller statement on the Kuwait operation: a statement less of a congratulatory kind—although I think there is much for congratulation—but one which would make it possible to set at rest any anxieties as to where our readiness, preparation, heat discipline, and so on, may have fallen down. I put this point quite seriously. I do not wish to harass the Government unduly on it, but certainly some quite serious accusations have been made.
While considering the position in Asia, I think we have to recognise that there may be several commitments and obligations landed on us at short notice. We do not know what is going to happen in India; nor do we know how serious and how continuing a particular demand might be. In the brief discussion we had on
1114
Defence during the debate on the humble Address in reply to the gracious Speech I referred to the need to be able to hold those areas in Asia which may at any time be threatened. One thing that is essential, if we are to do this, is mobility, both air and naval. In passing, I would ask: is this surely not the worst time for the Government to pursue the idea of reducing the size of the Gurkha Forces?
My Lords, we have raised on a number of occasions this question of manpower. One thing we need is manpower. We have deployed ourselves as fully as we can into the nuclear deterrent. I do not propose to pursue that question to-day, beyond saying that it is doubtful how relevant it is to the sort of situation that we may at any time encounter; and the saving that may be made from cutting down on the Gurkhas must surely be quite small in comparison with our overseas expenditure in other fields. It seems to me that this is really one good card that we have to play, and that, so far from cutting down, we should even be considering expanding. I urge—it has been urged by noble Lords on both sides of the House, and by honourable Members in another place—that we should reconsider our policy. Why, in fact, has it been decided to carry it out? Could the First Lord tell us why this policy has been put forward at all? I certainly hope that there will be no reduction of this particularly valuable and superb force.
There is only one other point that I should like to make: again it raises a big issue. I refer to the question of Service integration. I should not have raised it now were it not for articles that have appeared in the Press and are likely to lead to continued speculation. It is quite possible that some who have advocated Service integration will now complain that the Government are introducing Service integration in a particular way and that, as usual, they will ruin whatever they set out to do. But I am still a believer in a need for much greater Service integration. It seems to me that this has been forced on us in our debates. It is no coincidence that in discussing these two Orders we prefer to condense the subject into one. Although not in itself a reason for integrating the Services, it does suggest that integration is a natural development.

1115
We have had a fairly detailed report in the Daily Express (not necessarily what the Government or the Opposition would regard as the most reliable of newspapers) on this matter, and we should like to know more about it. This is a matter which will call for the most enormous care and extremely good public relations. We know the difficulty that the Government have had in regard to integrating particular regiments. If they are going to introduce any real integration of the Armed Forces, it will not be a question of "tribal" resistance but something much more pressing. I would urge the Government, if they are proceeding on those lines—they may not wish to say much about it to-day, although I do press the First Lord on it—to consider these proposals not merely from the point of view of their own intrinsic merit, but also from the point of view of getting them perfectly understood by those who may well be affected.
3.20 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, we on this side of the House are most grateful to my noble friend for his speech this afternoon. It was a speech that would have been a very good foundation for an interesting debate. I feel I should express the feelings of disappointment on this side of the House because noble Lords opposite and in other quarters have not taken part in this debate. It is true that we have a Defence debate annually, but events move so fast that I think it is right—and I think we are now fortunate in this repect, as the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has said—that we should have this interim debate on matters of defence.
My Lords, before dealing with the points I wish to make, I should like to pay a tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham. I know that Leaders of the three Parties in this House did so last week, but this is a subject with which he was very closely connected, and I would pay a tribute and express regret, if I may, on behalf of those noble Lords who have accompanied him on many visits to the Services. We also regret the death of a squadron leader. It is regrettable that the tragedy did not end there, and perhaps the noble Lord when he replies could give us some information as to
1116
what aid in the way of pension will be available to the parents of the squadron leader who died, because it is a case in which two children are now left without parents.
My Lords, we had a big debate last year in which I had the honour of moving the Amendment on this side expressing lack of confidence in Her Majesty's Government's defence policy. I then deployed figures in relation to the tremendous cost incurred by this country in the production of weapons. I must express some surprise that the Government thought it fit to leave the announcement of the discontinuance of Blue Water until Parliament went into Recess. We well know that the Army set great store by this weapon, but now it has gone and is not to become available to the Army. I hope that it will be possible in future for the Government not to treat Parliament in quite the same manner.
Since we had our last Defence debate much water has flowed under the bridge. We have had the threat to Thailand; the threat to Kuwait; the Cuban crisis; and what is now obviously an unresolved border war between India and China. These incidents focus our attention upon those particular trouble spots. I have just come back from Asia and I must warn the House that the tensions, the pressures of Communist China are in fact being built up and are in no way being relaxed. I think we should view with considerable concern the heavy infiltration of Communism in Burma, particularly when we see India threatened in the North. Therefore, I would suggest that between now and our next defence debate the Government should carefully consider what are going to be the basic requirements of our defence forces in the coming years. More and more am I becoming convinced that we must develop our conventional weapons. Certainly we must increase our mobility to such an extent that we can give aid wherever troubles may arise, particularly in Asia.
The next matter I want to raise is one of considerable delicacy, and I have given notice to the noble Lord that I would raise it. It is true that to-day our Ministers are not only becoming more and more involved in the expenditure of public money but are becoming closely connected, as they must in order to perform their duties, with industry

1117
and trade. I raise this particular point m this Service debate because I feel that certain Service Ministers might well be placed in a position of dilemma. In fact, a year ago it might have been said that what I raise is a hypothetical question, but with the appointment of Mr. Watkinson to the Board of a well-known and respected company I think the issue now comes before us.
Ministers in the past have had to make decisions as to the purchase of weapons or as to the cost of other developments; in recent years they have had to play a greater part in decisions as to expenditure on research. But in recent years—and I think it is right that they should have done so—they have become the spearhead in a sales campaign for the sale of our own products, particularly of weapons and aircraft. These Ministers, by the very nature of their duty, have placed before them facts, specifications and all the details relating to a weapon, equipment or aircraft or other items. It is also true that Ministers to-day, particularly the Minister of Aviation, are endeavouring to bring about co-operation between countries. For example, there is the supersonic aircraft which we hope to see developed by a French company and a British company; and there is talk in to-day's newspapers of possible co-operation between a United States company and British industry for the production of a new freighter aircraft. It is obvious that these Ministers will have information available to them which from a commercial point of view, will be of considerable secrecy. I think the point is therefore raised whether when a Minister leaves office, having been intimately connected with these affairs, he should, or under what conditions he should, take up an appointment with a commercial company.
As I have said, he may, in the case of aircraft, have laid before him in considerable detail information from two or three different companies. Therefore, I should have thought it would seem very hard to the other companies concerned should that Minister, with that information before him, then take up an appointment with one of the competitors. I do not think there is any doubt that when one becomes a director of a company one has very immediate loyalties to that company and its shareholders.
1118
There are many prominent people in public life who are directors of a number of companies. No doubt throughout their period of office they face this difficulty as to where their allegiance and loyalty lie. There is often a conflict concerning what should be done, what information should be passed, what advice should be given. Obviously, in the case of a Minister, when information is laid before him in the national need and for the national good there should be special consideration.
My Lords, I would ask the Government whether they will give this matter further consideration. I think that Ministers should be given some guidance in this matter. If the Government feel that guidance should be given, I hope that it will be given publicly; and I would suggest to the noble Lord that consideration of the position may be a matter for which a Select Committee, perhaps of both Houses, could be appointed. It is often said that justice must be done, but above all else it must be seen to be done. Certainly Ministers are meant to be impartial in their decisions and I think that equally that impartiality should be seen and understood.
LORD ROBERTSON OF OAKRIDGE: My Lords, before the noble Lord leaves that point I should like to ask him whether he appreciates—I am sure he does—that a Ministry like the Ministry of Defence does business with a very wide range of firms. To say that when a Minister leaves office he should not accept a directorship in any firm which the Ministry has dealt with would really be tantamount to saying that he must not accept a directorship at all. I would hope that the noble Lord would feel that one can trust to the good sense and, indeed, the integrity of ex-Ministers, and not make too sweeping a quest in this regard.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am most grateful for that intervention. I certainly have not said that when a Minister resigns he should be precluded from taking up a position on a board. What I am asking the Government to do is to consider the whole aspect. I would say that it is not a question of Ministers only; it could well apply to some of the senior officials and officers of our Services who have from time to time left

1119
high commands and high appointments to take up positions in industry. I should like to leave it there if I may, but I hope that the Government will give this matter most careful consideration.
My noble friend dealt with Kuwait. Considerable concern has undoubtedly arisen from rumours that have been printed in the Press, and which in some respects were deployed in another place last week. I have read the Minister's reply most carefully, and I could not help but feel that it was evasive. We are being asked to agree to the Government's conception that we should retain and maintain the central reserve in the United Kingdom, and that this should be deployed to the four corners of the world in the event of trouble, irrespective of climatic conditions, and I feel that we should be satisfied that all possible arrangements are made to ensure that these troops are properly serviced when sent out of this country to fight under conditions like those in Kuwait.
I was reading of the quantity of water that our troops require in Kuwait. Like a number of others, I served in the desert during the war, and for long periods we were able to fight and work on half a gallon of water for all purposes: drinking, cooking and servicing our vehicles. But we were able to do that only after considerable acclimatisation. When troops are put into a place like Kuwait, when the heat is really beyond description, it is obvious that until they are acclimatised they will require considerably more supplies, particularly of water and salt, than would otherwise be required. There have been these rumours and disquiet, and I would support the plea that has been made by my noble friend, that a Report should be available for Parliament to study.
I again congratulate the Government, and support my noble friend, on the recruiting figures. The figures are far better than we anticipated at the beginning of the year, and I hope that this trend will continue, because although my noble friend felt that 180,000 was the figure at which the Government were aiming, I am sure the Minister will agree that there are many who believe that the Army really requires a figure of approximately 200,000 to 220,000. Could the noble
1120
Lord when he replies give us some idea of the operation of the Army reserve? Could he tell us how many National Servicemen were in fact retained, and how many were recalled? My noble friend spoke of the disappointing results from the Ever-Readies. I am sure the House would appreciate having an idea of the number who have actually enlisted, and also of how their training is proceeding in the Territorial Army.
May I raise one question about the Singapore Joint Command? As I understand it, very shortly the overall Command will come under Admiral Luce, who I think is now the senior Admiral in the Far East. The noble Lord told us of the date when that will come into force. I understand that in Singapore the Admiral will have his headquarters at Phoenix Park, and that all the other services will be spread out over the island. Since integration is so much in the air, I wonder whether the Government would agree to bringing the three offices—Army, Navy and Air Force—under one roof in Singapore. The island is not very big, but transport is not easy and I think there would be considerable advantage if we could bring these Services under one roof. Certainly I am sure there would be considerable advantage in Singapore if we could streamline the general servicing of the Forces. At the moment, as I understand it, the three Services are supplied separately, but much of their work is the same and I think there could be considerable saving, particularly in manpower, if we brought the servicing arrangements in Singapore together, as I believe is done in Aden.
Then there is the question of the Singapore base, and the proposals for Malaysia. At the present moment Singapore is the place on which a British contribution would be based, if operations under SEATO were conducted. I understand that if Singapore comes into Malaysia—and this we should all welcome—this may well raise a difficulty about the use of Singapore as a British base for SEATO operations. I wonder whether the Minister can give us some information on this matter, because if we did not have Singapore for this task it is very difficult to see where a further base could be provided.
On the Army education service, I believe it is true that this is to be an all-officer service and I think this is to be

1121
welcomed. I believe that 800 officers will be involved. Can the noble Lord tell us how many of these officers are now serving overseas? I have always been very impressed with the education service provided by the American forces. It is concerned not only with the provision of education for the lower ratings, shall I say: it provides opportunities for officers and men to obtain university degrees. I should like to see our education service built up, and I wonder whether it will be possible to get the universities to take a greater interest in Army or Service education.
My Lords, I also share the view of my noble friend in regard to the Gurkhas. These soldiers have played a very notable part in many actions, particularly in Malaya. If we wish to bring British troops home to play their part in Europe, I certainly think that we should use the Gurkhas to the maximum in providing the necessary forces in Singapore and in Hong Kong. Therefore, like my noble friend, I deplore any suggestion that these valuable battalions should in any way be reduced. In fact, I would suggest to the noble Lord that we resurrect that wonderful battalion and regiment, the 1st Fijians. That par ticular unit played a very fine part in Malaya, and I think would again be very useful in the Far East, where many of our Forces are in fact carrying out internal security duties. I think that is about all I wish to say at this stage, my Lords. I would again congratulate the Government on the success of their recruiting campaign. I hope it will continue and that when we have our Defence debate next year we shall have reached the target which they are setting themselves; and I personally hope that it will be nearer 200,000 than the 165,000 or the 185,000 now proposed.
3.42 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, I should not have intervened at all but for the words (So which one can take no exception) of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, concerning the subject of Ministers' taking directorships. The point I should like to submit to your Lordships is this: that there is nothing new in this, and [that in fact the reverse process has been going on for many years, in that those who have been in industry and have special knowledge of a particular industry are sometimes
1122
suddenly transferred to the ministerial sphere. I know, of course, that immediately that happens it is incumbent upon the individual who has become a Minister to divest himself of his financial connections with the particular industry with which he may be associated. My Lords, you can divest yourself of your financial connections, but you cannot divest yourself of your knowledge. It has happened to noble Lords on the other side of the House, and it has happened to noble Lords on this side of the House. It happened to myself once: that is why I raise it.
One day, I found myself a director of various aircraft concerns. The next day I happened to find myself Under-Secretary of State for Air. Naturally, I divested myself of all my financial connections; but when Mr. Chamberlain (who was Prime Minister at that time) had asked Mr. Kingsley Wood to go to the Air Ministry, I do not think he was aware of the connections I had with that particular industry. So I said to him, when I had explained my position, "Sir, I shall quite understand if you wish to withdraw your offer to me". His remark to me was, "I hope you will be that much more useful, because you know about the industry".
My Lords, I submit that a Minister who goes into industry, even though he may have to deal with those who, the week before, were his colleagues, uses Ms knowledge with integrity, with care, with judgment and with impartiality. If it happens when somebody becomes a Minister from private life, it equally happens when somebody goes into private life from being a Minister. It is that reverse process, which has been going on for many years past, of which I would remind your Lordships. It has worked successfully in the past, as I know; it is working successfully at the present, and it will work successfully in the future depending upon the integrity of the individual, which remains unsullied at present and will, I am sure, continue to do so in the future.
3.45 p.m.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, this debate is ranging very widely indeed. The noble Lord would not have intervened but for the speech of my noble friend: I would not have intervened but for his

1123
speech. Much of the problem that arises comes from within the Conservative Party itself. If in fact it would publish its ac counts, the source of its revenue, then so far as the public is concerned there would be much less disquiet. There is a feeling among the public, and it is a feeling in which I share, that many concerns make very heavy donations to Tory Party funds, in exactly the same way as they place investment within their own industry, in order that the machine of government may be used to the benefit of their industrial or commercial concerns. When the public sees that persons from industry, as the noble Lord himself has said, take Ministerial positions and then, from Ministerial positions, go back into industry, then to be associated with the Departments with which they were associated as Ministers, it is not the best thing from the point of view of the public. I would not have intervened, as I said, but for the speeches that nave been made; but the real purpose of my intervention is to point out that the remedy is within the Conservative Party itself, and in the publication of its sources of revenue.
VISCOUNT BRIDGMAN: My Lords, I wonder how anybody in this House can possibly think that the speech of the noble Lord who has just sat down had any reference to the matter before the House.
3.47 p.m.
LORD SAYE AND SELE: My Lords, in this debate so far the still small voice of Civil Defence has not yet reached the microphone. A short time ago the Cuban crisis came on, and one noticed that con sciences were pricked here and there by the obvious dangers. I heard of a family abroad (I think it was in Canada) who immediately spent £100 on food to replenish their stocks. I heard of another good lady at home who went out at once and bought tinned tongue. I find that the latter incident illustrates more the attitude at home towards Civil Defence than does the incident in Canada.
As your Lordships know, there has lately been started a new scheme for Civil Defence. We hope very much that it is going to succeed. We must remember that Civil Defence is the plinth on which all these other defence affairs stand. They are all based upon this
1124
question of Civil Defence; and if we talk about the Army, the Navy and the Air Force without remembering that Civil Defence has to be carried on at home, we shall surely go sliding into a very deep abyss. However good these young men are who are taught at the school—and they are admirable—I hope they are taught Civil Defence; and I also hope the First Lord will be able to tell us how the new scheme for Civil Defence is progressing.
3.49 p.m.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I think we all ought to be grateful for the speeches made by the noble Lords, Lord Shackleton and Lord Shepherd, who always contribute greatly to our debates on defence. They have asked me a number of questions which I will do my best to answer. It is perfectly true that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, was courteous enough to give me notice that he was going to raise the question of directorships being taken by ex-Ministers; but, used as I am, after seventeen years in your Lordships' House, to the rather wide interpretation of the Rules of Order, I must humbly confess that I did not come to the House prepared to deal with the finances of the Conservative Party on the Air Force Act (Continuation) Order. I do not think I can really take the matter any further. Your Lordships will remember that the Prime Minister answered a number of Questions in another place, and answered them very fully, and I do not think I have anything to add except perhaps to say that I have no doubt that the points which have been made by all your Lordships this afternoon will be noted in the right quarter.
First of all, I should like to say a word or two about a subject which both noble Lords opposite raised, the question of Kuwait, because there has been some criticism of our preparations for these operations. Much of this criticism has been put forward in an entirely constructive spirit and the Government are, and should be, grateful for it; for in all operations we must learn by experience and, of course, we had very little experience of mounting an operation of this kind before this occasion—an operation in which a comparatively large number of troops had to be flown in from a con siderable distance at short notice. Of

1125
course, this is the sort of operation which we may have to face more frequently in the future. I do not know; but I quite agree that we roust be prepared to meet them.
At the same time, my Lords, I must say I think a great deal of the criticism in the case of Kuwait and the stories which we have heard of heat exhaustion and so on have been exaggerated. It is, of course, true that there were cases of heat exhaustion but, as the then Minister of Defence said in July, 1961, the number was, in fact, surprisingly small. There had been on average only twelve cases a day evacuated to hospital, which amounts to well under 1 per cent. of the total forces engaged. There is certainly no evidence to support the contention which I have heard that the casualty rate was as high as 10 per cent. though it was certainly higher than 1 per cent. in certain small units. But there is no question of the effects of the heat prejudicing the ability of the force to carry out the task it was set to do. This has been confirmed by the reports of the commanders responsible for the operation.
Of course, no operation ever goes off without hitches, as any of your Lord ships who had any experience of fight ing in the last war knows—indeed it would be a miracle if one did; and, of course, there were lessons to be learned from Kuwait. We have looked at these to see how we can profit from them. One result is that we are arranging exercises in peace time in different parts of the world both to accustom our troops to fight in different climates and in all sorts of conditions and to learn further lessons for the future. We are placing more emphasis on training our men in the special disciplines necessary for hot climates; devising new rations containing a more suitable diet for these con ditions; developing improved goggles and headgear and investigating other means of fitting men to withstand climates to which they are not accustomed. In all this we are taking full advantage, through the Army Medical Advisory Committee, of the advice of eminent civilian consultants, and the Army's own medical authorities are in constant touch with the fundamental research being carried out by the Medical Research Council. In short a
1126
great deal of effort is being put into this question of acclimatisation. The lessons of Kuwait—which I ought to emphasise was an extremely successful operation—are being absorbed and as a result, our preparedness for these operations in the future is steadily growing.
The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, spoke about B.A.O.R. Our actual Forces in Germany to-day are over 54,000 men—which is not far short of our commitment to provide 55,000. Although this number may fall slightly next year when the last National Servicemen go for good, we have pledged to build up to 55,000 as soon as we can. As I said, recruitment to the Army is going very well indeed. In an emergency B.A.O.R. could be built up to full war strength in a matter of days by the despatch of reinforcements from (this country for whom heavy equipment is already stockpiled on the Continent. This summer we had some exercises with troops to see if our needs were being met and these were very successful.
LORD SHEPHERD: By heavy equipment, does the noble Lord mean vehicles?
LORD CARRINGTON: Yes. As part of this reinforcement plan, units and individuals will be posted to Germany to bring up the administrative elements there to full strength. So much for the manpower so far as B.A.O.R. is concerned. But equipment is also coming along. For example, the up-gunned Centurion is already in service; the Chieftain is now undergoing trials; the Wombat anti-tank gun will be in service this year; and trainling has already started on the Vigilant, among many other new developments. Of course we should like larger conventional Forces, a bigger Army, a bigger Air Force—and I certainly should like to see a bigger Navy. But, as I said in my reply to the question which the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, asked earlier this afternoon, it is all a question of balance, we cannot hope to match either the Russians or the Americans in scale.
LORD OGMORE: One thing we can do is to give up this ridiculous nuclear H-bomb and use the money and resources so saved on conventional forces.
LORD CARRINGTON: It is extra-ordinary how far-sighted I must be, because I was coming to this point. The British nuclear force makes a significant contribution to the Western strategic deterrent and I know that when the noble Lords, Lord Shackleton and Lord Ogmore, were talking about B.A.O.R. and conventional forces, always at the back of their minds was the idea of giving up a British contribution to nuclear deterrence. Our deterrent would inflict destruction greater than any advantage an aggressor might achieve by his aggression. It adds to the credibility of the Western deterrent in that it reduces the possibility of a Soviet miscalculation that the Americans might not use their nuclear power to defend Europe. And if we were to scrap it we still could not increase our conventional contribution sufficiently to make any appreciable difference to the balance of military power in the West.
The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, and the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, asked about the Gurkhas. As my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for War said in another place on November 7, Her Majesty's Government do not propose to take a decision about the future of the Brigade of Gurkhas before next year. I can assure your Lordships that before any final decision is reached every possible circumstance and condition will be taken into account. The two main factors in taking a decision on the future of the Gurkhas are the recruitment of British soldiers and our future commitments. As your Lordships know, recruiting has been going very well, but we cannot yet be certain how our future commitments will develop. That is why we have not yet reached a decision on the Gurkhas. I can, however, give your Lordships an undertaking that we are determined that we shall have enough manpower, whether British or Gurkha, to fulfil our future commitments. Her Majesty's Government are fully aware of the long and loyal association of Gurkhas with the British Army. I can assure your Lordships that we have no wish to abandon these close ties. We shall continue to keep in the closest touch with the Brigade of Gurkhas and with all concerned with their well being.
The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, also asked about how the Army Reserve Act
1128
has been working out. Your Lordships will remember that this Act provided for the retention and recall of National Servicemen and the formation of the Territorial Army Emergency Reserve. With improvements in Regular recruiting it was, in the event, necessary to retain only 9,200 National Servicemen and not the 15,000 at first envisaged. Of these about 2,000 have not been required to serve the full extra six months. Out of 2,413 appeals against retention 627 have so far been granted.
Recruiting for the T.A.E.R. has been slower than was hoped but has made steady progress since it was started last April. I might say that the importance of the Ever-Readies will certainly not be diminished by the success of Regular recruitment. They will still be needed to reinforce the Regular Army in situations of difficulty and emergency. There are now 137 officers and about 3,500 other ranks. A soldier in the T.A.E.R. is necessarily a member of a unit of the Territorial Army and he normally trains with his unit in the ordinary way, but in some cases it may be necessary for him to train with a regular formation. To become an Ever-Ready, that is, a member of the T.A.E.R., a soldier must have served at least one year in the Territorial Army and have attended at least one annual camp. He also has to be recommended by the Commanding Officer of his TA. unit, who would of course take account of the man's efficiency and level of training. It is planned to send about 200 Ever-Readies to do their annual training camp in the Far East next year.
The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, also asked me a number of questions about the new Unified Command in Singapore, which was announced in this year's Defence White Paper. The new organisation will in fact come into being tomorrow. The problem of accommodation for the Unified Command has been a difficult one, as I think the noble Lord knows, since the existing three Service headquarters are located in different parts of Singapore Island. I absolutely agree with the noble Lord that the ideal solution would have been for the Unified Commander's staff and the staffs of the three Service headquarters to be located in one place, but this would have meant very heavy expenditure in the provision

1129
of new office and other accommodation. In the circumstances a compromise solution has had to be adopted. The Unified Commander will be accommodated in Phoenix Park and, although the three Service headquarters will remain in their existing locations, the Service Commanders will have their offices in Phoenix Park and will divide their time between Phoenix Park and their own headquarters. Hong Kong is, of course, part of the operational area of the Unified Commander and will come under his command.
We had to examine the possibility of extending joint Service arrangements in Singapore of the kind which has proved so successful in Aden, and various proposals resulting from this examination are now being considered. Unfortunately, however, the main centres of activity of the three Services in Singapore are so widely scattered that the possibilities of one Service carrying out administrative functions on behalf of the others are much more limited than they are in Aden, where the geography of the base lends itself to this kind of thing. However, we have already moved a bit in this direction in Singapore, where, for example, the Army and the Royal Air Force hospitals operate on a geographical basis, taking in patients from all three Services. The same is true of the children's schools run by each of the three Services, which take in each other's pupils according to the area in which the children live.
The noble Lord also asked me about our position in the Singapore base when Greater Malaysia comes into being. Perhaps I may remind him of the joint statement by the Governments of the United Kingdom and of the Federation of Malaya, issued on November 22 of last year. Paragraph 6 of that statement, which is the relevant passage, reads as follows:—
"In regard to defence matters it was decided that in the event of the formation of the proposed Federation of Malaysia the existing Defence Agreement between Britain and Malaya should be extended to embrace the other territories concerned. It was however agreed that the Government of the Federation of Malaysia would afford to the Government of the United Kingdom the right to continue to maintain bases at Singapore for the purpose of assisting in the defence of Malaysia and for Commonwealth defence and for the preservation of peace in South East Asia."
1130
Thus we shall continue to enjoy the use of the Singapore base even after Greater Malaysia comes into existence.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, for the public tribute he has paid to Army juniors and for the way he went out of his way to say it, because I think it is a most deserved tribute. The apprentice and other boys' units are proving an extremely popular form of entry into the Army. The number of applicants who are coming forward are many more than we can take, and as a result the Army can afford to be very selective. For example, junior leaders and apprentice schools were all full for the autumn term which has just started. I am afraid I cannot answer the question about wastage in these schools, but I will certainly draw the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for War to the noble Lord's suggestion that there may be a possibility of extending this scheme, as it has been so successful.
The noble Lord also asked me about transport aircraft. I agree with him very much, as he knows, about the importance of mobility. So far as the Belfast is concerned, we expect to have ten of these aircraft in service in the mid-1960s, but as I think I made clear to your Lordships earlier this year, this is the total requirement which we can foresee at present for these strategic freighters. As regards the OR.351 replacement for the Beverley and Hastings, the question which we are at present considering is whether or not we can get co-operation from other countries who are interested in the same sort of aircraft. The Government are convinced that it would be right to wait until we are clear about this. The replacement will not be needed for about five or six years—that is to say, in about 1968.
The noble Lord also spoke about the higher organisation for defence, suggesting that it ought to be more closely integrated. This is a matter which, of course, the Government always have under consideration, and I would entirely agree with the noble Lord that the three Services should get as close together as possible in the planning and execution of operations. If the noble Lord has a plan of development to put forward, alongside Mr. Chapman Pincher's plan in the Daily Express, I should be very happy indeed to examine his plan and consider it with

1131
the other proposals which have been, and no doubt will be, made on the subject; but I do not think that I can say any more about that this afternoon.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, it is not my plan or Mr. Chapman Pincher's plan, but the Government's plan we want to hear about.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I have just told the noble Lord that he is not going to hear about it this afternoon.
The noble Lord, Lord Saye and Sele, rather unexpectedly intervened on the Army and Air Force (Continuation) Orders to talk about Civil Defence. I think your Lordships will agree with him on the importance of Civil Defence and I know how much he personally has done in his own county for Civil Defence. I am sorry to say that I am not armed with the facts which will enable me to answer him this afternoon, but I will write to him and tell him how the new scheme is getting on. I will also write to any other noble Lord who has asked questions which I have not had time this afternoon to answer.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

TANGANYIKA REPUBLIC BILL
4.8 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read
THE MINISTER OF STATE, COM MONWEALTH RELATIONS OFFICE (THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. Your Lordships will recollect that Tanganyika became independent as a monarchy within the Commonwealth on December 9 last year. On February 15 this year, the Tanganyika National Assembly decided that Tanganyika should become a republic within the Commonwealth and, in May, the Tanganyika Government published their proposals for a republican constitution in their Government Paper No. 1 of 1962. These proposals were unanimously approved by the National Assembly in June and a Bill giving effect to them was passed by the Tanganyika Parliament, sitting as a Constituent Assembly, on November 23.
1132
I do not need to remind your Lord-ships that the form of government chosen by an independent Commonwealth country is not a matter on which the British Government or Parliament can properly express an opinion, but it is of some interest possibly to notice that, first as a Mandated and afterwards as a Trust Territory, Tanganyika, from 1919 until 1961, was a ward of the international community and stood in only an indirect relationship with the Crown as Sovereign of the administering Power. It was only on achieving independence that Tanganyika became part of Her Majesty's Dominions.
It will be helpful perhaps, if I also draw attention to some of the main features of the Constitution as set out in the Tanganyikan Bill. As your Lordships know, Dr. Nyerere has been elected as the first President of Tanganyika by an over-whelming majority, and I know that your Lordships on all sides of the House would wish to congratulate him most warmly on this. As President, he will be Head of State and Commander-in-Chief. The executive power of the State is vested in him and, with certain exceptions, he may act in his own discretion. However, the Constitution provides for the appointment of Ministers and a Cabinet to advise him as President, and, subject to his powers, to be the principal instrument of policy. The President also has powers in relation to public service, judicial and police appointments. The independence of the judiciary will, however, be safeguarded, since the judges, once they are appointed, will have security of tenure and can be removed only for misconduct or unfitness and after appropriate judicial inquiry. The Tanganyika Government have recognised the need to preserve the rôle of Parliament in the framing of laws, the raising of taxes and voting money.
The constitution provides explicitly that legislative power would be vested in Parliament and that, although Presidential assent can be withheld from a Bill the first time it is passed, if it is passed again by a two-thirds majority the President must assent or dissolve Parliament. It also provides that no tax may be imposed without the authority of Parliament. Thus, although the President has wide executive powers, the essential characteristics of a free democratic

1133
society, such as an independent judiciary and the supremacy of Parliament in making laws, are to be preserved and safeguarded in this new constitution.
As evidence of this, I do not think I can do better than quote the preamble to the Tanganyika Government Bill. It goes like this:
"Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace:
"And whereas the said rights include the right of the individual, whatever his race, tribe, place of origin, political opinions, colour, creed or sex, but subject to respect for the rights and freedoms of others and for the public interest, to life, liberty, security of the person, the enjoyment of property, the protection of the law, freedom of conscience, freedom of expression, freedom of assembly and association, and respect for his private and family life:
"And whereas the said rights are best maintained and protected in a democratic society where the government is responsible to a freely-elected Parliament representative of the people and where the courts of law are independent and impartial:
"Now, therefore, this Constitution, which makes provision for the government of Tanganyika as such a democratic society, is hereby enacted by the Constituent Assembly of Tanganyika".
I am sure your Lordships will all agree that this is indeed a stirring declaration of human rights and freedom; and, incidentally, it has very much in common with the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights.
Noble Lords, if they cast their minds back, will recollect that at the recent meeting of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers it was agreed that they would be happy to accept Tanganyika's request, as a Republic, to stay within the Commonwealth, acknowledging Her Majesty as its Head. On his return from the Prime Ministers' meeting, Mr. Kawawa, the Prime Minister of Tanganyika, made a broadcast in which he strongly supported the general desire of Commonwealth countries to maintain and strengthen their unique relationship, and he went on to remark how impressed he was with the frank and friendly way in which the discussions had been conducted at the meeting.
I had the good fortune to spend a few days in Tanganyika at the beginning of last month, and during that
1134
time I was most impressed with the degree of importance which the people of Tanganyika, both in Government circles and in other spheres, attached to the Commonwealth link; and I am certain that in becoming a Republic Tanganyika has no wish to weaken this link. In passing, I may say that I have the additional good fortune of paying a further visit to Tanganyika next week as Her Majesty's Government's representative at the celebrations which are being held to mark the bringing into being of the Republic.
I now turn to the Bill itself. As your Lordships realise, it is not a new development for a Commonwealth country to become a Republic, and this Bill is, therefore, similar to legislation adopted when other Commonwealth countries became Republics: for example, India in 1949, Pakistan, in 1956; and Ghana, in 1960. On becoming a Republic Tanganyika will cease to be part of Her Majesty's Dominions. Clause 1 of the Bill is to prevent any consequential effect on such of our laws as use this or similar expressions. It therefore requires, in effect, that Statutes and other instruments continue to be read as if these expressions still included Tanganyika. The law affecting Tanganyika will therefore remain as it is unless and until the appropriate law-making body provides otherwise.
The Bill does depart from precedent in one minor respect. Previous Acts have operated on the law not only of this country but also of all dependent territories. The reason for this was that these Acts were originally designed as holding operations, giving time for the various legislative bodies involved to review and amend their law for themselves. But, with the experience that we have gained, it has been found that very little colonial legislation is, in fact, affected. Moreover, the tendency in recent legislation is not to use phrases which incorporate the somewhat technical conception of being part of "Her Majesty's Dominions". It has accordingly been decided to take this opportunity to invite Parliament to return to its general practice in relation to dependent territories and to leave it to the local territorial legislatures themselves to enact appropriate legislation. This Bill, therefore, in the colonial field, extends only to Acts of Parliament themselves

1135
and to Orders in Council applying the Acts, which are, of course, matters beyond the competence of the colonial legislatures to effect.
I now turn to Clause 2 of the Bill. This covers the wish of the Tanganyika Government to terminate arrangements by Which appeals from Tanganyikan Courts go forward to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The Tanganyika Government feels that after the country has became a Republic it would not be appropriate that appeals should still be heard by the Judicial Committee, and therefore her Government wishes to discontinue such appeals after the day of independence, which is December 9. However, at the request of the Tanganyika Government this clause provides for arrangements to be made for the hearing of any appeals which may be outstanding on the day of independence, December 9.
My Lords, these are the legal technicalities which make legislation of this kind necessary. I feel certain that noble Lords Will agree that this is an appropriate occasion to extend sincere good wishes to Tanganyika for her future. It would be idle to suppose that that future will be wholly an easy one, for the problems which face this young country are indeed formidable. But, as I have said, I have recently seen for myself something of the energy and enthusiasm with which these problems are being tackled, and I am confident that if the people of Tanganyika can develop, as I am sure they will, in the spirit of the preamble which I read out, then their achievements will serve not only the Commonwealth, but humanity. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Duke of Devonshire.)
4.19 p.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I am sure that this Bill will have the sup port of noble Lords on all sides of the House. It is, in fact, the last time that Parliament will be dealing with legislation about Tanganyika, and it therefore affords an opportunity to Members of both Houses to give a valedictory message of credit and good will to this new African country. My only regret this afternoon is the absence of the noble
1136
Lord, Lord Twining, who would have spoken with more authority than any of us. During his long period of office as Governor of Tanganyika, he did as much as any Engilshman to build up that country, to prepare it for self-government, and to create or to foster that harmony between the races which is one of the pleasantest features of Tanganyika. I know we all regret that the fact that he is overseas—he comes here very regularly when he is in Lon don—means that he cannot add his expression of good will to those of others.
The substance of the Bill, which was clearly explained by the noble Duke, is of little political importance, but the occasion of its introduction is of the utmost importance, both to Tanganyika and to the Commonwealth. As the noble Duke pointed out, Tanganyika is the fourth independent Commonwealth country and the second in Africa to choose a republican form of government. In a White Paper the Government of Tanganyika has underlined that this means no disrespect to the Queen. I am glad that they took the trouble to emphasise this fact, because I think the Press and the public in this country often imagine that becoming a republic some-how suggests a disrespect or discourtesy to the Queen. I know that this is not the case. I know from my own experience in Ghana that the popularity of the Queen and the Royal Family is not lessened by one iota as a result of the introduction of a republican constitution. The simple fact is that a change in the law is something very different from a change of heart; changes in the law do not change men's hearts or their loyalties.
Our constitutional relationship with Tanganyika has not been as long or as close as that which we have had with Ghana; nevertheless, a great deal of affection for the Royal Family has grown up in Tanganyika in the last forty years. This was shown by the extraordinary welcome given to the Duke of Edinburgh at the Independence celebrations this year. As the noble Duke has told us, Tanganyika will stay with us in the Commonwealth, which is, I think, a remarkable tribute to the Commonwealth from a country—the first country of this particular type—that has for so many

1137
years been a Trust and before that a Mandated Territory.
I think the important thing to note from the constitutional point of view is that the Queen's official relationship with Tanganyika will be altered in the new constitution, but not terminated. As the noble Duke said, Her Majesty will remain Head of the Commonwealth, and this title will acquire real significance in Tanganyika by reason of the affection and respect in which Her Majesty is held. As politics and policies in Common wealth countries become more diverse, the function of the Crown as a symbol of Commonwealth unity becomes increasingly important. The noble Duke told us that Mr. Nyerere has been elected by an overwhelming majority as the first President of Tanganyika. He has already shown outstanding statesmanship in Tanganyika and perhaps an even more remarkable accomplishment in his relationship with other African neighbours. I am sure we all join with the noble Duke in wishing him the utmost success in the service of his own country, to which he will return When he is installed as President, and of Africa.
I am delighted that the noble Duke will represent Her Majesty's Government at the installation of Mr. Nyerere on December 9, and I can assure him that he will also represent the whole House. I think we can take some pride in the fact that Her Majesty's Government has chosen a Member of our House to represent them at this important event in the history of Tanganyika. I hope that he will convey, on our behalf, to the Government of Tanganyika, our best wishes for the success of their new constitution, which we hope will stand them in good stead for many generations to come, and our keen anticipation of our continuing partnership with Tanganyika in the affairs of the Commonwealth.
4.25 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I should like to join the noble Duke and the noble Earl who have just spoken in sending our best wishes to Tanganyika for the future development of that country. Personally, I feel that the proposal which is being made in this Bill is a sensible one. I think that with most of these new countries, particularly in Africa, it is desirable for them to have their own Presidential Head. It is often difficult for
1138
them to explain to other States in Africa, who have never been under the British Crown, why they should still retain a British Governor-General, or any Governor-General. Indeed, it is often difficult to explain to people from the United States why Canada has still a Governor-General. I found that difficulty only a week ago in Paris. An American whom I thought well educated expressed great surprise that Canada still had a Governor-General. So these offices are not necessarily the best offices for the new States which are coming into being in the new Commonwealth. As I understand it, this is the Presidential system on the lines of India, and not on the lines of the United States. In other words, the President is the Head of the State. There is still a Prime Minister, a Ministerial system and a Parliamentary democracy, as we have it more or less in this country.
I welcome, as my predecessors in this debate have done, the fact that Tanganyika has applied, and the other members have accepted her, for membership of the Commonwealth. This is an important development in our Commonwealth relations. It is significant that for many years no State which was formerly a Colony has departed from the Commonwealth when it has become independent. This is one of the most significant features, I think, of our Commonwealth relations, and is often overlooked. I would go so far as to say that if the present system proposed in this Bill had been thought of when Burma became independent, Burma would never have gone out of the Commonwealth. But, unfortunately, it was not thought of at that time, and it was only when India was becoming independent that this system was discovered which has been applied so often since.
Naturally, as the noble Duke suggested and the noble Earl inferred, Tanganyika will need a lot of help. She is fortunate in one respect. There is no great tribal feeling in Tanganyika; there are not strong tribal rivalries as in Kenya. She is free of corruption, and she has a powerful and responsible police force. But in the economic field she will need great help, because here there is a vast, poor country. It looks

1139
wonderful as one goes down through this enormous territory with the great, rolling parkland. But the lack of water, in many cases the depth of the calcrete layer below the soil, and, above all, the tsetse fly (which is the real ruler of Africa, covering an area twice the size of the United States) mean that economically Tanganyika has much to gain from an association with outside countries. The Government and the people cannot develop this country on their own. They must have a great deal of aid from outside. They are going ahead with self-help schemes.
They have had a good deal of assistance from international authorities such as the World Bank, and from the United Kingdom and Germany. It is, I think, significant that Germany—I mean, of course, West Germany—has taken a lot of interest in the last few years in Tanganyika; possibly because of old sentimental ties, because it was once German East Africa. Be that as it may, they are putting up a great deal of money in the form of a loan for development of the country; they are making grants and other measures of technical aid. One way in which we can help is by continuing the assistance we are already giving, and I hope will continue to give, by the various measures of United Kingdom grants, United Kingdom loans and United Kingdom benefits, in the various fields. I will not specify them now because they are well known to your Lordships, and, in any case, I am prevented from specifying one of the most important owing to a Parliamentary rule or custom of which I fully approve.
But there is one way in which we can and must help—and I would ask the noble Duke to take this point into account very carefully—and that is, we must retain the East African Common Services Organisation in such a form that Tanganyika can take full benefit from it, and in such a form also that it can develop possibly into an East African Federation at a later date. As your Lordships know, the East African Common Services Organisation was originally the East African High Commission, and it controls the various common services such as aviation, post, telegraph, railways and the like which are
1140
common to the various territories in East Africa which were originally British colonial territories.
The difficulty at the moment is that Uganda has become independent and Tanganyika has become independent but Kenya is still a colonial territory. Therefore, there can be no possibility of federation so far as these territories are concerned until Kenya becomes independent; and at that stage, of course, it is possible for this Common Services Organisation to develop as a federal system. This is most important because there are 23 million people in East Africa and it is essential, in my view, for those inhabiting this vast area to retain these common services and make them flourish eventually into some form of federal system. This is the right way to do it. We can learn by the wrong way, by the Central African Federation, which was not built up organically as this is being built up but was suddenly thrust down, fully fledged, on the people before they fully understood what it was all about.
To some extent we can also learn from the West Indian Federation, which has also collapsed because, again, I think, too large a superstructure—too much harness for the horse—was put on to those little territories before they were ready for it. Therefore, since no final decision can be taken with regard to federation until Kenya becomes independent, it is essential that Her Majesty's Government should take great care that the East African Common Services Organisation is kept in being and is able to be developed in that way if the territories so desire it when they are all independent.
There is only one other point I have to make. It concerns Clause 2 of the Bill, the one relating to he appeals to Her Majesty in Council; that is, to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Here is a melancholy development. Here is probably the finest court in the world bar none: the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. So far as the eminence of its members is concerned, most of them, as noble Lords know, are Law Lords in this House. It is a Tribunal of very great eminence. Why have Tanganyika and so many other countries de parted from the opportunity of having their appeals heard by this great Tribunal? I will tell your Lordships why,

1141
and I can quite understand it; I do not blame Tanganyika or any of the other territories. They have done it for two reasons: first, because until the last few days, although shore was a Ceylon judge, virtually no distinguished judges from the Commonwealth were on this body. Secondly, it was always stuck;in London. In fact, a few years ago, noble Lords may remember, it used to meet in one of the corridors just outside the Chamber, where our own guest room is now or next door.
The fact is that the people of the Commonwealth never looked upon it as a Commonwealth court. They always looked upon it as requiring attendance in London; and when I practised at the Colonial Bar many years ago I felt the same about it. Many cases which came within my experience and which should have come to appeal I had to turn down. I had to say: "I am sorry; you ought to go to appeal, but the expense of taking it to London is so great that it is quite impossible for you to do so." I regarded that then, as I do now, as a denial of justice. It is for those two reasons that they do not have their appeals heard: first, because no Commonwealth members were on these courts; secondly, because the courts always met in London, as in fact they still do, and they were not regarded as a Commonwealth Court of Appeal.
When we talk about the Commonwealth and what it means, we cannot think of it as being without some sort of common institutions; otherwise it is purely an idea—a fading idea. Re member that in the past it had common institutions. If you destroy those common institutions, if you are not careful, there is nothing left. Therefore I welcome the fact that, belatedly, the Government or the Privy Council or whoever decides these things, have decided to appoint, or perhaps we may say they have agreed with the other Commonwealth countries to appoint, judges; and in the case of Australian, New Zealand and Nigerian members of the Commonwealth judges have been appointed to this body and will in future sit on the Judicial Committee; and I hope that will be extended to many, in fact all, of the Commonwealth countries, which take advantage of the Judicial Committee.
1142
The second question is still not answered: why does not the Judicial Committee sit from time to time in Commonwealth capitals? Why should it always sit in London? Why does it not occasionally sit in Lagos or any of the other capitals? I am sure that unless it does we shall lose the connection which we now have with these countries so far as the Privy Council is concerned. The Commonwealth members will not go on year after year sending their cases to London and hoping for the best when they get there. They will not do it; and I think that would be a tragedy. None of us would quarrel in any way with the excellent sentiments both of the noble Duke and of the Preamble to the constitution, but sentiments do not alone necessarily make a constitution, and far less do they continue constitutional practice. There must ultimately be a court of law which can stand for the rights of the individual, for justice and for freedom. That court up to now, so far as the old Empire was concerned, has been the Judicial Committee, and I want the Judicial Committee to be the final Court of Appeal for the new Commonwealth as it was for the old.
4.40 p.m.
LORD COLYTON: My Lords, I should like to add a few brief but none the less sincere words of support of this Bill to those which have already been expressed. I do so all the more gladly because, like some other Members of your Lordships' House, I have the honour of enjoying the friendship of Julius Nyerere, who is to be the first President of Tanganyika. And I would add my congratulations to those already offered to him on his election. Tanganyika is indeed most fortunate in having a man of the distinction and calibre of Mr. Nyerere at the head of affairs during what is bound to be a most difficult time. I have no doubt that he will face up to the many problems which will arise with the same resolution, broad mindedness and human understanding he has displayed in the past. I should also like to pay a tribute to the work done in the past year by the Prime Minister, Mr. Kawawa, who stepped into Mr. Nyerere's shoes at a moment when the latter found it desirable, for reasons which we all under-stand, to devote his time to a full-scale

1143
reorganisation of his party in the interests of national unity.
My Lords, as regards the constitution, those of us who over the past ten years at various times have been responsible for formulating policy in regard to the emergent British colonial territories in Africa must frankly admit, I think, that at times we have been wrong, or at any rate over-optimistic. I think we were wrong because we took it for granted too much that the Westminster model of Parliamentary constitution could be automatically transported overseas to Africa in its entirety. In the West Indies, where men of African stock have lived side by side with men of European race for hundreds of years, and in fact have enjoyed their own Parliamentary institutions, dating in some cases from the seventeenth century, the adaptation of the Westminsiter constitutional model has been achieved easily and smoothly. In Africa, this has not always been the case, and I think it is quite understandable; and in saying this I do not for one moment wish to condone the transformation of Parliamentary institutions into what is, in effect, a dictatorial or repressive regime such as I regret to say we find in Ghana to-day. I feel sure that under the wise guidance of Mr. Nyerere, and with the common sense of the people of Tanganyika, we can rely on the new Presidential system of constitution in Tanganyika working in the way which was intended, in the interests of all the people of Tanganyika and on the lines suited to their special problems and to their national character.
It is particularly important that this should be so having regard to Tanganyika's great need of foreign investment capital and technical assistance from overseas. This is especially so if the existing great gap in the standard of living between different sections of the population of Tanganyika is to be closed as rapidly as possible. We must realise that other foreign nations, other foreign influences, are bound to play their pant in the development of Tanganyika—and, indeed, it is quite right that should be so. The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, referred to Western Germany, and I fully share his view that the West German Government and people are anxious, in a way, to make a sort of show piece out of what was once their colony.
1144
Then, of course, there has been the valuable assistance which has already come to Tanganyika from Israel, where experiments in co-operative schemes, which in many fields can be successfully adapted to the needs of the economy of Tanganyika, have been brought forward. I remain convinced that Britain, both through her Government and through private enterprise, still has an immense part to play in Tanganyika, and I have no doubt that our close association with the people and, I believe, their genuine trust in us will enable us to achieve this task. In adding my own good wishes to the people of Tanganyika on this great occasion, I feel sure that the House will also wish to send a message of good will and hopeful encouragement to the many men and women of British blood who have made their homes and their careers in Tanganyika, and also to the great Asian community, all of whom, in my opinion, still have a notable part to play in the future of the Republic.
4.45 p.m.
LORD MILVERTON: My Lords, in rising to make a brief contribution to this debate, I should like to begin, as did the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, in paying a tribute to the great work done by Lord Twining in Tanganyika and to express regret that unavoidable business abroad prevents him from taking part in the debate which marks the coping stone of the work which he did, in collaboration with Mr. Nyerere, in leading Tanganyika to peaceful independence.
I would agree with the noble Lord who initiated this debate in saying that this is essentially an occasion suitable for the expression of harmonious good will to the people of Tanganyika, and especially to Mr. Julius Nyerere, who has served his country so well in its extremely rapid progress to independence. Tanganyika is indeed fortunate in her first President, whose statesmanlike moderation and determination to lead his people in an atmosphere of racial harmony along the road to a better standard of living has attracted wide support. He has always appreciated the dynamic effect of self-respect, self-help, hard work and co-operative endeavour, and he has made this a prominent feature of his public pronouncements to his people. We all hope

1145
that he will find the ready response which his own high qualities promise to inspire. If your Lordships look at the printed statement of the Tanganyika Government of its four basic principles you will see that they are declared as the purpose of the Tanganyika Government; and the first of them is that so far as possible the institutions of Government must be such as can be easily understood by the people. It goes on to say that this must be buttressed by a strong executive, recognition of the sovereignty of Parliament and the rule of law. My Lords, that statement in itself gives the reason for this Bill.
There is no doubt that in Africa there is a deep respect for the person of the Queen, as Head of the Commonwealth, membership of which is desired and valued by all the people. But a British Queen as an alien legal Head is not easily compatible in Africa in the people's mind with independence, and hence the attraction of a republican form of government. Recently even the Sardauna of Sokoto in that very striking book, his autobiography, entitled My Life, which has just been published, has a chapter in which, surprising in some ways, from this patrician head of the north, he says that he fully understands why African people want a Republic, in spite of their intense respect and affection for the person of the Queen; and he just gives it as that; that it is hard for an ordinary person to understand what is so clear to, say, people in Canada or Australia or this country.
My Lords, there is no doubt in my mind that in the early stages of building a new independent nation a monolithic parity rule tends to give it the stability which is sorely needed, and it also tends to concentrate local pride into a new loyalty to what is, after all, a new authority. It may be that in the atmo sphere and traditions of Africa, an executive President inevitably tends to appear to be a dictator. We have seen how difficult it is in the adolescent stages to entrench rights and restrictions in a constitution, or to control and guide into constitutional channels the fervour of adolescent trade unions. Difficult problems must inevitably confront the builders of a new nation. It seems that for some time the economic future of Tanganyika must lean on agricultural and pastoral development, in the absence
1146
of any immediate realisation of its mineral hopes. The country has indeed great potentiality, although its population of 9 million is small in relation to its extent. But the greatest asset of any country remains the character of its people and the quality of its leaders. The President of the new Republic is a great and confident patriot, and so we would wish him and his people a prosperous and happy future. I support the Second Reading of this Bill.
4.52 p.m.
LORD SPENS: My Lords, I would intervene for but a short time to support a great deal of what Lord Ogmore said about the regrettable effect of Clause 2 of the Bill. It is a real disappointment to me, as I am sure it is to many others, that so soon after the Malaya Bill the first territory to become independent should decide to stop sending its appeals to the Privy Council. But, on the other hand, one fully understands the reason. It is really based on exactly the same feeling as Lord Milverton has pointed out—namely, the desire to become a Republic rather than to remain under the direct sovereignty of Her Majesty.
It is most difficult to explain to the people of a newly independent country why they should accept as their final court of appeal a British court sitting here in London; and the tendency, therefore, is for them to desire to have their own completely independent form of court of appeal. The Malaya scheme was one which I think was welcomed by all of us—that, by legislation here and in the independent country, power should be given to the Privy Council to advise, not Her Majesty but the Head of the State of Malaya as regards appeals sent to this country from Malaya. It was hoped most earnestly by many of us that that would make it easier for newly independent countries to arrange to send their appeals to the Privy Council as before. But here we have Tanganyika not accepting any such scheme, which, I am quite sure, must have been put to them in the course of the negotiations.
To my mind, the serious matter here, and the result of this, is that while the new arrangement for the appointment of Judges from the Commonwealth must strengthen the Privy Council as regards all parts of the Commonwealth over

1147
which it has jurisdiction, and may well stop others from giving up sending their appeals to the Privy Council, none the less there is growing up inside the Commonwealth something like ten or a dozen independent courts of appeal, all of them dealing with a large common mass of legislation and Common Law. In the course of the next twenty-five years there must be many diverging and conflicting decisions given, and there is no machinery whatsoever in the Commonwealth at the present time by which it is possible to keep the law on one common set of tram lines.
This is not a new problem in the world. It exists in the United States of America; it exists most seriously having regard to the fact that 52 supreme courts of the States are independent except as regards certain areas where the Supreme Court of the United States has jurisdiction. They have had many conflicting decisions which have caused great difficulty to their commercial and civil populations, and they have devised a cumbrous system by which conferences and so forth recommend which of conflicting decisions should be made universal, either by legislation or otherwise. It is an interesting history of a cumbrous attempt to try to restore the unity of the law when divergencies have occurred.
I ventured upon an occasion recently to suggest that we ought to have a Commonwealth Law society with the object of members from all over the Commonwealth directing their attention to unifying conflicting decisions where they occur. But at any rate I am quite sure that it is in the interests of all people, and particularly the commercial community, that some system should be devised or thought out under which some sort of unity of the law can be restored, as divergencies are bound to occur with these separate independent courts of law. I have taken this opportunity of raising this matter again in this House, because it is a matter which I am sure is going to be of the greatest importance to those who come after us during the next generation.
4.57 p.m.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this
1148
debate, and I feel sure that the reading of this debate in Tanganyika will bring great pleasure to Mr. Nyerere, to Mr. Kawawa and to all Tanganyika, for it gives abundant evidence of the immense fund of good will that there is in this House; and, indeed, it reflects the feeling of the whole country to Tanganyika in the future. I am most grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, for his characteristically well-informed and charming speech. I shall be only too glad to pass on his message, coming from the whole House, to the leaders of the Tanganyika Government when I meet them next week; and I shall be glad to convey my noble friend Lord Colyton's message as well.
The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, raised two specific points. First of all, he spoke of the future of the East African Common Services Commission. I entirely endorse everything that the noble Lord said. The Government are fully aware of the vital work that these Common Services do. We have every intention of doing all we can to strengthen and support them. I think it would not be inappropriate if I took this opportunity of conveying a warm tribute to Mr. Adu, the Ghanaian Secretary General, who is doing his job magnificently. I had the good fortune, when in East Africa last month, to spend a whole afternoon with him; it was a real inspiration, and with him at the helm we can be quite certain that this all-important body in East Africa will continue to grow and to flourish. I do assure the noble Lord that we fully support his views.
The other point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, which was sup ported by the noble Lord, Lord Spens, concerned the question of appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. I hesitate to express any opinion as to regret or otherwise at the action of the Tanganyika Government in terminating appeals to this Committee, because it is entirely a matter for the Tanganyikan Government, and I do not think that it would be seemly for me in any way to criticise their action. I am sure we have been most interested by what the noble Lord, Lord Spens, has said about this matter, and I am quite certain that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will be extremely interested

1149
in this suggestion of the Commonwealth Law Society. I know that anything we in the Commonwealth Relations Office can do to help with such an idea we shall be only too ready to do.
On the matter of (dare I use such a word?) the shortcomings of the Judicial Committee in that it sits only in London, I feel sure again that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will take cognisance of what the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, has said. The Lord Chancellor made some reference on an earlier occasion to the extension of the member ship of the Committee to include Judges from Australia, New Zealand and Nigeria. He also said, When speaking to the gracious Speech on October 31, that he hoped to make more detailed reference to this matter at some future date. So there may well be an opportunity for discussing whether it will be possible for the Committee to sit in different parts of the Commonwealth when the Lord Chancellor comes back to the subject of composition.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, may I draw the noble Duke's attention to the fact that the Lord Chancellor has already referred to this point, in answer to a Question by me on November 7; and, quite frankly, he did not seem to hold out much hope of having a peripatetic Court. But I would ask the noble Duke, and, through him, the Government, the Privy Council, and the others concerned, to take this matter very seriously, be cause I think it is important.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, I am sorry I was not in the House at the time of the noble Lord's Question, but I am sure that the House and the Government will take note of the importance which, we can understand, the noble Lord attaches to it. I will say this, (however: although appeals to the Judicial Committee will now cease so far as Tanganyika is concerned, this does not mean that there will be no right of appeal from the courts of Tanganyika. As noble Lords will be aware, there is a Court of Appeal for East Africa, which hears appeals from Kenya, Uganda and Tanganyika, and certain other territories including Aden; and the Tanganyikan Government has recently enacted legislation providing that appeals from its courts will continue to be heard by this Court
1150
of Appeal after the date of Tanganyika's becoming a Republic. So there is an extraneous Court of Appeal. I do not Chink I need say any more, except to repeat my thanks to noble Lords who have taken the trouble to speak in this debate and, once again, to wish all prosperity and happiness to Tanganyika and its peoples in this new step they are taking in their development as an independent country.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

PENSIONS (INCREASE) BILL
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
5.5 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF DUNDEE): My Lords, the application of any Bill dealing with pensions and superannuation must always be intricate and there are a great many complexities both in the clauses of and in the Schedules to this Bill; but I think that the purpose of the Bill and its effects are simple. As I know several of your Lord ships wish to comment on it and take part in the discussions, I do not think I need take very long in explaining it to your Lordships. There are three main proposals. First, the general scheme of per centage increases on a sliding scale according to the date on which the basic pension began, Which is described in Clause 1. Next, the special supplementation for persons over 70, which is described in Clause 2. Finally, the enabling powers to enable supplementary sums to be paid to recipients of pensions which are legally payable by ex-Colonial Governments—Governments of countries which used to be our colonies, that is to say—to officers who have served in those countries under British Colonial administration and whose pensions are now below the United Kingdom level, so that we shall now be able to put an, end to this disparity.
The first two of these three proposals are of general application to all the main classes of pensions for civil public service. They will benefit those who have retired from the Civil Service, the

1151
National Health Service, the teaching service, the local government service, the police, the fire service and various smaller categories; and every class of pensioner who benefited under previous Pensions Increase Acts is eligible to benefit under this Bill. One or two small categories have been added: for instance, certain former Judges who in 1959 were dealt with under the Judicial Pensions Act, and not the Pensions Increase Act, of that year. Since many of these pensioners who were affected by this Bill are the responsibility of local government, and since the augmentation of their pensions is a charge on the ratepayers (tampered, of course, by the effect it will have on the Annual Review), the Associations representing local government bodies were consulted about these two proposals and they are generally acceptable to them. Altogether 500,000 pensioners—not including, of course, Service pensioners who do not come under the Bill—are within the scope of this Bill and will benefit by it. Many of these, of course, have dependants. So that your Lordships are dealing with a Bill which affects probably between 750,000 and a million people either directly or indirectly.
The scheme of per centage increases set out in Clause 1 of the Bill provides for an increase of 12 per cent. for those whose pensions began before April, 1956, 10 per cent. before 1957, 8 per cent. before 1958, 6 per cent. before 1959, 4 per cent. before 1960, and so on down to 2 per cent. after that date. That increase is calculated not only on the basic pension, but on the pension now in payment which includes earlier increases under previous Pensions Increase Acts, of which there have been five since the beginning of the war—in 1944, 1947, 1952, 1956 and 1959—this being the sixth one now, in 1962. The largest increase, of 12 per cent. for those whose pensions began before 1956, is slightly more than the rise in the cost of living since that date.
The next proposal in Clause 2 for the supplementary payments to those over 70, proposes a flat rate of £20 for those who retired before 1956 or their widows. For those of your Lordships who would like the calculation in weekly rather than yearly amounts, that comes to about 7s. 6d. a week. That is a general flat
1152
rate increase, and it concentrates relief at the point where it is most badly needed now—on the small pensions which do not benefit so much from the per centage increase as the larger ones do. If we take the main scheme under Clause 1 and the supplementary scheme together, the pensioner whose pension began before 1956, or a widow Whose husband was retired before that date, will receive increases which amount in the case of the smaller pensions to a pretty substantial per centage of the original pension. For example, for the widow with a present pension of £130 a year the increase is 27 per cent.; for the widow on a higher pension of £210 the increase would be 21 per cent.; for a retired clerical officer with a pension of £250 the increase would be 20 per cent.; for a teacher on £500 a year it would come to 16 per cent.
As your Lordships know, I have mentioned already that this Bill does not apply to Service pensioners, but it is the invariable practice to regulate increases in Service pensions by Prerogative Instruments in accordance with what is done for civilian pensioners, as will be done under this Bill. Accordingly, these Service pensioners or their widows will receive increases calculated in exactly the same way, except that I think there is a slightly different method of grading the over-70 pension to make it fit in with the intervals at which the actual Service pensions have begun. But it is substantially the same as the increases in this Bill, and the increases will be calculated from the same operative date. The total number of people who will benefit by this change for Service pensioners will be a little more than 112,000, and 40,000 of them will benefit by Clause 2 as well as by Clause 1. Although it is perhaps doubtful how far it is in order to go into Service questions on this civilian Bill, I shall be glad to hear anything that your Lordships have to say about the effect of what we are doing now upon Service pensions.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, could I ask the noble Earl a question? I did in a previous debate raise the question of the death of Squadron Leader Stott in the tragic accident of two weeks ago, and also of his wife. I did ask the Minister whether he could tell the House what provision would be made for the two

1153
children who are left. Perhaps the Minister when he replies could tell us what is the present rate, and what would be the new rate to cover these two children or other children in similar circumstances.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, if the noble Lord desires it, I will certainly try to get what information I can by the end of the debate. I would have thought that, if he put the question down a fort-night ago, he would surely by now have received either an oral or a written reply. Anyhow, I have not heard of it at all, but I will do my best to see what information can be obtained before the end of our discussion.
The third proposal, which is a new principle in our pensions legislation, is to provide for the topping-up of pensions of former members of the Colonial Service, the Overseas Civil Service and the Sudan Civil Service—mainly officers who were recruited from the United Kingdom—and their widows and dependants. The Bill also covers certain widows of officers of the former Indian Services, who have not hitherto been eligible for pensions increases. Your Lordships will find the provisions in regard to that at the beginning of Clause 4, and in Part I and Part II of the Fourth Schedule. Members of the Colonial and Sudan Services were not, technically speaking, employed by the British Government; they were employed by the Government of the particular teritory in which they served. It was that Government, the Colonial Government, which was responsible for the payment of their salaries, allowances and pensions. Since independence their pensions have been payable by the Government of the country in which they formerly served, and British Governments of all Parties since the war have done their best to persuade these new independent Governments to grant any increases in pensions which have been made by the United Kingdom Government here. Naturally, the United Kingdom Governments have been anxious not to admit any responsibility for doing so themselves, because that would plainly have encouraged the foreign Governments or Commonwealth Governments to evade what we regarded as their responsibility. So we always brought our Pensions Increase Acts to their notice; and some of them, those who are now independent, have made
1154
generous increases in pensions; others of course have not.
In a number of territories the pensions increase drawn by these officers or by their widows and dependants, is very substantially less than that which would be drawn by a United Kingdom public servant. As your Lordships know, the Government have decided that we must now think primarily of the condition of the pensioners themselves, as it has been affected by such inflation as we have suffered in our own country; and that we cannot indefinitely go on relying on the assumption or hoping that the Governments who are paying the pensions will in all cases increase them comparably with ours. Therefore, the Government have decided that it is right to make provision in this Bill, under which the pensions of these overseas service pensioners should be brought up to the same total that they would have reached if the United Kingdom Pensions (Increase) Acts, and the other provisions of this Bill, applied to them.
I would just repeat again that some of the Governments of these former Colonies have been generous in making pension increases, and therefore in some cases the effect of this Bill on the recipients will be very small. In other cases, those who are dependent on countries who have not increased their pensions comparably with ours, it will be substantial. For example, the widow of a former Gold Coast officer who retired in 1945 and died in 1950, and who is at present in receipt of a pension of £350, which would include a £65 pension increase, will now receive a supplement of £151 a year. To give one more example, an officer who retired from Malaya seventeen years ago, in 1945, on a pension of £500 a year, will have received up till now an extra £154 by way of increase. Under this Bill, bringing it up to our level, he will benefit to the extent of a further £144.
The cost of this Bill to the Exchequer will be about double the cost of any previous Pensions (Increase) Bill. The direct cost of this Bill will be £17¾ million, and the cost of the pensions increase for Regular pensioners from Her Majesty's Forces, which will follow rather as a corollary to this Bill, will be £4½ million. Of the total amount of £22,100,000, just over £17 million will

1155
fall on the taxpayer, which includes the cost of the Service pensions which will be prescribed by the Prerogative Instruments, and £5 million upon the ratepayer.
The costs of the separate clauses of the Bill will be, just to analyse them briefly: under Clause 1—that is, the general increase, including the Service increases which will follow under the Prerogative Instruments—£14¾ million; the supplementary payments to those over 70, £6½ million; and under Clause 3 and Clause 4 it will be £840,000 and £570,000 respectively. All these figures relate to cost in the first full year of payment.
Any Bill of this kind, dealing with this kind of subject, however good or however inadequate it may be, must probably give rise to some feelings that it has not done enough. I should like to make only one principle clear—and it is one which I think any Government must adhere to. It is that when a contract is made to pay an annual pension to any person, that contract must legally and morally be held to be final, and the Government or the private employer who pays the pension is not under any obligation to increase it. If, later on, wages rise and pensions rise with them—that is, apart of course from any question of changes in the value of money; if real wages rise and real pensions rise—there is no justification for restrospectively increasing the pensions of those who retired when the wages and salaries were on a lower level. That would be equivalent to a retrospective increase in wages and salaries.
The reason why we have had to make so many changes in an upward direction of old pensions in the last fifteen or sixteen years has been, of course, because of the effects of inflation. That is a terribly complicated subject, and I will certainly not try to branch off into any discussion upon the subject of inflation in a debate of this kind. But inflation is a thing which affects the whole country, not only pensioners—and, indeed, not only those in receipt of fixed income. There are many people who suffer by it in all sorts of ways, and all of them pay taxes. The Government themselves have no money except what they derive from taxing the people of the country; and it, is not fair that
1156
people who do not receive pensions but who do suffer from inflation should have to pay more taxes in order to make up the whole loss in real purchasing power that has been suffered by the erosion of the real value of pensions. We cannot agree, nor do I think we ought ever to admit, that there is any obligation on any Government to maintain a regular increase of pensions in order to keep pace with any increase in the cost of living which may occur. But, my Lords, a good employer will usually try to supplement pensions which he is paying to his workpeople who have suffered through a fall in the value of money. The Government ought to recognise, and do recognise, that they should do what they can in that way.
Of course, there are some employers who themselves have been so badly hit by inflation that they cannot pay any pensions at all, and if inflation were to go to the length that it has gone in some countries, such as the German inflation after the First War, then it would be impossible to do anything. But the Government recognise that they ought to try to do what is reasonable and fair as between pensioners and taxpayers in making up to them part, at least, of what they have lost by the erosion of their pensions due to a fall in the value of money; and when you do that I think you are not acting on any legal or statutory obligation; you axe trying to relieve hardship, and you want to make it fairly uniform. On the other hand, I think it is right that you should give the greatest weight to where you think the greatest need is likely to be felt, and you can do that only on certain broad principles; you cannot have a separate examination in each case. We have tried, in one respect, to do that by the introduction of these new payments over the age of 70, because we feel that increasing age is likely, as a general rule, to bring increased need.
Perhaps one of the greatest regrets which many of us may have about our Pensions (Increase) Bills is the rule that, even if people retire before 60, they have to wait until the age of 60 before they actually receive any of the increases which are provided by our legislation. That applies not only to some ex-Colonial servants but to the police and fire service—and, of course, to a great

1157
many of the Forces. I expect many of your Lordships—many of us all—have friends who have retired from the Forces with the rank of, perhaps, colonel of brigadier, captain or rear admiral, who are quite relatively young at the age of 50, or even less, who are in full vigour of mind and body and yet who find it extraordinarily difficult to get jobs, however willing them may be to accept one. But it is a reasonable presumption that they are more likely to be able to earn some income under 60 than over 60; and the Government feel that, in order to distribute the taxpayers' money in the best and most equitable way, it is better to give the weight of increase to those who are 60 or more, although we recognise that there may be people who have retired long before the age of 60 and that there is plenty of time between their retiring age and the age of 60 for a considerable amount of inflation to take place.
My Lords, I shall be glad to listen to any comments, not only on this but on any other matters which your Lord-ships wish to raise, and to represent to my right honourable friend what your Lordships may say. I would ask your Lordships to bear in mind not only that this Bill is, I think, twice as costly to the Exchequer as any previous Bill, but that it goes further than any previous Bill in relieving hardships; and I am sure that, subject no doubt to minor qualifications, it will meet with the approval of your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a—.(The Earl of Dundee.)
5.31 p.m.
LORD CROOK: I should like to thank the noble Earl for his explanation of the Bill to the House and say that, for my part, I welcome the Bill. I speak with a knowledge of the Civil Service and local government service, but I do not pretend to speak, as some noble Lords speak, with regard to the additional features in this Bill relating to the Colonial Service and the Armed Forces. I want to say straight away that this is the best Bill the Government has presented on the subject in the past 42 years. I do not propose to waste the time of the House by arguing afresh some of those things which have been said in another place. If I am going to
1158
repeat anything it will not be the arguments advanced in the other place during the past few weeks but rather the remarks I have made in this House far too often.
I was a young 19-year-old official in a local government trade union when I first took part in the agitation for the first Increase of Pensions Act in 1920. Again, I took part in the agitation in 1924—lobbying in the House, organising mass meetings and the like. There were more years of agitation inside the Civil Service trade union movement which finally resulted in a quite inadequate Bill brought in by the Government in 1944. I was sent to your Lordships' House in 1947, and since I have been in your Lordships' House I have taken part in debates in 1947, 1952, 1954, 1956 and 1959. This Bill, in fact, is the sixth Bill since the war came to an end, and I want to say something to your Lord ships about the general subject.
All these Bills followed agitation. Now, again, we have had violent agitation all over the country: there has been lobbying of Members of Parliament, the writing of letters to Members of this House; mass lobbying and the like. I ventured to say to your Lordships on the Bill we had before us on July 2, 1959, that Parliament, during the whole of the forty years it had then been looking at the subject of pensions increases, had never tried to settle on any plan or method of dealing with the subject. It had been satisfied to leave it to this principle of lobbying and pressure and finally of giving way. The truth is that each Bill left a number of people with no benefit at all. The day after the Bill receives the Royal Assent there will be added new pensioners who get a pension based only on years of established service. It is well to remind ourselves what the words "established service" mean. A man may have worked 35 years for the State but is allowed only to count 20 of them as established for pension purposes. Then he gets a pension based on the average pay of the last three years. This is a pretty small per centage of the pay he was drawing. In a very short period of time he finds living costs in the country mounting and his already meagre pension appears trivial. He joins the thousands of pensioners whose ranks are swelling daily who cannot make ends

1159
meet, and he becomes another member of the pressure group.
I want, at the risk of repetition, to remind your Lordships of what I think is very relevant here to-day: the observations I ventured to offer on an exactly similar clause on July 2, 1959. In the case of the present Bill, the man who re tired on April 1, 1957, at the age of 65 has had no benefit and now gets none, even under this Bill when it becomes enacted. He cannot be expected to sit down and wait for something to turn up at 71 years of age—if he is lucky enough to live to that age. The man of 71 to whom I referred will in fact become 71 early next year. From early next year—if we despatch this Bill as fast as many people hope—he will become entitled at last to some increase on the pension he was given in 1957.
I went on to say that the Government were taking every possible step to encourage good relations, or normal good industrial relations, inside their own service, the Civil Service. It seemed then, and seems now, a pity to dissipate the good will which the Government have built up in that connection by almost making it possible—I would go further and say almost making it absolutely necessary—that the servants of the State should take part in lobbying, agitation and pressure on Members of Parliament. Not only the pensioners actually drawing pensions are involved in this agitation; it concerns also those who are now in the service. They have every reason to fear the position they will come to in due time. I suggest that this is not good for the Public Service. It is completely and absolutely time-wasting for both Houses, and particularly for individual Members of the other place.
I cannot help feeling that continual legislation uses time which, in the light of all the difficulties we have had with Bills over the last year, is time that Parliament can ill spare. I suggested in 1959 that it was a pity the Government could not get away from using general phrases about "keeping those conditions under review", and the like, and could not say what would have been accepted then, and I am sure would be accepted now by those representing the servants of the State: that there
1160
should be some general review over a period of time; that they should know that something would be said by the Government and that something would be done at some given turnover period.
I suggested on that occasion two years. I want to repeat to-day something of that kind. Cannot we try to leave behind us the series of events in which I have taken part for forty years, many of which, I think, are undignified and unnecessary; and the more undignified and unnecessary in these days of what we are claiming here to be an excellent Parliamentary democracy? I think they are completely unnecessary because we pass a Bill and within a year of the Act getting Royal Assent, those who are left out are beginning to write letters. Within two years of the Act the numbers have swollen, the cost of living figures go up, wages rise again, pensions are left behind, the lobbying starts, and the agitation within the Civil Service and local government trade union movements gets going. Leaders of those unions, who have plenty of other things to do, find themselves forced, if they do not immediately take the lead themselves, to take part in campaigns of this kind. Then members of all Parties press the Government to get on and do something.
After enough pressure, the Government reluctantly promise that they will do something in due course. The pensioners wait, and hope. And perhaps six months after that, if they are lucky, the gracious Speech from the Throne will offer some glimmer of hope by some magic phrase referring to action to be taken in this connection. A Bill is hurriedly introduced. It is not made retrospective to the date when, after months of agitation, the Minister had finally agreed that there was a case for a Bill. Whatever is granted is granted from "the appointed day", which, as your Lordships will have seen if you have looked at Clause 10 (1), is:
"the earliest day after the passing of this Act which is the first day of a calendar month."
So we get a hasty scramble. The Bill is put through its Second Reading and hastened off to Committee. Members of another place sit, as they did last week, into the small hours of the morning, because they have good will and want to hasten this Bill on to the Statute

1161
Book. It is rushed over here, and today we have the Second Reading. We must dispose of the Committee stage—always supposing that we do not become persuaded that we should not have one, which is what happened last time—Report stage, Third Reading and pass the Bill so that we can get it back in another place in order that finally, by December 20, we may have the Bill here again, so that according to the phrase which I have read from Clause 10 (1), it may produce the money on January 1.
How much better, my Lords, if we had regular reviews which enabled pensions to reflect the rising standard of living! How much better, if we did not have to debate another Bill after two and a half years, but provided for the making of statutory regulations, within limitations which Parliament had itself set down in an Act of Parliament! Are we completely incapable, in this Parliamentary system of ours, of doing in respect of our staff what we not only like but almost expect to be done nowadays in respect of industrial negotiations and relations in the great commercial and industrial undertakings? Why is it that we must always lag behind in respect of our own State servants? Why is it that we must lag behind every other country? I do not know, if the Government get their way and put us into the Common Market, whether we shall get any reflection of the better things on the other side of the Channel.
Your Lordships will have seen the publicity, or probably heard the comments in your Lordships' House about the visit of trade union leaders to Sweden. Whatever impressions they may have come away with, and whatever they may or may not think, the truth is that these successive wages and pensions agitations do not take place in Sweden as they do here. Since they pegged their wages and pensions to the cost of living index, civil servants' salaries are fixed annually by negotiation between the Minister of Civil Affairs and the trade unions of the civil servants, and these negotiations cover not only those serving at the time but also those who have been retired over the whole period before. The adjustment of pensions with due regard to changes in monetary values and to the general standard of living is con-
1162
sidered year by year in relation to all the changes in the scale of pay which may be adopted for serving officers.
This flows from a principle generally accepted in Sweden, which some of your Lordships may have seen explained and very well written about in a recent article in the Daily Telegraph, which pointed out that the principle which is applied in Sweden in respect of its public service is that the achievements of one generation are based on the efforts of earlier generations, and that consequently retired members of an earlier generation should enjoy the results of their own efforts, in the same way as their younger colleagues enjoy the fruits of their present achievements. It is not at all a bad kind of principle and philo sophy to have in a country, and I com mend it to the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, when he goes back to talk to his right honourable friends.
I urge, therefore, that the Government shall consider permanent arrangements for the years to come. The fact that I have devoted my remarks merely to this theme of trying to get a tenth Bill on top of the ninth, intending to set up a permanent scheme, must not be taken—and we know each other too well for the noble Earl to think that it should be taken from me—as meaning that I like all the details of the Bill. I do not. But I know that we have done very well in this Bill, compared with what we have done in the past. I know that it has been a very genuine attempt on the part of the Government, and my right honourable friends in another place have courageously said that this represents a much better approach than any that has been made in the past. This is a Bill that I want to see on the list for the Royal Assent before your Lordships' House goes away for the Christmas Recess. I therefore hope that we shall move on to the Committee stage, and that those who wish to move Amendments will be able to do so at the earliest possible date, so that we may have the opportunity of the Royal Assent by December 20.
I should like to add only one other comment before I sit down, and this on a personal note of apology to the noble Earl. None of us knew the day on which this Bill was to be set down for Second Reading and, like others, I had accepted

1163
a public engagement for this evening. Then, to make matters worse, we did not start until five o'clock, and we find ourselves with a list of eleven speakers on this Bill. It seems that I should have to miss my other engagement if I remained until the end of the debate, and since I have no use for people who get up and erupt, and then clear off, I am anxious to make this explanation for my exit before very long and to apologise to the noble Earl for the fact that I shall not be present to hear him when he winds up. Having said that, may I commend the Bill to the House and urge that it goes on its way to the Royal Assent?
5.49 p.m.
LORD REA: My Lords, I should like to start, if I may, by expressing my indebtedness to the noble Viscount who leads the official Opposition for his great courtesy in welcoming my suggestion that perhaps I might for once address your Lordships from this place. I take it that I am, in a sense, in enemy territory, but I hope not too hostile territory. Perhaps I should add that no political inference should be adduced from this—not even anticipation.
I should also like to thank the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, for the very clear way in which he has introduced and explained this Bill. He called it, I think, a short Bill, and I rather had the impression that he called it also a simple Bill—though I was going to say that it is not so simple. It is not free of complexities, in its various cross-references to other similar Bills, to various classes of persons, to residential qualifications, differing age groups, different sexes, children, and especially in its breakdown into per centages, on the one hand, and fiat rates, on the other, for people whose eligibility falls at different times into a confusing range of past, present and future schemes. But in spite of these difficulties, its aim is in general a simple one, and an aim which I think the whole House will endorse by giving the Bill a Second Reading, because it seeks to relieve hardship and poverty among those whose working days are over and who are morally and politically entitled to receive financial sustenance by way of pension or allowance during their declining years.
1164
Nor is it really a new Bill, as we have heard: for this particular problem has been tackled in an unfortunately piecemeal way. No legislation has yet been brought in (as I think it ought to be, and as the noble Lord who has just sat down told us) to lay down some sort of sliding scale which would cope with the regularly increasing difficulty which can quite plainly be foreseen as the cost of living continues to rise. Nor, I gather, is any further review at present anticipated. As a result of this hand-to-mouth method of dealing with a very human problem, which I think should take a high priority in our forecasting and our future planning, we have had, as the noble Earl said, no fewer than seven Acts in the last eighteen years, all directed to the same end of bringing up to date a previous Act which had become obsolete, exactly as everybody knew it would become obsolete.
The hope was expressed in another place, during the Second Reading of the Bill there, that this 1962 Bill would be the last Bill of its sort ever to come before Parliament. I have no idea why the Government should adopt such a view, for it seems to me obvious that the pensions increases in the present Bill, which stop at the arbitrary dateline of 1961, will obviously have to be reviewed again, almost certainly upwards but possibly downwards, as conditions of purchasing power vary in the years ahead. That they will vary seems absolutely certain, whether we join the Common Market or not. I shall have something to say a little later about remedies for this very serious fault of the Bill, and I hope that in Committee your Lordships will find yourselves able to improve matters. But I will now, if I may, direct my observations to the Bill as it stands.
In the first place, I would express my pleasure, as the noble Lord behind me expressed his, at the Government's recognition of the urgency of the matter, as revealed in Clause 10 (1), the interpretation clause, where we are all, I am sure, glad to see that the appointed day from which increases and supplements are payable is likely to be January 1 next—that is, if the Bill goes through in its present form—or, I hope, not later than February 1, if improvements by way of Amendment are accepted here and

1165
subsequently in another place without too much delay.
But, having found this praiseworthy clause, I must confess that the rest of the Bill in nearly all its major points fills me with deep disappointment and surprise that the qualities of charity and mercy, responsibility and human obligation, on which the foundations of such a Bill must lie, are whittled down to expediency and economy and to giving and doing, not as little as possible, but I think less than is necessary. I feel sure that this would not be the wish of the vast majority of the kindly people of this country, who, incidentally, are now withdrawing their support from a Conservative Government who for the whole of their ten years in power have failed to do anything very striking in regard to the hardships of the aged poor and others whose pensions from the State are quite inadequate.
I consider this a niggardly Bill. It is a Bill which will achieve the minimum effect and for the minimum of time. It seems to me to be a product of the Treasury mind instead of the human heart. I have a great respect for the Treasury mind; but when one is dealing, as this Bill should be, with human compassion and moral obligation the Treasury should be employed in guidance rather than in production.
Clause 1 of the Bill, if I correctly understand subsections (2) and (3), seems to limit the benefit of increase, as the noble Earl explained, to those who are over 60 years of age. But I am not satisfied that this arbitrary age limit should be imposed. Do we not all know of people in their fifties, and sometimes even in their forties, who have completed good work and have become very properly eligible for a pension? If eligible for a pension, why not eligible for this very necessary increase in pension? Senility can be no criterion, for many people in their fifties are more handicapped physically or mentally, or more typical or representative of approaching death, than some in their sixties, and some even in their seventies. I concede, as the noble Earl said, that there are exceptions to the minimum age of 60 for those in really bad health, and for widows and women with dependent children; but it seems to me inequitable that those who are deemed to have earned and merited a pension should
1166
have imposed upon them a period of real privation until they reach their sixtieth year, particularly when, as in the Colonial Service, retirement is compulsory at 55 and when the Secretary of State, for perfectly good reasons, not necessarily of misbehaviour, can expedite that retirement to an even earlier age. I therefore urge that in the case of those who have legitimately and creditably earned a pension the harsh limitation of age should be abolished.
I now turn to the proposed scale of increases in Clause 1. The oldest pensioners, or, more correctly, those who have been longest on pension—not less than six or seven years, and presumably up to the oldest pensioner alive—receive the top increase of 12 per cent. but apparently with no regard to the size of the present pension. This increase in very many cases will surely be far less than adequate on a really small pension. We are not, I know, talking about Service matters to-day, but it is indicative that over 2,500 Service officers' widows are getting pensions of £127 2s. a year. The position seems to me ludicrous when the pensioner who retires after April, 1961, gets only 2 per cent. Surely this scale is inadequate, and I should have thought that it demanded revision already.
The Government have stated, and I think the Minister stated it here, that the cost of increases on the scale set out in the Bill will be approximately £17 million a year; but it was said in another place that if all pensions were increased at the top rate—that is, the 12 per cent. rate—the cost to the State would be £90 million a year. No responsible politician will regard a Budget item of £17 million as trivial and all will examine very carefully a major figure such as £90 million. But is it really quite fantastic? What are our criteria? I submit that most electors in this country would like to see a vast economy in other fields in order that we should in reality and in fact be able to allocate £90 million to alleviate some, but only some, of the hardships of our pensioners and aged poor. It is to me no matter of pride, as my noble friend Lord Ogmore indicated a few minutes ago, to have a £500 million useless British nuclear set-up—what I call "Operation Fig-leaf"—just as a matter of amourpropre, while those who have given good

1167
service to the State are in penury and misery. We are all said to be sharing in the Affluent State. But this is simply untrue, and I think this Bill proves it.
Turning now to Clause 2, which provides additional increases for those over 70 years of age, we find in subsection (f)¾ that an old man of 70 whose pension, which may be a very meagre one and did not start before April, 1960, is to be given a special gift of £4 a year. That comes, I believe, to about 2½d. a day and will not enable him even to buy an evening paper. That sort of generosity is to me humiliating, and to those of us who know of pensioners trying to live almost on the borderline of starvation, it is not worthy of this nation. The biggest gift of all in this procession of very old people is only Is. Id. a day. It has been said that
"to the man who fought at Mons, every winter gets a little longer and every fire in winter a little weaker."
How jubilant do we think a man will get if he has an extra 7s. 6d. a week? And how far will it go?
I should like to quote other instances of difficulty, but I am quite sure that your Lordships know very well many cases of real hardship. I would, if I might, quote one little story which was mentioned in another place, because I find it rather moving. As it does not represent a political opinion of anybody there, I hope I am not out of order. The letter was from a small pensioner who was receiving National Assistance in order to eke matters out. She wrote:
"Even with National Assistance, this is not living: it is just existing. I often have no food in the house for two days till the grant is due. I am often cold and hungry."
This person was given a Christmas present of £2, and wrote again a short letter:
"I was going to be alone and was expecting my usual menu. Everything then seemed changed. I ran to invite a friend who is 84 to spend Christmas with me. Never has a chicken been more feted, with vegetables, a sausage each and a little seasoning. A baby plum pudding and a cup of coffee. A lovely fire, for I had bought a bag of coal. The Queen could not have been happier."
That is what £2 can do to create real happiness in a small way. But what can 2½d, do?
My last reference to the Bill in detail is to Clause 3 (4), which I confess I find
1168
very difficult to understand. I should be most grateful to the noble Earl if he could clarify it a little. It would appear that a Whitehall pensioner, that is, a civil servant in Whitehall, can retire and live where he likes. But an overseas service pensioner who works under the Colonial Service, as I take it in reading the Bill, is disqualified from getting any benefit if he retires to that very area where he has served, irrespective of the fact that he may still be regarded as domiciled in the United Kingdom; that is to say, if a man has worked all his life in Kenya and earned a pension he is allowed to retire to Tanganyika or to stay in Great Britain but if he goes to Kenya, for which he may have conceived great affection, he is disqualified. I hope I am wrong, but perhaps the noble Earl can help me on that point.
Clause 6 (2), at first reading, would appear to absolve local authorities from any responsibility at which this Bill is particularly aimed. Apparently they need not give this increase if they do not feel like it. May I ask if the noble Earl could help also on this point?
So far my observations, I admit, have been critical of what I cannot help thinking of as a rather miserly and stingy Bill which gives no lasting satisfaction, because I do not think the Government have got down to fundamental facts and fundamental justice. The Minister in another place (Official Report, Commons, Vol. 666 (No. 9), col. 1315) talking in defence of the Bill—an interesting point of view—said:
"I equally take the view that it is wrong in principle to seek completely to insulate any section of society from changes in the value of money"
I am not at all sure that I agree that it is always wrong. I think it may be right in special cases, and one of the most obvious special cases is the old and the poor whose pensions link in very little relationship to the current cost, not of luxury, but of actually keeping alive. Another defence of this parsimonious Bill is that
"the dream of pensioners is that they will obtain a pension equivalent to the pension awarded for a similar job to-day."
I agree that the State cannot afford this, but one can have very much sympathy for such a dream. What I think the State must afford is a minimum and humane standard of current living, not

1169
unrelated to the true value at the time of past rates of remuneration.
Therefore, I come finally and shortly to a few brief points about pensions and pensions increases, all of which, or some of which, I would dearly like to see, if possible, embodied in this Bill when it is amended, if it is to be amended, or, if not there, in some new, similar Bill. First, I should like to see all pensions linked with a cost of living index specially related to the needs of old people. By "specially related to the needs of old people" I mean with special attention to the cost of food, rent, fuel and clothing, leaving out things like motor scooters and perambulators, so that the pensions can be reviewed annually in the light of changes in that index. In view of the great anomalies which exist, I would call for the publication of a biennial review in order to achieve a greater equality of treatment between recent retirements and earlier retirements. There seems to me a great discrepancy there. Remembering that pensions and National Assistance are part of the welfare services to which those in need are entitled by right, I think the Government should encourage special Government schemes for rehousing and centres for old people designed to meet their particular needs, and they should recognise as a matter of urgency, as this Bill does not recognise, that the problems of the elderly are growing every year without any concerted action being taken to remedy the situation. My Lords, I hope your Lordships will improve this Bill. I support this Second Reading on the principle that one-sixteenth of a loaf is better than no bread.
6.6 p.m.
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, I almost entirely agree with all that has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Crook, but I cannot feel that I can go quite so far as the noble Lord who has just sat down. I think that lobbying and pressure on Ministers and Members of Parliament in order to increase pensions is a great mistake and unnecessary. Service pensions are of course governed by this Bill, although promulgated by Royal Warrant. I feel, therefore, that we must debate the principle of Service pensions to-day, which I now propose to do. As one who moved a
1170
Motion in your Lordships' House almost exactly a year ago calling attention to the inadequacy of retired pay and pensions of officers and other ranks, I, of course, welcome this Bill. I think it also meets a great number of the points which at that time were put forward from all sides of the House. On the other hand, there still remain some glaring anomalies, and I would say that it seems a pity that these matters have not been put right at comparatively little cost to the nation.
As I pointed out in November last year, the gravest case is the plight of officers' widows whose husbands died before November 4, 1958. This date line creates two classes of widows, the first class those whose husbands fought in one or perhaps both world wars, and the second class those whose husbands died after November 4, 1958. What does this Bill do for the first class of widows or as they are often called, "existing" widows? They will receive a rise of 12 per cent. plus £20 if they are over 70 years of age. But why not bring the level of pensions for existing widows up to the level of the 1960 code? I wonder if your Lordsihips realise that the sum involved is only about £350,000. Why create discontent and hardship for this petty sum? I would add that, of all the public service widows, they are still the only ones to suffer from a division between existing and future pensioners.
The effect of this Bill on officers is also very strange. I think it will be seen that officers who have retired longest on the 1919 and 1948 codes and who are of course the oldest pensioners and, I would say, perhaps the least able to help themselves, have been left a long way behind. They are worse off than the others because the maximum of 12 per cent. increase awarded to those retired 6½ years ago is the same for those old pen sioners who began 43 years ago under the 1919 code, and 17 years ago under the 1954 code. I maintain that this is a very inequitable position. I really cannot understand why Her Majesty's Government continue to cling to the principle of immutability of pensions in spite of the pressure and the arguments of the noble Earl who is in charge of the Bill, who I think in many ways was very persuasive. Why not have a biennial review of existing pensions,

1171
which I think was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Crook, so that the absurd difference under no fewer than seven codes can be done away with?
I maintain that justice will not be done until the pensions are such that no longer will the oldest receive the least and elderly widows be left in the worst position of all. I can see no excuse or reason for this position and these matters really must be put right before long. I commend this Bill to your Lordships so far as it goes, but why spoil the ship for a ha'p'orth of tar?
6.10 p.m.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I feel that I owe your Lordships an apology for asking to speak so early in this debate, particularly before the noble Lord, Lord Hailey (whom I am glad to see back in his place), on this or any other subject on which he may wish to address your Lordships. The fact is that I have a very small point to put before the Government; and, like the noble Lord, Lord Crook, I had already made an engagement for later in the evening. The small point I wish to make is to ask about the position of Sarawak and North Borneo pensioners. I listened to what the noble Earl had to say; I understand that they are properly covered; but I did not hear him refer to the matter in his speech. If I am not here at the end to hear anything the noble Earl may have to say on this point, I hope that he will forgive me: I will, of course, read it in Hansard.
Paragraph 3 of Schedule 3, refers to pensions
"payable by Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom by virtue of the Instrument of Cession of Sarawak…or the North Borneo Transfer Agreement …"
So far as I can make out, the Instrument of Cession says that Her Majesty "accepts liability for the payment of any pension," et cetera. I take it that a Bill of this kind, when it becomes an Act, is construed as it would be in the Law Courts. It seems to me that we have to look at the meaning of these words, because it might be argued that Sarawak pensions were not payable by Her Majesty's Government while they continued to be paid by the Government of Sarawak, because Her Majesty's Government is in a position only of having
1172
guaranteed them. I think that needs clarification.
If possible, there should be inserted some such words as:
"a pension for which liability was accepted by the Crown by virtue of the Instrument of Cession and which is paid to pensioners resident in the United Kingdom."
It would have to go further, I think, than the "United Kingdom". For in Clause 3 (4) (a) the Bill refers to pensions payable to a resident "in the United Kingdom". Do Her Majesty's Government mean to cut out residents in the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man? Ought it not to say the "British Isles"? If it were to be only the United Kingdom, I think that a great many people would be very disappointed. I believe that it ought to cover the British Isles, and therefore paragraph 3 of Schedule 3 ought to be altered to make it quite certain, because I know that a great deal of anxiety is felt by the Sarawak and North Borneo pensioners. I hope that I have not detained noble Lords too long, though long enough to make myself quite clear.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, and as he will be going away, perhaps noble Lords will allow me just to answer his particular question about Sarawak, as be gave me notice of this last week. It is the Government's intention to supple ment the pensions of civil servants who have worked in Sarawak. I understand my noble friend's point that there may be some verbal dubiety—though I doubt whether there is—but we shall get advice on it, and if there is any doubt we will introduce an Amendment to put it right at a later stage.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Earl.
6.18 p.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, may I start by thanking the noble Earl and the Government for including the Overseas Service officers and their dependants among those who will benefit from supplementary increases to bring their basic pensions up to the increase in the cost of living? I am all the more pleased because it is a great encouragement to Members of this House, and also, I think, to Members of another place, when a Government changes its mind as a result of what they say. It does not

1173
happen often, but when it does happen it makes us feel that what we say here, the work we do here, is worth while.
Having said that, I wish to address myself to one or two points arising ex-clusively from the provisions of this Bill which deal with Overseas Service pensioners and their dependante, and I would ask the noble: Earl, when he winds up this debate, to explain as fully as possible some of the obscurities and difficulties which have occurred to me in studying these matters. There are three particular mates to which I would refer.
The first is the residential qualification for retired Overseas Service officers and their dependants; and, of course, there is no such residential qualification in the case of the home civil servants. This residential qualification, which noble Lords will find in Clause 3, sub-section (4), operates in this way, so far as I can understand it; that if a man retires to England, having served in an African Colony, or if he retires to any other African Colony than the one in which he served, he will get the benefits of this Bill, the increase to which he is entitled under this Bill; but if, on the other hand, he retires to the Colony in which he has served he will not get it. That seems to me an extraordinary thing. It is discriminating against the local men who have spent all their lives in one Colony—perhaps in Jamaica or Trinidad; or possibly in Kenya—who have made their homes there and who have to move elsewhere if they are to get the addition to their pension. I could have understood it if the residential qualification had been that they could get the supplement only if they retired to the United Kingdom, because, clearly, this Bill is intended to help people to meet the increased cost of living in the United Kingdom. But that is not the residential qualification as set out in the Bill: they get the supplement to their pension if they retire anywhere other than to the Colony in which they served.
That is the first point about which I should like an explanation. It seems to me all the more anomalous because, as your Lordships will notice, under sub-section (4) b) of Clause 3 this does not apply to a man who goes back to the
1174
Colony in which he has served on contract with the Government. As any of your Lordships who has lived overseas knows, when a country becomes independent it does not want administrators to go back—they can be recruited locally. More often it wants engineers, doctors, and vets, to go back to serve under the new independent Government on a contractual basis. What is so puzzling is that if a man goes back as a vet., say, to Uganda where he has spent most of his service, he will qualify, but not if he has retired there having spent his time in the service of the Uganda Government when Uganda was a Colony.
The second point I am worried about is this. There seems to be a tendency in this Bill to assimilate the pensions provisions of the Oversea Service to those which govern the Home Service. I think this is wrong, because the conditions of employment of overseas officers have been entirely different from the conditions of employment of persons serving at home. I will give an example of what I mean. The overseas officer has to retire at the age of 55: that is obligatory; it is not optional. That, of course, does not apply to the home civil servant. Nevertheless, the overseas officer cannot qualify for this supplement to his pension until he reaches the age of 60. There are not many cases of men between 55 and 60, and it seems unfair that a man who has to retire, not because he chooses to but because the Government says he must, however fit and however well-quailified to carry on, should not be entitled to this supplement between the age of 55 and 60. That is the second point to which I would draw the noble Earl's attention.
The third point reliates to widows. This is again a difference between the Home Service and the Oversea Service. In the case of widows' pensions, overseas officers have contributed during their own lifetime, out of their salaries, to a pensions fund, so that the money that is paid by way of pension to these widows does not come out of public funds, as it does in the case of the widows of retired home civil servants. Therefore, there seems to be a case for not having an age qualification of this kind. Again there are very few cases. Of course, most of them are over the age of 40. Obviously, in the case of a woman looking after a family who

1175
cannot earn a living when she is under 40 the pension is very badly needed. Therefore I think there is a case for having no age qualification for widows' pension.
I should also like the noble Earl (he obviously cannot do it now, but perhaps he will before the Committee stage) to try to work out the number of people involved in these three cases and what the extra cost would be to the Treasury of doing what I suggest. My own feeling is that the number of cases would be fairly small and the cost fairly small—a fact which I think strengthens the case for altering the Bill in this way. I hope that the noble Earl will first of all clarify our minds on these points. But if he fails to give satisfaction, he will not be surprised if we put down Amendments at the Committee stage.
6.25 p.m.
LORD MILVERTON: My Lords, for many years now debates on this vexed subject have recurred with increasing vigour—in fact, I had almost said increasing venom. The climax came last summer when the Treasury principle about the immutability of pensions was denounced by speakers of all Parties with a unanimity which is phenomenal and extremely rare. I have always taken part in these debates over these years, and now I make my usual initial declaration of personal interest, being myself a Malayan pensioner, having spent 21 years in Malaya, and also being a British Government pensioner as I spent eighteen years as a Governor. My claim obviously is the old one about
"The toad beneath the harrow knows Exactly where each toothpoint goes."
I would begin by warmly congratulating the Government upon their courage in facing the admittedly difficult problem of pensions whose value has been seriously eroded by the fall in the value of money. Perhaps I might, with respect, say in passing that I thought the noble Earl was enunciating an appalling fallacy when he said in the course of his opening speech that the Government could not take responsibility for a fall in the value of pensions arising from inflation. Surely the ultimate responsibility for inflation is the responsibility of Government. However, I do not propose to go into those deep waters, either.
1176
Many thousands of men and women will obviously be very grateful for this Bill, and I say this now lest some of the critical remarks which I now propose to make should leave the false impression that my warm support for the Bill is rather tepid after all. The Bill certainly is a great advance towards justice, but its ramifications are so wide that I propose in the interest of brevity to leave its history to others—the fascinating story of the conversion of the Treasury, struck by the lightning of public disapproval, to acceptance of some responsibility for the adequacy of pensions in a world of inflation. I will confine myself to a section of beneficiaries: the overseas officers, their widows and orphans.
To turn to the Bill, Clause 1, it seems inequitable, as has been already said, that Colonial Service officers should have to wait until they are 60 before receiving any benefit under this Bill. These supplements are paid because of Her Majesty's Government's failure to persuade certain overseas Governments to pay increases in the past in line with previous United Kingdom Acts. As has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Rea, and others, the retiring age of colonial pensioners is normally 55, and in some cases even earlier, and their terms of service clearly laid down all this when they were appointed. The Secretary of State, furthermore, has the power to retire them at 45 or 50. These terms took into account the conditions in which many serve in tropical countries, and it appears to me inequitable to equate colonial pensioners in this connection with home service officers. It is significant, too, that Her Majesty's Government when dealing with Palestine pensioners accepted the principle of paying increases at the age of 55. The reference to that, if it is required, is the Colonial Office note OSA140/141/03 of August, 1959.
Furthermore, with reference to the Explanatory Memorandum and Clause 1, it appears to be the intention that widows do not receive any supplement until they are 40 unless they have dependants or are in bad health. The pensions payable to widows in the Colonial Service are paid from a notional fund to which the civil servant has contributed. If he remains in the service he has to contribute for about 33 years

1177
before he is free from the annual con tributions. He contributes compulsorily whether or not he is married, and there is no age provision in the regulations governing their award. In the case of Malaya I think one should remember that in my early days we had our own widows' and orphans' pension fund. That was taken over compulsorily by the Government, not because we wanted them to, but because the Government wished to do it. We asked what was going to be our safeguard. We had our own system worked out. We were informed that the safeguard was the honour of the British Government. That, I suggest, is what it remains. All of those contributions were paid into Government revenue and with that guarantee. It seems wrong to differentiate between widows solely on the ground of age, and in any case a pension payable to a Colonial Service widow ceases should she re-marry. So that there is every precaution that she should not benefit unduly by receiving a pension.
If I may interpose a personal referonce, the British Government seem to be particularly allergic to widows. For instance, during my eighteen years' service as a Governor, the British Government did not recognise, or did not until 1956—a somewhat late awakening—that a Governor was married and that he might die and leave a widow and orphans. They expected the Malayan Service to recognise this, but the British Government themselves did not. If the Governor died in those days, in so far as his service as a Governor was concerned—it might be, as in my case, eighteen years—his widow would get precisely nothing from the British Government. In 1956, when at long last the British Government woke to the fact that Governors might be married and might die leaving widows, in the legislation then introduced those who were already retired—the thirty-odd forgotten men—were expressly excluded from any benefits of that kind, and the only protest made in another place came from the Labour Benches of the Opposition, and was curtly brushed aside as an impossible thought. I hope I may be forgiven for mentioning this purely personal reference, but it shows the atmosphere from which we are now trying to emerge. I could multiply these
1178
instances, but at this hour I will not do so.
To pass to Clause 3, although in the Memorandum it is mentioned that this enables supplements to be paid to widows and dependants, one feels that this should be made clear beyond any argument in the Bill itself. It could, I suppose, be argued that subsection (2) (b) covers this; but specific mention of widows and orphans would set: any doubts at rest and I suggest that that ought to be done. It appears to be the intention of Clause 3 (4) that should a pensioner reside in the country from which his pension is paid, then he gets no assistance under this Bill. There are many colonial servants whose service, at the bidding of the Secretary of State, has been scattered over several Colonies, and his pension, when it comes to be calculated, is a composite thing based on the liabilities of those different countries in which he has served. But under this Bill any thought of any of those countries where he has served is excluded from his consideration as a possible place of residence, because if he does go and live in one of them, then he loses all benefits under this Bill which might attach to the pension which he earned in relation to those services.
It has already been mentioned by other speakers that an officer who served in Kenya and, perhaps induced by the blandishments of the British Government, had decided when he retired to settle there, loses his benefits under this Bill; but had he served in Tanganyika and then retired to Kenya, he receives the benefit. It seems to me that the thing makes no sense at all, especially as this is a topping-up operation to remedy deficiencies for which Her Majesty's Government were responsible. It seems inequitable that a man who served like this should be penalised. I have a number of instances here with which I will not bother the House but which in their way seem quite incredible.
If we take a pensioner who earned his pension in Nigeria in regard to eligibility under this Bill, if the pension is paid in the United Kingdom and he decides to reside in the United Kingdom the reply is, Yes, he is eligible; if he decides to reside in Nigeria, No; if he resides anywhere else in the world except Nigeria, Yes. If the pension is paid in

1179
Nigeria, and he resides in the United Kingdom, the reply as to eligibility is, Yes; if he decided to reside in Nigeria, the reply as to eligibility is, No; if he resides anywhere other than in the United Kingdom the reply is, No. If the pension is paid elsewhere than in the United Kingdom or Nigeria, for residents in the United Kingdom, the reply as to eligibility is, Yes; for residents in Nigeria, No; for residents elsewhere than in the United Kingdom or Nigeria, Yes. I think this position speaks for itself.
To pass on to Clause 10, I notice there is no provision in this Bill for backdating. It is a pity that the benefits under this Bill are not to be retrospective for those pensioners who have suffered for many years because certain ex-colonial territories have been unable to see their way to make any increases in the pensions of overseas officers.
I now want to pass for one moment to the question which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, about Sarawak and North Borneo pensioners. This is a matter into which I made considerable inquiries. The third Schedule, paragraph 3, reads:
"A pension payable by Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom by virtue of the Instrument of Cession of Sarawak dated 21st May 1946 or the North Borneo Transfer Agreement dated 26th June 1946".
As Lord Saltoun pointed out, the Sarawak Cession was from His Highness Sir C. V. Brooke. G.C.M.G, Rajah of Sarawak to "His Majesty The King of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas, Emperor of India", and the British North Borneo Agreement is between "His Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies on behalf of His Majesty (hereinafter referred to as the Crown) and the British North Borneo Company". In neither case is there any reference to "Her Majesty's Government" or "His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom". The inference seems to be that His Majesty contracts in his capacity of King of Sarawak and North Borneo respectively.
Sarawak pensions are not payable in the United Kingdom, but are paid out of the revenue of Sarawak under a Sarawak Ordinance Pensioners living in the United Kingdom may, if they wish, have
1180
their pensions paid locally or in the United Kingdom by the Crown Agents. In the latter case the Crown Agents act as agents of the Government of Sarawak. I will not bother your Lordships with the exact wording of these documents, but I do suggest that the words "His Majesty accepts liability for the payment…" are quite different from the words "payable by", and no mention is made of the United Kingdom either in the Instrument of Cession or in the Agreement with North Borneo.
I should like to emphasise the question of the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, whether it can be argued that Sarawak and North Borneo pensions are payable by the respective Governments and not by "Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom", and that therefore they do not come within the scope of the Bill. Clearly, that is not the intention of the Government, but I suggest that if there is the slightest doubt about it, as there seems to me to be, it should be put right.
A further question arises under Clause 3, paragraph (4) of the Bill, which by sub-paragraph (a) provides that no supplement is to be paid
"where the pension is payable in any overseas territory in which any services giving rise to the pension were rendered, unless the pensioner is for the time being resident in the United Kingdom."
As by paragraph 3 of the Third Schedule only pensions payable by Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom are included, it follows that Clause 3 (4) (a) does not apply. Clause 3 (4) (b) would apparently apply, as this provides that if the pension is not payable in such territory the supplement would not be paid if the pensioner were residing in that territory. I suggest that the drafting should leave no possible doubt as to the fact that the obvious intentions of Her Majesty's Government should be properly carried out.
In conclusion, my Lords, may I say that I recognise the complexity and difficulty of the problem which the Government have to face, the background of moral obligations to pensioners, and also proper consideration for the taxpayers. If I may say so, with due respect, I was tempted to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Rea, but I could not help feeling he took too liberal a view of what consideration might be due to any taxpayer,

1181
and perhaps was indifferent to the sum which might be involved.
My Lords, this method, as was expounded at some length in another place, is unsatisfactory and leaves a recurring problem palliated but not solved. We are the only colonial Power, incidentally, to inflict—or shall I say to leave—responsibility for expatriate pensions on countries emerging to independence. Sooner or later the British Government will surely find it necessary to do the same as Belgium, Holland and France have done. In the case of India an arrangement was made. Perhaps a pointer lies in the case of Somaliland, where the cost of pensions increase was deducted from the grant-in-aid. Most of the territories achieving independence require, desire, expect and get financial aid. Would it not be a good move, my Lords, to estimate the total involved by expatriate pension liabilities and take that over as a new form of grant-in-aid? The Chief Secretary to the Treasury and Paymaster General promised in another place to give earnest consideration to the task of evolving a better method than that embodied in this Bill. I hope that the noble Earl who is to reply will at least answer some of the questions I have asked. Meanwhile, I thank the Government on behalf of overseas pensioners for this measure, and support the Second Reading of the Bill.
6.47 p.m.
LORD HAILEY: My Lords, I must, like the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, avow my financial interest in the proposals of this Bill, for I have for 28 years received a pension in regard to my serv ice in India. Perhaps that will explain also why I take so much special interest in Bills for the increase of pensions, because the basic pension for Indian civil servants was laid down over 100 years ago. It stands at the same figure to-day. Therefore, the question of pension increases under the present system of legislation is of quite exceptional interest to us. That fact will also explain, perhaps, why in any remarks I may make to your Lordships' House I shall not refer to the aspects of the Bill which affect the 450,000 pensioners who have rendered service to the State in Great Britain or to local bodies; although I may sympathise, and do heartily sympathise, with some of the criticisms that have been made in another place, and again here
1182
today in your Lordships' House, of certain aspects of the present Bill which relate primarily to those 450,000 pensioners. My special interest is, of course, rather with the 9,000 pensioners (I think that is the number) who have rendered service in India and in some of the Colonies. I must, however, permit myself one general observation—perhaps two.
We in this country have now, as your Lordships have heard, passed eight Acts for the increase of pensions—six since the war; and the cumulative effect of these Acts, as has been pointed out in another place, and also in your Lordships' House by the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, is to destroy once and for all that old theory of the immutability of pensions. It is not a very good description, but it is easy to understand the meaning of the word. I have heard "the immutability of pensions" quoted in your Lordships' House as what used to be called by some German philosophers "a categorical imperative", or perhaps by other people as an accepted canon of finance, and a perfect answer to any suggestion that pensions should now be raised or receive a supplement owing to the injury suffered by pensioners as a result of the increased cost of living. There was no such canon of finance, and there was no real argument in favour of the immutability of pensions. But, as I have said, and I do not want to labour the point, that doctrine, for what it was worth—and it was worth very little—has now gone for good. It is quite certain, as one noble Lord has just said, that we shall see further Pensions (Increase) Acts similar to this. If the cost of living increases, we shall in time see many such Acts—a fact, of course, that will be of severe regret to many of us, because it will also mean a very great increase in the cost of living which has already involved some of us pensioners in such hardship. Still, the fact remains that the doctrine, or, perhaps, the theory, or excuse, of immutability has gone.
But my pleasure in having lived to join the nonagenarians of this House, and so being able to see the death knell of this doctrine, is rather clouded by the reflection that legislation of this type seems to follow no definite policy or principle. There is no better proof of that, I think, than the inclusion in the

1183
present Bill of the £20 bonus to those over 70 years of age. It was a kindly thought, but it has ail the aspects of being spatchcocked into the Bill; so much so, that this provision has to be followed immediately by one which restricts its scope to an extent that will absolve the Treasury of any charge of undue liberality.
I am not going to refer here to the several alternatives that have been put forward in another place for establishing a principle on which pension increases should be given. I would only refer to the fact that some of us have for many years been urging on the Government the necessity for appointing a Commission to review the whole question of Service pensions and lay down a principle on which increases should be given. I can only assume that that particular demand was criticised adversely by the Treasury, which I think must have a somewhat unhappy conscience in this matter, for fear of what the recommendations of such a Commission might involve. But pensioners, after all, represent a body of men and women who have in the past held many responsible posts, and I feel that, even though the result of a review by such a Commission might not meet all their aspirations, they would be content to know that the result reflected the considered views of an independent body, instead of being, as at present, dependent on the views, sympathetic or otherwise, of a section of the Treasury—or, obviously, due on occasion to an emergency following an electoral crisis. But as I have said, I shall say no more on these questions of general principle.
I will turn to what I describe as my special interest—namely, that of the state of the pensioners who have performed State service in India, or in some of our colonial possessions. They number, I think, some 9,000 in all. Speaking on behalf of some of my friends, particularly in India, I heartily welcome the inclusion in the Bill of the two funds referred to in the Schedule—the Widows' and Orphans' Funds—which originally were financed entirely by con tributions from members of the Services in India. I welcome that very heartily. I may have a remark to make regarding the possibility—it is by no means clear—
1184
that they also may come under the embargo of an age restriction.
There are two points, in particular, in which my friends are interested. The first is, one to which reference has been made by others of your Lordships—I mean, in particular, the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and the noble Lord, Lord Milverton—namely, the restriction of the scope of the Bill to officers who have reached the age of 60. We ourselves, as members of the Indian Civil Service, have made frequent representations, both to Parliament and by deputations to Ministers, asking that this particular condition should be withdrawn in the case of Indian and overseas civilian pensioners. It is not only the fact to which the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, and the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, referred that the ordinary age for retirement in India and the Colonies has been 55, for it has been assumed there that, after ser vice up to that age in a tropical climate, the Government servant has reached the limit of his ability to discharge any great work or responsibility. The disparity between the conditions of the home, British pensioner and those of the Indian or colonial pensioner goes much further. We ourselves, of course, see no reason why the British pensioner should not find some alternative employment up to the age of 60, for 60 is the retiring age well recognised in Great Britain.
But, as I say, the disparity does, as a matter of fact, go much further. The British pensioner in this country retires at his own option, and is well aware of the conditions in which he can secure reemployment in the open market. All the Indian pensioners, and many of the colonial pensioners, on the other hand, have ended their careers owing to constitutional changes in which they themselves have had no part, and they have to face the question of re-employment up to the age of 60 in a market of which they know little and for which they are often ill-adapted by their previous experiences. We know, as the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, has said, that an exception has been made in favour of the pensioners from Palestine in this respect, though on grounds which I think few of us have been able to understand. I and my friends are not able to believe that the removal of this restriction in the case of Indian and overseas pensioners would

1185
afford a precedent that would enable the British Service pensioners to urge that similar measures should be taken for their benefit.
There is another difficulty felt by the Indian pensioners, in particular, though it affects only a restricted number of them. The problem arose in the course of drafting the India, Pakistan and Burma Act owing to the fact that there was a general agreement that it was unnecessary to extend the benefits of the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1955 (I think it was 1955), to the Asiatic members of the various Government services there. They were very numerous. I have here a note which will illustrate how numerous they were. In 1946, in the Indian Civil Service—in Pakistan and India, that is—there were, against 504 officers classed as Europeans, 623 classed as Asiatic; and in the senior posts of the Indian police service there were 215 officers classed as Asiatics, as against 329 Europeans. In other services, the proportion of Asiatic members was even greater; but it was not thought either policy, or perhaps even decent, to draft the necessary clause in terms of racial difference only. As a result, the drafting took the form of differential treatment on account of residence; that is to say, though Indian and Pakistan residents might have the benefit of the additional allowances in almost any country of the world, it was specifically provided that they should not have them if they were resident in India, Pakistan or Burma.
There is arising, therefore, a difficulty somewhat akin to that to which reference has been made to-day: the disabilities which the present proposals impose on residents of some of the Colonies. I admit that, as a matter of fact, the clause introduced in the India, Pakistan and Burma Act affects a very small number of British officers, and some of those we might very reasonably expect to change their residence from India or Pakistan if they found it to their advantage to do so. But there are cases in which, owing to severe physical disability or illness, it is not possible for such officers to change their residence.
At one time it seemed likely to us that some sort of exceptional arrangement could be made such as that which was included in the Bill giving powers to the Secretary for Technical Co-operation to
1186
meet exceptional cases, but I doubt whether, infact, that is possible. I am afraid that, if we have to contemplate removal of these two rather exceptional disabilities, legislation will be necessary, and I and my friends will be very unwilling indeed to contemplate any course that would defer the very laudable intention of the Government to bring the benefits of this Bill into force on January 1 next year. Presumably, therefore, we shall have to await some other and more favourable occasion if we are to succeed in getting these two difficulties removed. But I mention them now, and commend them to your Lordships' attention, in the hope that, when the occasion does arise, you will support us in getting rid of these difficulties in the existing form of legislation.
7.9 p.m.
LORD COLYTON: My Lords, I should first like to apologise to your Lordships for not being in my place during the earlier stages of this debate owing to an unavoidable engagement. I am sorry to say—and I apologise in advance—that it will also probably necessitate my leaving before my noble friend comes to reply. I should like to add a few words of welcome to this Bill, and to congratulate Her Majesty's Government on bringing it forward. As has been said already, it covers a very wide field, including public service pensioners in this country and pensioners of the Fighting Services.
I should like to confine my remarks to one aspect of it—namely, the innova tion which has been introduced by the extension of increased pensions to the so-called overseas officers: that is to say, former members of the Colonial and Overseas Civil Services, the Sudan Service and, of course, as the noble Lord, Lord Hailey said, to widows and orphans of pensioners of the Indian, Pakistan, and Burma Civil Service. We warmly welcome this change of heart on the part of the Treasury. It was due, I think it is fair to say, to the joint efforts of members of all Parties in both Houses, but certainly outstanding credit must be paid to the present Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Mr. John Tilney, who, year in and year out, pursued this topic in another place in the face of discouraging replies from

1187
the Treasury Bench. Your Lordships will recall that we also had notable debates in this House on February 20 and June 6 of this year. On the second occasion I ventured to make a special plea for the former British officers of the Sudan Government who had hitherto been entirely ruled out of court on the grounds that they were not in the service of the Crown. I am glad indeed that they have now been included.
I understand that the Sudan pensioners are generally well satisfied with the proposals, though there are certain conditions and points of detail on which they would like to see some readjustment. However that may be, I should like on their behalf to offer their grateful thanks to the Government for this timely recognition. I should also like to pay a tribute—if I may properly do so—to Colonel Michael Hilary, Honorary Secretary of the Sudan Pensioners' Association, for the great assistance given to the Sudan pensioners and to myself in formulating their case. I should also like to congratulate the Government on the speed with which they have introduced this measure and are carrying it into effect. It will be a very welcome Christmas present to many people who have served the interests of Britain well and honourably for many years.
I have one further plea to make to the Government. There is still one notable omission, and I refer to the British members of the Egyptian Civil Service from the time of Lord Cromer down to the proclamation of the British Protectorate over Egypt in 1914 and the subsequent period of the Protectorate from December, 1914, to 1922. Egypt was in those days a British responsibility, and these men were serving Britain just as much as were their colleagues in the colonial territories and the Sudan. The numbers involved are comparatively small: 376 pensioners and 226 dependants. I understand that, despite the vast increase in the cost of living, these pensioners, if they have retired to this country, have received no increase in pension whatsoever since they left Egypt.
Your Lordships will recall that at the time of the Suez crisis the Egyptian Government temporarily discontinued these pensions. As Chairman of the Anglo-Egyptian Resettlement Board, I was
1188
authorised to repay these pensions from Treasury funds until such time as the Egyptian Government resumed payment. This, it seems to me, was clearly evidence of acceptance by Her Majesty's Government of a measure of responsibility towards these pensioners. Indeed, I understand that there are a few cases where the Egyptian Government have never resumed payment and Her Majesty's Government are still defraying the cost of these pensions. Having regard to the small number of pensioners involved—a number which, alas… through the passage of time, is rapidly declining—and to the services rendered by them, not merely to Egypt but to this country, I would strongly urge upon Her Majesty's Government that all former British pensioners of the Egyptian Civil Service should be included at the Committee stage as an additional category in Schedule 3 of this Bill. I warmly support this Bill and hope that it will be given a Second Reading.
7.15 p.m.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: My Lords, the last five speakers dealt with various aspects of Overseas Service pensions. I will not follow them but go back to the speech of my noble friend Lord Teynham, who is sorry he had to leave the Chamber, and say a few words about Service pensions. I am grateful indeed to my noble friend, Lord Dundee, for indicating that he was ready to listen to matters affecting Service pensions and I must declare an interest because I receive a pension under the 1919 code. Service pensions are not included in this Bill, but the Memorandum states, as it has stated on past occasions, that members of the Armed Forces will be granted similar increases to those provided for civilians in the Bill. That is to say, when this Bill becomes law, which I hope will be very soon, we shall get the Prerogative Instrument, the Royal Warrant, and I hope that Royal Warrant will be dated to the same day, at least, as the increases under this Bill. But of course we have no certainty yet as to what figures will be in the Royal Warrant, and this is a Money Bill, anyway, so it is rather difficult to go into details and I am not going to try.
I would rather say a word or two about the principles on which this Bill is framed, because -the main principle, that of immutability of pension, which

1189
so many noble Lords have spoken about to-night, bears with increasing severity as the age of retirement of certain groups in public service is younger, because that means there are more pensioners and pensioners' widows on pensions which were fixed a long time ago. With inflation going as it is—and the course of inflation is very well traced by the dates of the various Pensions (Increase) Bills in the Memorandum—a Bill of this sort has been needed every two years. It has sometimes come out every two years, and it ought to come out, as the noble Lord, Lord Crook, said, every two years regularly. The cases of Service pensioners and widows under the older codes show that they suffer much the greatest hardship of all, because there are more people still alive who were serving under those old codes.
Having said that, I must go on to say that within the formula, whatever its defects may be, the provisions made in this Bill are certainly generous. My right honourable friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, when he introduced this Bill in another place, said that between 1959 and 1962 there was a 9 per cent. increase, and the figures in this Bill give a 12 per cent. increase. As a soldier might say, he has aimed off 3 per cent. for movement, and has helped the pensioners in the endless race with inflation, which neither they nor anybody else will ever win. So far so good. But, my Lords, that, in its turn, is an argument for bringing in the next Bill (unfortunately there will have to be a next Bill) in time so that it becomes law before the margin of 3 per cent. provided by my right honourable friend is exhausted.
The supplement of £20 a year to the over-70's is, once again, good going, on the wrong formula. It indicates, I think, as clearly as anything could indicate, that the principle of immutability of pensions is a principle which, however sound in theory, can no longer be applied in practice. I shall come back to that in a moment, when I talk about officers' widows.
So I think that we have two major defects in the Bill as it stands, side by side with its good points. First of all, with the noble Lord, Lord Crook, I am sure that it is right in these days to have a review every two years, but I would not go so far as the noble Lord
1190
when he quoted the case of Sweden, where wages and pensions are tied to the cost of living. That was the practice in Australia some years ago, and if anything could have operated to produce more galloping inflation I should like to know what it was. The Government in Australia managed to alter its course only in the nick of time. So, although pensions must bear a relation to the cost of living, I think that it would be quite wrong if we tried to lay down a hard and fast formula that they should vary with the cost of living. That would be going too far.
Going back for a moment to what I think is the most outstanding case where justice is not likely to be done under the terms of this Bill—I say "not likely," because we have not had the Prerogative Instrument—I would draw your Lordships' attention to the case of officers' widows. If one asks the various ex-Service societies, part of whose job it is to look after the cases of these unfortunate people, they will all say that it is the cases of widows which require most attention. The reason for that is that, whereas most other pensions are large enough to do the job they are meant to do—that is to say, provide a living in their own right for those who have no other means of support—the widows' pensions do not do that and force certain classes of what are called "existing widows"—that is, pre-1958 widows—into National Assistance. I am not going to quote cases—in fact, I have not got them with me—but if my noble friend would like them, they would be very easy indeed to produce.
I put it to my noble friend that this is a state of affairs which ought not to be allowed to go on any longer, and if the principle has been breached to the extent it has, then Her Majesty's Treasury might just as well be hung for a sheep as for a lamp and deal properly with these widows. In the course of hits speech, my noble friend said that a contract must legally and morally be held to be final. Legally, yes, but morally is quite another matter, as I think has been brought out in this debate.
What is the position of officers' widows? These are not my own words. I am quoting them from literature provided by one of the ex-Service societies.
"In spite of these increases,—

1191
that is, the increases expected from this Bill—
"their pensions have been allowed to deteriorate so much in value that their reward for their husbands' long service to the Crown is to be classfied as paupers."
It may be argued that to receive National Assistance is not to be classified as a pauper. I am simply telling your Lord ships the view held by people affected. There is still room to apply the code of the good employer and still room for those concerned in the Treasury to go to the library and see whether the volume of The Merchant of Venice is really missing. With those words, may I once again heartily commend the Bill for a Second Reading and beg my noble friend in front of me to take heed of what has been said from so many parts of the House on the points where this Bill does not really meet pensioners' requirements at the present time.
7.25 p.m.
LORD KILLEARN: My Lords, my sole justification for intervening in this debate is that for twelve years I was His Majesty's High Commissioner in Egypt and the Sudan, and this Bill mentions provision for Sudan pensioners. I would also declare an interest in a sense, in that I am a pensioner, like many other noble Lords. I should dearly like to take up the noble Earl's argument, in his introductory observations, about the im mutability of pensions, which I think is quite untenable and which, as my noble friend Lord Hailey behind me has shown, has been contradicted by six Acts already.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: This Bill is one of them.
LORD KILLEARN: Surely it runs counter to the noble Earl's argument on the immutability of pensions. Here I can speak personally. When I joined the Foreign Office, a great many more years ago than I care to think of, I joined at the princely salary of £100 a year. I was offered that in anticipation of a pension on which I could live later on. If that was not legally tenable, surely, morally it was. However, that was not what I got up to speak about.
I should like to support as strongly as I can what the noble Lord, Lord Colyton, said, first, in warm welcome of the pro-
1192
vision for Sudan pensioners, and secondly, in support of his plea in favour of the addition of the British members of the Egyptian Civil Service during the years of the Protectorate and before. I think there is a very strong case for their inclusion. It is true that Egypt was not actually a British territory, but it was a British Protectorate for the main part of the time and we were responsible for its administration. Actually, as the noble Lord, Lord Colyton, said, this responsibility was to some extent admitted when, after the Suez incident, Lord Colyton himself and his Anglo-Egyptian Settlement Board were empowered to make payment of these Egyptian pensions, which they have continued to do. Surely that is an admission of some responsibility. I know that this is not in the Bill, but so far as I can influence Her Majesty's Government I would put in a strong plea in support of my noble friend in favour of the inclusion of this extra category of persons, the British expatriate civil servants.
7.30 p.m.
THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE: My Lords, as the debate as been very lengthy, I would say only a few words. I had it on my conscience to try to support the hopes of a section of, alas…, we must almost say, forgotten people, because their service took place so long ago. I wish to say, in supporting this praiseworthy effort of the Government—this Bill—that I feel proud and also relieved. One wonders under what Statute or financial provision it will be possible for the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, to bring in a new Schedule to the Bill; but with good will and his brains he will perhaps be able to resolve the difficulty.
The question is that our Consul-General, Lord Cromer, could not have carried out the wishes of English Governments without having to put a financial adviser into the Cabinet of the Khedive; and the agreement was that unless the Bill that came up before those Ministers was passed by Sir Auckland Colville it would not become law. Therefore, you cannot leave in the wilderness a group of men who have so upheld the wonderful managerial work that England did for the fellaheen in the way of water and education. They have somehow to be included.
I will say this, in conclusion, to the noble Earl, Lord Dundee. One must

1193
remember that the Treasury officials are supposed to be impersonal and to toe the line. But not so Ministers. Ministers are the representatives of the Sovereign, and part of the inherited prerogative of the Crown of England is that they should give clemency and generosity to those who deserve it. Therefore, I trust that the efforts of my noble friend Lord Dundee, when the Bill comes before us again, will somehow got over the difficulty.
7.31 p.m.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, I will not make any attempt to wind up a debate that has ranged so widely as this one. First of all, I should like to apologise to the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, for not being here when he moved the Second Reading of this Bill, but I have heard all the rest of the debate. I speak, as so many other noble Lords have this afternoon, as one having an interest in this matter, in that I draw a pension which has benefited from the series of Pensions Increase Acts that have been passed recently. I would particularly associate myself entirely with what the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, said about the Service pensions and as to the Overseas Service pensions and others that were mentioned. I agree with my noble friend Lord Listowel that there is in this Bill much to be commended, but there are also a few matters on which we may need to move Amendments on the Committee stage.
I would strongly support what was said on behalf of the pensioners of the Egyptian Government. With all these things I hope we may concern ourselves on the Committee stage. I think that the overall impression that any independent listener to the debate would receive is what I can only call the incorrigible meanness of British Governments over generations past in the treatment of their servants. There is a lot that could be said. One could trace the possible background causes—the classes from which Government servants were recruited, and so on. But setting all that aside, surely our Government to-day, more than at any previous time, ought to set the example of a good employer. A good employer consults with his employees and works with them by means of co-operation.
1194
In these cases it seems to me that there cannot have been the consultation that is desirable between the Government and the various associations representing these former Government servants. I am told as a fact that the Working Party which the Government set up did not consult the Overseas Services Association in making their recommendations; and the same applies to the other associations of pensioners. Surely the Government should genuinely consult with them, and if they have to draw a line and make a decision that appears to involve hardship, they should be able to explain their reasons. That is what seems to be lacking in the Government's handling of all these pensions matters, and it is something to be regretted. However, we shall gladly give this Bill a Second Reading and only hope that we may make some small improvements in Committee.
7.37 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I think the enormous number of questions which your Lordships have asked in the course of this interesting debate is probably nine or ten times the number of your Lorsdhips who have remained until the end of it. I have a feeling that if I were to attempt to reply to this immense number of questions I should not please the very meagre number of your Lordships who have been good enough to remain as an audience. I will try to reply briefly to a few of them.
One of the things that has rather surprised me is that several of your Lordships appear to think that I said that pensions ought to be immutable. If I thought that pensions ought to be immutable, I do not think I should be moving the Second Reading of a Bill which proposes the largest and most generous mutation in the scale of pensions that has ever been retrospectively made in this country. What I said, and what I think is true, is that we ought not to accept the principle that the Government are under any legal or moral obligation to improve upon a contract which has once been entered into. I think, however, it is right that we should try to improve on it in order to mitigate so far as we can the erosion which pensions have suffered by inflation. I

1195
would point out that if inflation goes too far—and it has happend in some countries—it will not be possible to pay any pensions at all. That has been one of the lamentable eftects of extreme inflation in a number of countries which we can all call to mind. What we can do is to try to exercise our judgment and to be fair to the economy of the country, the taxpayers and the pensioners. That, of course, is a difficult thing to do.
I am glad to record that all of your Lordships, with one exception, I think, prefaced your numerous criticisms of the Bill by expressing strong approval of it in general, and in most cases by praising it as being a generous measure. The exception was the noble Lord, Lord Rea. I could not help feeling that his transmigration to the Box opposite had perhaps slightly bewildered him and up set the usual moderation with which he speaks. When he attacked the Government for having been so mean towards old people all its life, I really could not help thinking that, when that is said about a Government which has more than doubled the old age pensions and which has raised their real purchasing power to a height which has previously never been attained, an intemperate attack of that kind must carry neither conviction nor, indeed, respect.
I would suggest to the noble Lord that he has not quite understood what is done by Clause 2 of the Bill. He kept on talking about the terrible meanness of giving somebody only 2½d. a day, which he virtuously worked out was the daily equivalent of £4 a year. But the whole point of these increases is that the £20, which is the largest amount, is given to those whose pensions began before April, 1956. The £4, about which the noble Lord was so scornful, is for those whose pensions began after April, 1960, and which are very nearly as much as the pensions which will begin in future and which, of course, are not affected by this Bill at all. If you were to give a £20 increase to all these pensioners, you would be giving far more to those whose pensions began last year and the year before and less to those whose pensions began before 1956, because the recent pensioners are getting bigger sums to begin with.
1196
While I am on the subject of the noble Lord, Lord Rea—I will try to deal with these particular questions first, and then take the more general ones in a moment or two—he asked about Clause 6 (2) of the Bill which provides that:
"…a local authority shall not be required to increase any gratuity which that authority has power to increase by virtue of this section."
That, I agree, is a little difficult to understand, because the reference is to a previous Act. What the subsection here does is to exempt from the mandatory provisions of Section 5 of the 1959 Act. which, governs increases under this Bill, gratuities paid by local authorities. The 1959 Act does not specifically deal with gratuities, but it does cover everything here. So we exempt the gratuities paid by local authorities, because these payments are discretionary, and it would not be right to compel local authorities to increase gratuity payments which they are not compelled to make in the first place. But they are empowered to increase these discretionary payments by Clause 6 of the Bill.
My noble friends Lord Colyton and Lord Killearn have both departed. They both asked a question about the Egyptian civil servants whose service came to an end forty years ago. I can tell noble Lords that their case is being examined urgently. It raises some difficult problems, which are not made any easier by the fact that the relevant events occurred 40 years ago or more, and I do not think I can anticipate the Government's decision. But if it is decided that this category of pensioners are in a sufficiently similar position to the other classes of overseas pensioners dealt with in this Bill, then there will be an opportunity to make an appropriate Amendment on the Committee stage.
A great many of your Lordships, as one would expect, have devoted careful attention to the position of various widows. My noble friends Lord Teynham and Lord Bridgeman have spoken of Service widows. The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, asked about the difference between Home Service widows' pensions and Oversea Civil Service widows' pensions. I do not think there really is such a clear-cut distinction as the noble Earl suggests, because both Home Service widows' pensions and Oversea Civil Service widows' pensions are paid for

1197
as to one half by a contribution from the officers. As for the Service widows' pensions, they are, of course, on a slightly different footing, because there is not any contribution. I have listened with great sympathy to what my noble friend Lord Bridgeman said. I cannot go beyond what was said by my noble friend Lord Carrington in the last full debate which my noble friend Lord Teynham raised on this subject.
Widows' pensions schemes generally, Whether in private or Government employment, are a fairly recent innovation. I think that ten years or so ago very few private firms would have included widows in their superannuation schemes. It is only in recent times that some of the better employers have begun to do so. I do not think it can be said that the Government have lagged behind in this development, and certainly not where Armed Forces widows are concerned, because they have had pensions for many years. But it was quite common before 1950 throughout this country for widows to have no pension to supplement the various State systems of insurance. For example, the Civil Service scheme was not introduced until 1949, and those for the National Health Service and in local government are even more recent. I am aware that the rates introduced for Service widows in 1952 were a smaller proportion of their husbands' pensions than those paid under the Civil Service scheme, although that is no longer true under the latest code. But there was that significant difference be tween the two schemes—that the Armed Forces scheme, alone, I think, among all the public service schemes, is non contributory. The Serviceman himself does not contribute towards it.
When the family pensions of the Armed Forces were improved in 1959, after the Grigg Report, the Government considered very carefully Whether these improvements could be extended to those who were already widows. I simply give your Lordships the reasons and conclusions, without wishing to comment upon them. They concluded that it was not possible to distinguish between these widows and any other category of existing pensioners, and that if they tried to reassess their pensions (except, of course, on the discriminatory basis of hardship which was another matter), that would
1198
not be justified unless all other public service pensions were to be reassessed as well. It was decided that the principle which applies to other public service pensioners should apply equally to widows.
One wider question, which many of your Lordships have asked, concerns not the domicile but the residence of the pensioners who are affected by this Bill. The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, particularly pressed this question of the pro vision in Clause 3 that when the pension is payable by the Government of any overseas territory in which the service that has given rise to the pension was rendered, if the pensioner is permanently resident in that territory no supplement shall be payable under the Bill. Many others of your Lordships have put the same point, and I would remind your Lordships that the pension is paid by the Government of the country in which he earned his pension. The example which my noble friend Lord Milverton gave of Nigeria is perhaps not the best one, because Nigeria has only very lately become independent, so there has not been much time for a gap to develop between pensions paid to begin with and those later on. But in a territory which has been independent for some time, which started off from the original rate of pension, there may have been increases here since then, and there may, therefore, be a wide discrepancy between what is now being paid by the Government of the territory and the amount which the pensioner would have been receiving if he had been a United Kingdom pensioner and which he will now receive under this Bill.
But the reason why he is not eligible to receive it if he is permanently resident in the foreign or Commonwealth country in which he earned his pension is because they have been paying all the time the same pensions to their own retired civil servants, whether they originally have come from the United Kingdom or whether they are natives of the country and have always lived there. If a United Kingdom official lives permanently in the country where he earned his pension, it is not so easily justifiable that the British Government should step in and give him a higher pension than all his colleagues who are natives of that country are receiving. He must, I think,

1199
be taken to have adapted himself to the conditions of the country in which he resides. The reason why (and this has been asked by other noble Lords too) under the following subsection he is not disqualified if he goes to the country for a period, on some contract of service, is that his status is then not that of a resident retired person. He is going there to do a job of work, and we do not want his pension to be reduced on that account. On the contrary, it is a very good thing to encourage him to go and give what service he can in the territory which he knows. Of course, if he is not doing a contract of service and is not eligible to receive the additional pension, he can, if he later decides not to reside any longer in the territory but to go and live in the United Kingdom, then become eligible for the increase.
LORD MILVERTON: My Lords, be fore the noble Earl passes on, may I ask whether if the pensioner moves next door, a few miles from Kenya, and lives in Tanganyika, he is paid the increase?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, then he is not being paid by the Government of Tanganyika. Supposing he lived in the Sudan, while he is there he is being paid by the Government of Sudan, and would not receive any supplement from this country. It is quite a different matter if he goes and lives in Tanganyika; he is not being paid by the Government of Tanganyika anyhow. If he wants to live in Tanganyika or anywhere else—and this also applies to the Channel Isles, about which another noble Lord asked—if he wants to live anywhere outside this country he can get the increased pension, but it must be paid through a British bank to make sure it is not simply a device used by a resident abroad to evade taxation.
The noble Lord, Lord Crook, was the first of your Lordships—and he was followed by many others—who advocated either an automatic review of pensions or linking them to the cost of living or biennial reconsideration or something of that kind. My noble friend Lord Bridge-man pointed out that according to his experience that may lead to galloping inflation. Of course, we can all see the advantages of avoiding uncertainty and also, as some of your Lordships have
1200
said, of making it unnecessary to have this continual debate and pressure about the subject. The noble Lord, Lord Crook, began by asking whether, if we went into the Common Market, we should change our pension arrangements in that direction; and he then proceeded to give an example of a country which is not in the Common Market and with which we already associate under E.F.T.A.: that is to say, Sweden. I do not want to go into the question of Sweden, which has already been dealt with by my noble friend, Lord Bridgeman, but it would present many difficulties to have any automatic or semi-automatic adjustment.
If we had a review at regular intervals it might well happen that your review would come at the end of a period when prices had not been rising and, therefore, there would be no justification for doing anything. Then there might be a sudden rise shortly after that and you would have to wait another two years before anything could be done to remedy it. Perhaps it is better that we have to review the subject as and when a rise in prices occurs. After all, if the main object of this is to do what we can to mitigate the results of inflation, there is already a biennial review of Service pensions, but that is not retrospective; that is for future pensions. Civil Service pensions are generally automatically related to salaries at whatever time the pensioner may have retired. The only purpose of having these periodical reviews, whether they are automatic or not, is to consider what should be done about inflation, and I think, although they would save a lot of trouble, it would be rather a confession of defeat. After all we are all trying to prevent inflation and whether we shall finally win or not no one can tell in a free country that depends on a great many other things besides the Government; it depends on the good sense of the public to a very large extent. We should, I think, be confessing that we did not expect inflation ever to stop and that its future progress must be regarded as certain, or at least very probable. But, my Lords, I am not going to tell your Lordships for that reason that I think our present system is necessarily the right one, or that we ought to close our minds against any endeavour to improve it. I would just conclude, not with my own words but by quoting what

1201
my right honourable friend the Chief Secretary said the other day in another place on this Bill and on this very point which so many of your Lordships have urged. What he said was that we all appreciate that the present method of dealing with the problem causes difficulties and embarrassment and perhaps a certain waste of time on problems of one sort and another. My right honourable friend admitted that and he went on to say [Official Report (Commons), Vol. 667, (No. 17), col. 1163]:
"…I can promise…the Committee that I have taken note of the clear views expressed during the Second Reading debate, and I will endeavour to find whether some improvement in our system is possible."
He went on to warn the Committee in another place that it would be a very rash thing to promise that he would be able to produce a better solution, but he certainly has the will to do so; and I will endeavour to follow the same line of argument to the best of my ability in the future stages of this Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2a and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.